|
|
|
The evolution of blond hair and blue eyes among Nordics
Peter Frost has written a cool paper on the evolution of blond hair and the origin of the remarkable diversity of eye and hair color in Northern and Eastern Europeans. His paper will be published in the upcoming March edition of the journal Evolution and Human Behavior. Frost is spot-on in nailing intense sexual selection as the primary reason for the high prevalence of blondness, which is of recent origin (less than 20,000 years old), and the unusual diversity of hair and eye color among Northern and Eastern Europeans. Whereas Frost’s proposed reason for the intense sexual selection is open to debate, the conclusion that intense sexual selection is implicated is almost certain. I am including his paper in this post, but will first mention some important implications. Frost also proposes that the extreme depigmentation seen among Nordics is partly related to sexual selection. Frost mentions traits other than pigmentation that suggest strong sexual selection among Nordics, namely the more feminine looks of white women, on average, than women in non-white populations. I would like to add a high prevalence of fine facial features, too, and certain parts of the face that bear the signature of sexual selection, such as the jaw, whereby the chin is better developed than in non-Nordics, even though all other parts of the jaw have shrunk significantly. For rapid changes to occur under intense sexual selection, two conditions should be met. Firstly, there has to be a high level of sexual freedom, especially afforded to women, and secondly, there also has to be a high level of variability with respect to reproductive success in the population, with individuals having less aesthetically desirable traits (ancestral traits) being disproportionately likely to die without reproducing. Among human populations, it is very clear that the availability of sexual freedom, especially to women, is much higher in Northern Europe than in most other societies, and it has been this way for a long time, except for a short period when the Church was powerful in Northern Europe. In many human societies, young individuals are not allowed to date, marriages are arranged and fornication or adultery are met with drastic consequences. Therefore, once again, such cultural differences are consistent with Frost’s hypothesis of more intense recent (on the order of tens of thousands of years at most) sexual selection in Nordics than in other populations. People in many non-European societies, such as in Middle Eastern and South Asian societies, pride themselves on their alleged superior morality regarding sexual behavior, failing to realize that moral superiority can only be claimed if their sexual behavior remains the same when they have the same opportunity for sexual impropriety as in the West, which is surely not the case. Arabs and South Asians can sing paeans to their “superior sexual morality” all they want; the consequences of the low level of sexual freedom and arranged marriages in their cultures are very clear: the unattractive among them, thanks to not having to find mates on their own, are more likely to reproduce than unattractive whites; thereby, these populations have been evolving in attractiveness less slowly than whites. One will find few whites who would disagree that non-Europeans in general, including non-European Caucasoid types, look far less attractive than whites, on average, but also, few non-European Caucasoid types would disagree with the statement, too. I know for a fact that Razib Khan of Gene Expression blog thinks that white women, especially blondes, are much superior in looks to Bangladeshi women. This ties in to mass migration of non-whites into the West. If there are sufficient non-whites around, unattractive whites, who would until the recent past disproportionately die without being able to find a mate and reproduce, may end up with a non-white person who would be more than happy to get a white mate. For instance, a black man would typically prefer a 250-pound white woman to a 350-pound black woman. The resulting offspring of such unions, being closer to whites in looks, would be more acceptable as a mate to a greater proportion of whites than the non-white parent, which in turn will set the stage for gradual creeping of non-white genetics into the white gene pool, resulting in reduced attractiveness of the descendents of modern whites. In addition, if mass migration of the likes of Muslims reduces sexual freedom in the West, then the mulatto descendents of present-day Europeans will also have less of an opportunity to reacquire the looks of their white forebears via intense sexual selection. The conclusions are clear...we have yet more reasons to keep the non-white masses out of the West, even if they are as intelligent and as well-behaved as whites are. Personally, I don’t have a problem with a small non-white presence in the West, but allowing mass migration of non-whites to the West is madness. Peter Frost’s paper cites some genetic data to support greater reproductive skew among white males than non-white males, which is consistent with more intense sexual selection among Europeans in recent history. In this regard, I would like to add the following three papers that, taken together, show similar evidence:
Also consider the following pictures, starting from Miss India 2005, Amrita Thapar, who has a manly face.
Compare Miss India 2005 to Miss USA 2005, Chelsea Cooley, below.
Look at the top three contestants in the Miss India 2005 beauty pageant.
Now look at the top-ranked contestants in the Miss USA 2005 beauty pageant; shown clockwise from top left: Brittany Hogan, Kristen Johnson, Melissa Witek and Jill Gulseth.
It is unlikely that beauty pageants in India have to deal with political correctness to the extent that is seen in the U.S.A. Therefore, the “beauties” shown below -- from the 2005 Miss India beauty pageant -- are probably among the better looking Hindu women.
Note that Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid elements are easily discernible in the women shown above. If race mixing is supposed to increase physical attractiveness, I for sure do not want my female descendents to look as “attractive” as the women above and would prefer the “less attractive” white look. Hindu’s select their actresses for a high level of attractiveness. Look at the three Hindu actresses below; from top to bottom: Shilpa Shetty, Madhuri Dixit and Preity Zinta.
Compare the Hindu actresses to the three Nordic women below; from top to bottom: Ragnhild Marie Alvær, Sharon van der Knaap and Jennifer Avalon.
It may be claimed that I have deliberately picked unattractive Hindu women for comparative purposes, but a quick look at the photos of the untouchables of India suffices to convince that the Hindu women shown above are among the better looking ones in India.
Of course, there are even better looking Hindus as shown below, but guess who they owe their good looks to? Shown clockwise from top: Aditi Govitrikar, Hritik Roshan and Arun Nair.
Finally, look at the physique of the woman that many Hindus consider to be the most beautiful woman in the world, Aishwarya Rai, who has broad shoulders and a wide waist, and compare her physique to that of the white woman shown below her, the likes of which are so many in number that the entire disk space allotted to this site could be easily filled with their pictures.
Peter Frost’s paper follows. European hair and eye color: A case of frequency-dependent sexual selection? Peter Frost Abstract Human hair and eye color is unusually diverse in northern and eastern Europe. The many alleles involved (at least seven for hair color) and their independent origin over a short span of evolutionary time indicate some kind of selection. Sexual selection is particularly indicated because it is known to favor color traits and color polymorphisms. In addition, hair and eye color is most diverse in what used to be, when first peopled by hunter-gatherers, a unique ecozone of low-latitude continental tundra. This type of environment skews the operational sex ratio (OSR) of hunter-gatherers toward a male shortage in two ways: (1) men have to hunt highly mobile and spatially concentrated herbivores over longer distances, with no alternate food sources in case of failure, the result being more deaths among young men; (2) women have fewer opportunities for food gathering and thus require more male provisioning, the result being less polygyny. These two factors combine to leave more women than men unmated at any one time. Such an OSR imbalance would have increased the pressures of sexual selection on early European women, one possible outcome being an unusual complex of color traits: hair- and eye-color diversity and, possibly, extreme skin depigmentation. Keywords: Gender roles; Monogamy; Pigmentation; Polygyny; Sexual selection; Upper Paleolithic. 1. Introduction Human hair and eye color is unusually diverse in a geographic area centered on the East Baltic and covering northern and eastern Europe (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). Within this area, eyes are not only brown but also blue, gray, hazel, or green, while hair is not only black but also brown, flaxen, golden, or red (Beals & Hoijer, 1965, pp. 212–214). As one moves outward from this area, color diversity declines markedly with eyes becoming uniformly brown and hair uniformly black.
Fig. 1. Hair-color diversity in and near Europe (after Beals & Hoijer, 1965, p. 214). (Reprinted with permission from Beals et al., “An Introduction to Anthropology,” 3rd ed. Published by Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. Copyright © 1965 by Pearson Education.)
Fig. 2. Eye-color diversity in and near Europe (after Beals & Hoijer, 1965, p. 213). (Reprinted with permission from Beals et al., “An Introduction to Anthropology,” 3rd ed. Published by Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. Copyright © 1965 by Pearson Education.) Is this diversity due to chance? In particular, could it reflect founder effects during the repeopling of glaciated Europe 15,000 to 10,000 years ago? When a founder group breaks off from its parent population, such “sampling” may indeed increase the frequency of a variant hair- or eye-color allele. It is less probable that two alleles of the same gene would become more frequent, and this probability would decline exponentially with each additional allele. Yet the hair-color gene, MC1R, has at least seven phenotypically distinct alleles that exist only in Europe (Box et al., 1997, Harding et al., 2000 and Rana et al., 1999). Furthermore, eye-color diversity results from another set of alleles at a locus that is at best weakly linked to hair color (Eiberg & Mohr, 1987). Is this diversity due to relaxation of selection and a resulting accumulation of variant alleles? Harding et al. (2000) have investigated this evolutionary scenario and found that the time to the most recent common ancestral hair color would be about a million years, with the redhead alleles alone being approximately 80,000 years old. Templeton (2002) has come to a similar conclusion: If the cause were relaxation of selection, the current level of hair-color diversity would have taken 850,000 years to develop. Yet modern humans have been in Europe for approximately 35,000 years. Is this diversity due to admixture with older European populations, notably the Neanderthals? Recently, human mtDNA has been retrieved from skeletal material on both sides of the transition from Neanderthals to modern humans: No genetic continuity is discernible between the late Neanderthals and the early modern Europeans (Caramelli et al., 2003). In addition, the mtDNA and dental traits of Neanderthals are no more similar to those of present-day Europeans than they are to those of any other modern human population (Krings et al., 1999, Ovchinnikov et al., 2000 and Tyrrell & Chamberlain, 1998). Neanderthal admixture seems to have been minor, if not negligible, and could hardly account for the high proportion of Europeans who deviate from the species norm of black hair and brown eyes. Is this diversity due, then, to some selective force, either natural or sexual selection? The first kind of selection is unlikely. As a rule, highly visible color traits are not adaptations to the natural environment, which typically favors an unobtrusive, cryptic coloration as a means to evade predators. It has been suggested that a lighter colored iris may offer more visual acuity in dim light, such as in the misty maritime environments of northwestern Europe (Short, 1975). Eye color, however, is polymorphic over a much larger area of Europe, most of which is typically continental in climate. It is also unclear why selection for visual acuity would have favored more variability in eye color as opposed to a simple reduction in eye pigment. The alternative, sexual selection, has already been advanced to explain Europe's hair- and eye-color diversity (Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994, p. 266). This kind of selection is known to favor colorful traits, but there is little consensus on the reasons why. It may be that bright colors stimulate sexual attraction in the brain through (1) mate-assessment algorithms that interpret pigment production as a sign of health and, hence, mate quality; (2) sex-recognition algorithms that pick out sex-specific color stimuli and respond open-endedly with stronger responses to more intense colors; and (3) general monitoring algorithms that respond to highly visible stimuli and indirectly alert other systems, including those related to sexual attraction (Farr, 1980, Hamilton & Zuk, 1982, Kirkpatrick, 1987 and Manning, 1979, pp. 66–75). The opposite sex may exploit all three algorithm types by intensifying its color stimuli until functional constraints intervene or until the cost of easier detection by predators exceeds the benefit of stronger sexual attraction (Endler, 1980 and Endler, 1991). Under certain conditions, sexual selection may also diversify color traits within a single population. When an individual is faced with potential mates of equal value, it will tend to select the one that “stands out from the crowd,” that is, that has the rarest color morph. The selection is frequency-dependent, declining in strength as the rare morph becomes more common and tending toward an equilibrium that maximizes color diversity. This rare-color advantage has been studied mainly in fruit flies and guppies but has also been reported in a parasitic wasp, in red flour beetles, in ladybugs, and in leafroller moths (Anderson, 1969, Brooks, 2002, Farr, 1980, Grant et al., 1974, Hughes et al., 1999, Muggleton, 1979, Simchuk, 2001 and Sinnock, 1970). There are also a number of bird species that exhibit color polymorphisms for which the mode of selection remains unclear (Lank, 2002). Whatever the cause, color polymorphisms are relatively uncommon. They are often hindered by two evolutionary constraints: (1) high predation pressure, this being a constraint on color traits in general and (2) the presence of related species within the same geographic range, apparently because too much intraspecific variability interferes with species recognition and leads to hybridization (Endler, 1980). Many evolutionary biologists dislike the concept of rare-color advantage. There is no gain in fitness from sexual attraction to unusual colors; therefore natural selection should eliminate such nonadaptive behavior. Yet it is difficult to see how, just as it is difficult to see how we can counter the many subterfuges that advertisers use to attract our notice. There are good adaptive reasons for paying attention when an eye-catching object enters our field of view, and it is impossible to disable this response in advance for sexual attraction, given that the nature of the object (animate/inanimate, conspecific/nonconspecific, male/female) is determined at a later stage of mental processing. At that stage, the increased attention could be reversed or given a negative meaning. But there would be a cost: not only in additional processing time but also in overcorrection and undercorrection–like a spam-filter that fails to screen out all unwanted e-mails while blocking some legitimate ones. The cost may be justified if attraction to rare-color morphs leads to hybridization or if the color itself is somehow maladaptive. Otherwise, the benefit will not justify the cost. Rare-color advantage has been reported in humans. Thelen (1983) presented three series of slides showing blonde and brunette females and asked male participants to select the one from each series that they would most prefer to marry. The first series showed 6 brunettes, the second 1 brunette and 5 blondes, and the third 1 brunette and 11 blondes. For the same brunette, preference increased significantly from the first to the third series, that is, in proportion to the rarity of her hair color. The same effect was observed, albeit to a lesser extent, when the study was repeated with male photos and female participants. These findings have some support from other studies. Schweder (1994) found that women tended to change their hair color and hair form to a type that was less common in the general population. Riedl (1990) found that men tended to prefer female faces that diverge from the norm. Finally, Ellis (1928, pp. 182–183) noted less preference for blonde women in England than in France, which he ascribed to the higher prevalence of blondness among the English. Rare-color advantage may have caused hair and eye color to diversify in ancestral humans, there being neither of the evolutionary constraints mentioned above, that is, high predation pressure or likelihood of hybridization. Outside Africa, there were only two potential predators: wolves and bears, the latter being uncommon and the former only an occasional threat to recent hunter-gatherers (Hoffecker, 2002, pp. 238, 240). Hybridization was just as nonproblematic. All other Homo populations had been reduced to extinction or relic status by 30,000 BP. It is less clear, though, why hair and eye color diversified in Europe and not elsewhere. Rare-color advantage is a special case of sexual selection, and the intensity of sexual selection normally varies with the operational sex ratio (OSR; the ratio of unmated males to unmated females). The usual pattern is too many males competing for too few females (pregnancy and early infant care exclude some females from mating at any one time). But why would there have been more competition for women in northern and eastern Europe? If anything, there should have been more in sub-Saharan Africa or Papua New Guinea, where a high incidence of polygyny leaves fewer women unmated. I will argue here that the usual pattern of too many males and too few females was reversed among ancestral Europeans, specifically among the highly mobile groups that once inhabited the continental tundra of ice-age Europe. This environment exposed men to a higher risk of hunting mortality while limiting their ability to provide for more than one wife. With fewer men altogether and even fewer polygynous ones, women had to compete for a limited supply of potential husbands. There was thus sexual selection, but it acted primarily on women—not on men. 2. The Eurasian tundra belt: low-latitude west and high-latitude east As modern humans spread out of Africa during the Upper Paleolithic, they entered new environments, including one that no longer exists. Loess-steppe covered the plains of northern and eastern Europe during successive ice ages and interglacials until 10,000 years ago (Fig. 3). Quite unlike today's northern barrens, it combined Arctic tundra with fertile loess soil and low latitudes, the Eurasian tundra belt having been pushed far to the south by the Scandinavian icecap. Long intense sunlight favored a lush growth of mosses, lichens, grasses, and low shrubs with grazing herds of mammoths, reindeer, bison, and horses. Despite high bioproductivity, Europe's tundra plains posed several adaptive challenges. Winter temperatures averaged −20 to −30 °C, with little natural protection. Wood for fuel or shelter was scarce. Finally, almost all consumable biomass was in the form of large herds of migrating herbivores (Hoffecker, 2002, pp. 21–26, 32–34).
Fig. 3. Major vegetation zones in Europe approximately 18,000 BP (after Mellars, 1985, p. 275, reprinted with permission from Elsevier). South of 60°N, the Eurasian tundra belt lay entirely within Europe. East of the Urals, it narrowed and ran further north across Asia and into Beringia. Colder and drier with proportionately less fertile loess, this eastern end had a lower carrying capacity for herbivores (Goebel, 1999 and Hoffecker, 2002, p. 22). 3. Continental Arctic tundra: consequences of human adaptation 3.1. Less food gathering = increased female dependence on male provisioning In adapting to Arctic tundra, modern humans had to change their sexual division of labor, which normally allocated food gathering to women and hunting to men. Women now processed meat provided by men and did tasks unrelated to food procurement, such as garment making and shelter building. Men procured almost all of the food (Hoffecker, 2002, p. 8). We can see this task reallocation by comparing recent hunter-gatherers from the Tropics to the Arctic. Near the equator, women procure about half of the family food supply by gathering berries, fruits, roots, grubs, eggs, and other sessile items, these tasks being more compatible than hunting with the demands of pregnancy, breast feeding, and infant transport (Kelly, 1955, pp. 268–269). Away from the equator, the cold season lengthens and gatherable food becomes harder to find, declining from 40% to 55% of the family food supply in hunter-gatherers below 40°N to less than 10% above 60°N (Martin, 1974, pp. 16–18). The end point of this trend is Arctic tundra. Among the Caribou Inuit, female food gathering is limited to eggs (during 2 weeks in summer), raw gadfly larvae, the root of a plant species, and some berries (Birket-Smith, 1929, p. 133). On this north–south continuum, ice-age European hunter-gatherers were much closer to the ‘Arctic’ end, with most of their food being procured through hunting. Dickson (1990, p. 180) summarizes the evidence: the abundance of game animals in Europe during the late Pleistocene; the volume of animal bone at archeological sites like Solutré, Moldova, Predmosti, and Dolni Vestonice; the large amount of usable meat on late Pleistocene game animals; and the lack of wear on Upper Paleolithic dentition, indicating a grit-free, carnivorous diet (Butzer, 1964, p. 374; Dahlberg & Carbonell, 1961). In addition, biochemical analysis of human remains from a British Upper Paleolithic site reveals a diet high in animal protein, principally from aurochs and red deer (Richards et al., 2000). At Czech, Russian, and British Upper Paleolithic sites, similar analyses reveal a diet high in protein from terrestrial herbivores, waterfowl, and fish (Richards et al., 2001). None of this means that food gathering was absent, only that it was less important. Indeed, a Czech site has yielded evidence of fleshy taproots from charred plant remains (Mason et al., 1994). The remains date, however, to approximately 26,000 BP, when forest-steppe predominated, and the investigators concluded that such foods were limited to southern and central Europe. 3.2. Increased female dependence on male provisioning = constraints on polygyny As males assume more responsibility for food procurement, polygyny becomes more difficult. In his review of Inuit mating systems, Kjellström (1973, p. 118) concludes, “Since the duty of being a provider was more onerous for the man who had two or more wives, this meant that as a rule it was only the really able and skilful hunters and fishers who could manage this double duty.” Hodge (1959[1905], p. 809) concurs: “monogamy is prevalent, as the support of several wives is possible only for the expert hunter.” This pattern also prevailed among the Chukchi of northeastern Siberia: “The Chukchees commonly live in monogamy; it is only exceptionally that they have two wives” (Nordenskiold, 1882, p. 504). According to the earliest ethnography of the Sami of northern Scandinavia, “Neither is it Lawful for them to Marry more than one Wife at a time, or to be divorced from her. Polygamy and Divorces…, are Things unknown to the Laplanders, both whilst they were Pagans, and since” (Scheffer, 1704, p. 296). These observations are supported by genetic data. The ratio of Y to X chromosome variability rises markedly as one goes from long-established tropical populations (sub-Saharan Africans, New Guineans, and Aboriginal Australians) to other populations (Europeans, Asians, and Amerindians), indicating that the latter have had a higher proportion of men contributing to the gene pool (Dupanloup et al., 2003; see also Scozzari et al., 1997 and Torroni et al., 1990). More work is needed to determine whether this trend peaks in recent Arctic hunter-gatherers. 3.3. Longer hunting distances = higher death rate among young men As hunter-gatherers adapt to less tropical environments, men have to cover more terrain while hunting, partly because they need to hunt more (to offset the decline in food gathering) and partly because the game animals themselves roam over a larger territory, the land supporting less vegetation at colder temperatures (Kelly, 1955, pp. 128–132). Hunting distance peaks in the continental Arctic, where almost all potential food is in the form of wide-ranging and highly mobile herds (Hoffecker, 2002, p. 8). It then decreases further north in the extreme Arctic, where hunters cover shorter distances in pursuit of solitary game, fish, and seals (Kelly, 1955, p. 129). As hunting distance lengthens, more young men die from starvation, accidents, or exposure. Among the Chukchi of the 18th to early 20th centuries, men died young because they followed reindeer over the tundra with a minimum of possessions; in contrast, men lived longer among the Nenets because herd dogs confined the semidomesticated reindeer to nearby pastures (Krupnik, 1985). Arctic populations that still hunted wild game thus had highly skewed sex ratios. Among 19th century Labrador Inuit, only 57 males remained for every 100 females in the 15+ age bracket because of hunting deaths from drowning or exposure (Scheffel, 1984). Among Inuit, in general, “the preponderance of adult women is generally explained by the higher death rate among men due to the natural hazards of hunting” (Weyer, 1932, pp. 135–136). Some evidence points to long hunting distances and high male mortality on the tundra plains of Upper Paleolithic Europe. Many central Russian sites contain large quantities of black flint from sources at least 130–150 km away and other raw materials from sources up to 650 km away (Hoffecker, 2002, pp. 184–185, 248). Human remains from Upper Paleolithic Europe were once thought to be mainly males (Binford, 1968, Harrold, 1980 and Vallois, 1961), but reanalysis with improved sexing criteria has found that females predominate, suggesting either that many men died under conditions unsuited for burial, such as hunting accidents, or that male burials were less conducive to preservation, such as in aboveground coffins (Mallegni & Fabbri, 1995). The Maszycka Cave in Poland has provided the only ‘snapshot’ of a single extended family from the Upper Paleolithic: the remains of three men, five women, and eight children, all apparently killed and partially eaten (Kozlowski & Sachse-Kozlowska, 1995). 3.4. Constraints on polygyny+higher death rate among young men = skewed OSR With less polygyny and more young men dying, the OSR is skewed toward a male shortage. Many women lose reproductive time, even among non-Arctic hunter-gatherers with less skewed OSRs. Among the !Kung, about 75% of all women lose some reproductive time while waiting between partners, and 10–20% lose 5 to 15 years. “A relative scarcity of husbands, then, is a regular and expected part of the !Kung marriage system” (Howell, 1979, pp. 247–250). One might expect that this female surplus would encourage more men to take second wives, but “having two families simultaneously is difficult to manage, both economically (in providing for a large number of dependents) and socially (in avoiding the conflicts and irritations of polygamous marriages)” (Howell, 1979, p. 272). Each additional wife, with her offspring, decreases the ratio of food-providing adults to food-consuming children (Howell, 1979, pp. 53–54). These constraints on polygyny peak in Arctic tundra environments, where women have few opportunities for food gathering. Parallel to this trend, death rates among young men peak in the continental Arctic. OSRs should therefore be most skewed among hunter-gatherers (or rather hunters) living on continental Arctic tundra. Today, this environment is a shadow of its former self, both in the size of its migrating herds and in the extent of its land mass, essentially the northern fringes of mainland Eurasia and North America. Most of its indigenous peoples–low-Arctic Inuit, Chukchi, Yukaghir, Tungus, Nenets, and Sami (Lapps)–rely on a mix of maritime fishing and inland hunting; thus, their OSR characteristics are, at best, indicative of Upper Paleolithic conditions. Nonetheless, if we look at the Labrador Inuit of the 19th century, a very lopsided sex ratio appears at all reproductive ages, with many women, especially widows, shut out of the marriage market entirely (Scheffel, 1984). In the Siberian Arctic east of the Taymyr Peninsula, in the 18th to early 20th centuries, women outnumbered men at all reproductive ages because the men still followed reindeer on foot and suffered proportionately higher death rates. (Krupnik, 1985). OSR skewing seems to have occurred even further west, where reindeer were already semidomesticated in historic times. Sami of 18th to 19th century Finland had female-biased OSRs, although the same was true among the mainly agricultural Finns (Lummaa et al., 1998). Indeed, female-biased OSRs prevailed in most preindustrial European societies, reflecting perhaps the key importance of paternal investment and also cultural constraints on polygyny that predated Christianity (Seccombe, 1992, pp. 184–190; Sherman, 1922, Vol. II, p. 475; Tacitus, 1970, 18; Vatin, 1970, p. 201). North of the continental Arctic, in the extreme Arctic, OSRs were more evenly balanced and sometimes had a male surplus (Schrire & Steiger, 1974). First, male mortality was lower. Men hunted dispersed marine animals and thus avoided the ‘feast or famine’ dilemma that occurred when hunting spatially concentrated terrestrial herbivores. Second, female mortality was higher, specifically female infanticide. In the extreme Arctic, parents viewed the prospects for a daughter as problematic. She would have trouble finding a husband locally (the low carrying capacity of the land limited the local group's size), and thus she would probably marry into another group and not support her parents later on, either directly or through her future husband (Balikci, 1967, Riches, 1974 and Smith & Smith, 1994). At lower latitudes, where the land had a higher carrying capacity, female infanticide occurred much less often, apparently because bigger and closer groups allowed women to marry locally and provide their parents with ‘son-in-law payback’ (Riches, 1974 and Schrire & Steiger, 1974). 4. Peopling of the Eurasian tundra belt Modern humans penetrated the Eurasian tundra belt no earlier than 35,000 years ago, at first in its most southerly and resource-rich portion—southwestern France (Mellars, 1985). This ‘beachhead’ was dissected by valleys that offered wild fruits, grains, tubers, salmon, and non-Arctic game, as well as migrating reindeer in the fall and winter (Blades, 1999a, Blades, 1999b and Mellars, 1985). The reindeer may have drawn humans out of the sheltered valleys, briefly at first, and then for longer periods, as hunting bands adapted to the new niche. Eventually, some bands left the valleys to hunt year-round on the surrounding tundra plains. The initial founder group may have been small, as suggested by the very low genetic variability of northern Europeans today (Reich et al., 2001). There then seems to have been rapid growth (perhaps reflected in the spread of the Gravettian culture) with the front of the demographic expansion spreading eastward into the Central Russian Plain and ultimately reaching Siberia and Beringia by the end of the last interglacial approximately 25,000 BP (Goebel, 1999, Pitulko et al., 2004 and Soffer, 1985, p. 238; Soffer et al., 1993). Thus, when the last ice age began, a single human population occupied a corridor stretching from Europe to Beringia. This inference is supported by several lines of evidence. A Y chromosome study has found that all North Eurasian peoples descend from a common ancestral population dated to about 15,000 BP (Stepanov & Puzyrev, 2000; see also Armour et al., 1996, Santos et al., 1999 and Zerjal et al., 1997). The language families of northern Eurasia, particularly Uralic and Yukaghir and more generally Uralic-Yukaghir, Eskimo-Aleut, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, and Altaic, share deep structural affinities that point to a common origin and not simply to word borrowing (Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994, pp. 97–99; Fortescue, 1998 and Rogers, 1986). Archeological evidence (characteristic lithic technology, grave goods with red ocher, and sites with small shallow basins) also suggests a common cultural tradition throughout Europe and Siberia 20,000 to 15,000 years ago (Goebel, 1999, Haynes, 1980 and Haynes, 1982). Finally, dental and cranial remains from Mal'ta (23,000–20,000 BP) in southern Siberia indicate strong affinities with Upper Paleolithic Europeans (Alexeyev & Gokhman, 1994 and Goebel, 1999). This Eurasian population would have broken up at the glacial maximum (20,000–15,000 BP). East–west gene flow was severely constricted by the merging of the Fenno-Scandian and Ural icecaps and by the formation of large glacial lakes along the Ob (Rogers, 1986 and Crawford et al., 1997). At the same time, both sides of this ice-age barrier saw sharp declines in human population (Goebel, 1999 and Hahn, 1987). After the glacial maximum, cultural and biological unity continued to disintegrate as part of a trend toward higher population densities, regional diversification, and probably more restricted breeding units (Formicola & Giannecchini, 1999). As gene flow declined between the two ends of the Eurasian tundra belt, selection pressures would have become more localized. Sexual selection, in particular, would have varied in intensity with regional OSR differences. This may explain why hair- and eye-color diversity arose in Europe but not in Asia—where hair is uniformly black and eyes uniformly brown. The eastern end of the Eurasian tundra belt differed from the western end in two OSR-relevant ways. First, its narrower width constrained herbivore mobility, thus shortening hunting distances and reducing hunting deaths among young men. Male mortality would have further decreased after the glacial maximum: An absence of base camps in the archeological record suggests that residential units were dispersing to exploit a variety of resources with shorter hunting distances (Goebel, 1999, p. 223). Second, the eastern Eurasian tundra had higher latitudes, lower carrying capacity, and a more dispersed human population, thus providing the same environmental conditions that in more recent times have led to female infanticide in the extreme Arctic. These two factors, shorter hunting distances and increased female infanticide, would have resulted in a more balanced OSR and, consequently, less sexual selection to diversify hair and eye color. Such diversification would have begun in western Eurasia no earlier than 20,000 BP, given the uniform black hair and brown eyes of populations east of the ice-age barrier in eastern Eurasia. If the beginning of human history marks the latest end date, we are left with a maximum timeframe of 14,000 years. This is fast evolutionary change for human pigmentation, which elsewhere has responded more slowly to selection by the natural environment. A full range of environments, from the Arctic to the Tropics, has not caused the Amerindians to differentiate in hair, eye, or skin color, despite their being in the Americas for approximately 15,000 years. 5. Diversification of European hair color The MC1R gene determines hair color by controlling the production of eumelanin (brown and black pigments) and pheomelanin (red and yellow pigments). It is unusually polymorphic in humans, both in its high number of alleles and in its high ratio of nonsynonymous (phenotypically distinct) to synonymous (phenotypically identical) alleles (Box et al., 1997, Flanagan et al., 2000, Harding et al., 2000, Rana et al., 1999 and Rees, 2000). Whereas most genes have more synonymous alleles than nonsynonymous ones, the reverse is true for human MC1R (Rana et al., 1999). Nonsynonymous MC1R alleles are distributed differently in European and non-European populations: 11 in Europeans, 5 in Asians, and 1 in Africans (Harding et al., 2000, p. 1355). Furthermore, the Asian alleles differ little in their phenotypic effects. Harding et al. (2000) attribute the high MC1R diversity of Europeans to relaxed selection for dark skin outside the tropical zone. This would account for the redhead alleles, which are linked to skin depigmentation, but not for the other alleles. Relaxed selection also fails to explain the low MC1R diversity of non-tropical Asians. Nonetheless, Harding et al. (2000) advance three arguments for relaxed selection, rather than positive selection, to explain the high MC1R diversity of Europeans. The first argument is that relaxed selection has produced a comparable level of diversity at the β-globin locus. Yet β-globin variants clearly have selective value, as indicated by heterozygote advantage and the short time span (less than 5000 years) over which the β-globin polymorphism has evolved (Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994, pp. 149–152). The second argument is that the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous alleles is only 10 to 3 in Eurasia and thus comparable to the ratio of 10 nonsynonymous to 6 synonymous MC1R substitutions that separate humans from chimpanzees. The data in table 1 of their article, however, indicate a ratio of 12 to 3 (2 redhead alleles are excluded because they came from a study that specifically looked for them). In any case, the 10 to 6 ratio separating humans from chimpanzees is hardly a benchmark for neutral selection: Ratios greater than 1 are normally deemed to be evidence of positive selection, and such selection has acted on MC1R in some primate lineages (Mundy & Kelly, 2003). Finally, the third argument against positive selection is that MC1R diversity does not depart significantly from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, there being neither excess homozygotes nor excess heterozygotes. No such departure, however, would be expected, inasmuch as MC1R heterozygotes exhibit partial effects (Flanagan et al., 2000 and Rees, 2000). 6. Discussion One might object that sexual selection could not have diversified European hair and eye color because there is no sexual dimorphism in these traits. Had women been selected for a diversity of hair and eye colors, they would now be more diverse in this respect than men are. It should be noted, however, that both hair and eye colors are, at best, weakly sex-linked; hence, selection acting on women should have affected men and women equally until sex-linked alleles had arisen through chance mutations. The original alleles (i.e., the non-sex-linked ones) could then have been selected out, but only if men were somehow disadvantaged by the novel hair and eye colors. For most animals, the disadvantage is an increased risk of predation, which will reduce highly visible colors in the sex that does not need them. For early Europeans, such a disadvantage would have been slight. Even wolves were more likely to be prey than predators (Hoffecker, 2002, pp. 180–183, 225, 241–242). This being said, some hair and eye colors seem to be sex linked. Blond hair darkens with age more slowly in women than in men (Olivier, 1960, p. 74). Furthermore, prenatal exposure to estrogen, as indicated by digit ratio, appears to be higher in individuals with blond hair or non-brown eyes (Mather et al., unpublished). If a sex difference does indeed exist in these novel hair and eye colors, it seems to be expressed only right after puberty. It was notably absent in the 18-to-38 year olds studied by Mather et al. (unpublished). Besides diversifying European hair and eye color, sexual selection may have accentuated existing sexual dimorphisms. Several studies have found wider hips, narrower waists, and thicker deposition of subcutaneous fat in women of European descent than in women of other origins (Hrdlička, 1898, Meredith & Spurgeon, 1980 and Nelson & Nelson, 1986). Even before birth, Euro-American fetuses show significantly more sexual dimorphism than do African-American fetuses (Choi & Trotter, 1970). The proximal cause may be lower androgen production than in women of sub-Saharan African descent (Falkner et al., 1999) and higher estrogen production and lower fecal excretion of estrogen than in women of north/east Asian descent (Adlercreutz et al., 1994, Coker et al., 1997, Key et al., 1990, Taioli et al., 1996 and Wang et al., 1991). Prenatal exposure to estrogen, as indicated by digit ratio, may also be higher in European women, albeit with much interpopulation variation (Manning et al., 2000; Manning, J. T. (2003). Personal communication). This variation may reflect a maternal-age effect: digit ratio is higher in Catholic countries like Poland and Spain, where mothers generally bear children in their 20s, than in Germany and Finland, where more mothers bear children in their 30s (Manning et al., 2000). Sexual selection may have also lightened European skin color. The extreme depigmentation of northern and eastern Europeans deviates markedly from the much weaker north–south gradient in skin color of other human populations (the latter gradient may reflect selection pressures to maintain a critical level of vitamin D synthesis). Yet the geographic extent of this extreme depigmentation does not coincide with a specific pattern of solar radiation: Skies are generally overcast over coastal northwestern Europe and become clearer and typically continental further east. It does coincide, however, with the area where hair and eye color has diversified (Fig. 4). Aside from red hair, the color of the hair and eyes is not genetically linked to skin color (Flanagan et al., 2000 and Sturm et al., 2001). It seems, therefore, that a common selective force has acted simultaneously on skin, hair, and eye color within this geographic area while being absent at similar latitudes in northern Asia and North America (Frost, 1994a and Manning et al., 2004).
Fig. 4. Skin-color depigmentation in Eurasia approximately 500 BP (after Brace, 1973, p. 344, reprinted with permission from Wiley). If this common selective force were sexual selection, it could have lightened European skin color by acting on an existing sexual dimorphism. Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939, Frost, 1988, Frost, 2005, Hulse, 1967 and Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys). Investigators also try to exclude tanning by measuring under the arm, where there is less subcutaneous fat and probably less dimorphism in skin color, given that the lightness of a woman's skin correlates with the thickness of her subcutaneous fat (Mazess, 1967). In any event, sexual selection may have targeted this sex difference, as suggested by a cross-cultural male preference for lighter complexioned women and, conversely, by some evidence of a female preference for darker complexioned men (Aoki, 2002, Feinman & Gill, 1978, Frost, 1988, Frost, 1994b, Frost, 2005 and Van den Berghe & Frost, 1986). Among ancestral Europeans, such selection, even if acting only on women, would have lightened the complexions of both sexes because most skin-color genes are not sex linked. Nonetheless, some of these genes are; thus, there should have been some selective pressure to make European skin color more sexually dimorphic. Yet skin color actually seems to be less sexually dimorphic in light-skinned populations (Relethford et al., 1985). The reason may be a ceiling effect. As ancestral Europeans approached the phenotypic limit of maximum skin depigmentation, further lightening would have become harder to achieve for women than for men, with the result that sexual selection, although acting primarily on women, lightened men more. In conclusion, sexual selection may have acted on all three color traits in northern and eastern Europe, with hair and eye color being diversified and skin color lightened. This hypothesis is consistent with the narrow timeframe for the evolution of these traits, their geographic distribution, and the large number of alleles involved. Acknowledgments I wish to thank Dr. John Thomas Manning, who independently came to similar conclusions as I did, despite his approaching the question from a different academic perspective and drawing on a different body of evidence. This ‘repeatability of conclusions’ is further support for the arguments presented here. References Adlercreutz et al., 1994 H. Adlercreutz, S.L. Gorbach, B.R. Goldin, M.N. Woods, J.T. Dwyer and E. Hämäläinen, Estrogen metabolism and excretion in Oriental and Caucasian Women, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 86 (1994), pp. 1076–1082. Alexeyev & Gokhman, 1994 V.P. Alexeyev and I.I. Gokhman, Skeletal remains of infants from a burial on the Mal'ta Upper Paleolithic site, Homo 45 (1994), pp. 119–126. Anderson, 1969 W.W. Anderson, Polymorphism resulting from the mating advantage of rare male genotypes, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 64 (1969), pp. 190–197. Aoki, 2002 K. Aoki, Sexual selection as a cause of human skin colour variation: Darwin's hypothesis revisited, Annals of Human Biology 29 (2002), pp. 589–608. Armour et al., 1996 J.A.L. Armour, T. Anttinen, C.A. May, E.E. Vega, A. Sajantila, J.R. Kidd, K.K. Kidd, J. Bertranpetit, S. Paabo and A.J. Jeffreys, Minisatellite diversity supports a recent African origin for modern humans, Nature Genetics 13 (1996), pp. 154–160. Balikci, 1967 A. Balikci, Female infanticide on the Arctic coast, Man 2 (1967), pp. 615–625. Beals & Hoijer, 1965 R.L. Beals and H. Hoijer, An introduction to anthropology (3rd ed.), Macmillan, New York (1965). Binford, 1968 S.R. Binford, A structural comparison of disposal of the dead in the Mousterian and the Upper Paleolithic, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 24 (1968), pp. 139–151. Birket-Smith, 1929 K. Birket-Smith, The Caribou Eskimos. Material and social life and their cultural position. In: K. Rasmussen, Editor, Report of the 5th Thule expedition vol. 5, Nordisk Forlag, Copenhagen (1929), pp. 1921–1924. Blades, 1999a B.S. Blades, Aurignacian settlement patterns in the Vézère valley, Current Anthropology 40 (1999), pp. 712–719. Blades, 1999b B.S. Blades, Aurignacian lithic economy and early modern human mobility: New perspectives from classic sites in the Vézère valley of France, Journal of Human Evolution 37 (1999), pp. 91–120. Box et al., 1997 N.F. Box, J.R. Wyeth, L.E. O'Gorman, N.G. Martin and R.A. Sturm, Characterization of melanocyte stimulating hormone receptor variant alleles in twins with red hair, Human Molecular Genetics 6 (1997), pp. 1891–1897. Brace, 1973 C.L. Brace, A nonracial approach towards the understanding of human diversity. In: C.L. Brace and J. Metress, Editors, Man in evolutionary perspective, Wiley, New York (1973), pp. 341–363. Brooks, 2002 R. Brooks, Variation in female mate choice within guppy populations: Population divergence, multiple ornaments and the maintenance of polymorphism, Genetica 116 (2002), pp. 343–358. Butzer, 1964 K.W. Butzer, Environment and archaeology, Aldine, Chicago (1964). Caramelli et al., 2003 D. Caramelli, C. Laluez-Fox, C. Vernesi, M. Lari, A. Casoli, F. Mallegni, B. Chiarelli, I. Dupanloup, J. Bertranpetit, G. Barbujani and G. Bertorelle, Evidence for a genetic discontinuity between Neanderthals and 24,000-year-old anatomically modern Europeans, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100 (2003), pp. 6593–6597. Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994 L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, P. Menozzi and A. Piazza, The history and geography of human genes, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994). Choi & Trotter, 1970 S.C. Choi and M.A. Trotter, Statistical study of the multivariate structure and race–sex differences of American White and Negro fetal skeletons, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 33 (1970), pp. 307–312. Coker et al., 1997 A.L. Coker, M.M. Crane, R.P. Sticca and D.W. Sepkovic, Re: Ethnic differences in estrogen metabolism in healthy women, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 89 (1997), pp. 89–90. Crawford et al., 1997 M.H. Crawford, J.T. Williams and R. Duggirala, Genetic structure of the indigenous populations of Siberia, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 104 (1997), pp. 177–192. Dahlberg & Carbonell, 1961 A.A. Dahlberg and V.M. Carbonell, The dentition of the Magdalenian female from Cap Blanc, France, Man 61 (1961), pp. 49–50. Dickson, 1990 D.B. Dickson, The dawn of belief. Religion in the upper Paleolithic of Southwestern Europe, University of Arizona Press, Tucson (1990). Dupanloup et al., 2003 I. Dupanloup, L. Pereira, G. Bertorelle, F. Calafell, M.J. Prata, A. Amorim and G. Barbujani, A recent shift from polygyny to monogamy in humans is suggested by the analysis of worldwide Y-chromosome diversity, Journal of Molecular Evolution 57 (2003), pp. 85–97. Edwards & Duntley, 1939 E.A. Edwards and S.Q. Duntley, The pigments and color of living human skin, American Journal of Anatomy 65 (1939), pp. 1–33. Eiberg & Mohr, 1987 H. Eiberg and J. Mohr, Major genes of eye color and hair color linked to LU and SE, Clinical Genetics 31 (1987), pp. 186–191. Ellis, 1928 H. Ellis, Studies in the psychology of sex, Sexual selection in man vol. IV, F.A. Davis Company, Philadelphia (1928). Endler, 1980 J.A. Endler, Natural selection on color patterns in Poecilia reticulata, Evolution 34 (1980), pp. 76–91. Endler, 1991 J.A. Endler, Variation in the appearance of guppy color patterns to guppies and their predators under different visual conditions, Vision Research 31 (1991), pp. 587–608. Falkner et al., 1999 B. Falkner, K. Sherif, A. Sumner and H. Kushner, Hyperinsulinism and sex hormones in young adult African Americans, Metabolism, Clinical and Experimental 48 (1999), pp. 107–112. Farr, 1980 J.A. Farr, Social behavior patterns as determinants of reproductive success in the guppy Poecilia reticulata Peters (Pisces: Poeciliidae), Behaviour 74 (1980), pp. 38–91. Feinman & Gill, 1978 S. Feinman and G.W. Gill, Sex differences in physical attractiveness preferences, Journal of Social Psychology 105 (1978), pp. 43–52. Flanagan et al., 2000 N. Flanagan, E. Healy, A. Ray, S. Philips, C. Todd, I.J. Jackson, M.A. Birch-Machin and J.L. Rees, Pleiotropic effects of the melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R) gene on human pigmentation, Human Molecular Genetics 9 (2000), pp. 2531–2537. Formicola & Giannecchini, 1999 V. Formicola and M. Giannecchini, Evolutionary trends of stature in upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe, Journal of Human Evolution 36 (1999), pp. 319–333. Fortescue, 1998 M.D. Fortescue, Language relations across Bering strait. Reappraising the archaeological and linguistic evidence, Cassell, London (1998). Frost, 1988 P. Frost, Human skin color: A possible relationship between its sexual dimorphism and its social perception, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 32 (1988), pp. 38–58. Frost, 1994a P. Frost, Geographic distribution of human skin colour: A selective compromise between natural selection and sexual selection?, Human Evolution 9 (1994), pp. 141–153. Frost, 1994b P. Frost, Preference for darker faces in photographs at different phases of the menstrual cycle: Preliminary assessment of evidence for a hormonal relationship, Perceptual and Motor Skills 79 (1994), pp. 507–514. Frost, 2005 P. Frost, Fair women, dark men. The forgotten roots of color prejudice, Cybereditions, Christchurch, New Zealand (2005). Goebel, 1999 T. Goebel, Pleistocene human colonization of Siberia and peopling of the Americas: An ecological approach, Evolutionary Anthropology 8 (1999), pp. 208–227. Grant et al., 1974 B. Grant, A. Snyder and S.F. Glessner, Frequency-dependent mate selection in Mormoniella vitripennis, Evolution 28 (1974), pp. 259–264. Hahn, 1987 J. Hahn, Aurignacian and Gravettian settlement patterns in Central Europe. In: O. Soffer, Editor, The Pleistocene old world, Plenum, New York (1987), pp. 251–261. Hamilton & Zuk, 1982 W.D. Hamilton and M. Zuk, Heritable true fitness and bright birds: A role for parasites?, Science 218 (1982), pp. 384–386. Harding et al., 2000 R.M. Harding, E. Healy, A.J. Ray, N.S. Ellis, N. Flanagan, C. Todd, C. Dixon, A. Sajantila, I.J. Jackson, M.A. Birch-Machin and J.L. Rees, Evidence for variable selective pressures at MC1R, American Journal of Human Genetics 66 (2000), pp. 1351–1361. Harrold, 1980 F.B. Harrold, A comparative analysis of Eurasian Paleolithic burials, World Archaeology 12 (1980), pp. 195–211. Haynes, 1980 C.V. Haynes, The Clovis culture, Canadian Journal of Anthropology 1 (1980), pp. 115–121. Haynes, 1982 C.V. Haynes, Were Clovis progenitors in Beringia?. In: D.M. Hopkins, Editor, Paleoecology of Beringia, Academic Press, New York (1982), pp. 383–398. Hodge, ([1905]1959) F.W. Hodge, Handbook of American Indians north of Mexico. Part 1, Pageant, New York ([1905]1959). Hoffecker, 2002 J.F. Hoffecker, Desolate landscapes. Ice-age settlement in Eastern Europe, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick (2002). Howell, 1979 N. Howell, Demography of the Dobe !Kung, Academic Press, New York (1979). Hrdlička, 1898 A. Hrdlička, Physical differences between white and colored children, American Anthropologist 11 (1898), pp. 347–350. Hughes et al., 1999 K.A. Hughes, L. Du, F.H. Rodd and D.N. Reznick, Familiarity leads to female mate preference for novel males in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata, Animal Behaviour 58 (1999), pp. 907–916. Hulse, 1967 F.S. Hulse, Selection for skin color among the Japanese, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 27 (1967), pp. 143–156. Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000 N.G. Jablonski and G. Chaplin, The evolution of human skin coloration, Journal of Human Evolution 39 (2000), pp. 57–106. Kelly, 1955 R.L. Kelly, The foraging spectrum. Diversity in hunter-gatherer lifeways, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington (1955). Key et al., 1990 T.J.A. Key, J. Chen, D.Y. Wang, M.C. Pike and J. Boreham, Sex hormones in women in rural China and in Britain, British Journal of Cancer 62 (1990), pp. 631–636. Kirkpatrick, 1987 M. Kirkpatrick, Sexual selection by female choice in polygynous animals, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 18 (1987), pp. 43–70. Kjellström, 1973 R. Kjellström, Eskimo marriage. An account of traditional Eskimo courtship and marriage, Nordiska Museets Handlingar 80, Lund (1973). Kozlowski & Sachse-Kozlowska, 1995 S.K. Kozlowski and E. Sachse-Kozlowska, Magdalenian family from the Maszycka Cave, Jahrbuch der Römisch Germanischen Zentral Museums Mainz 40 (1995), pp. 115–205. Krings et al., 1999 M. Krings, H. Geisert, R.W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki and S. Pääbo, DNA sequence of the mitochondrial hypervariable region II from the Neanderthal type specimen, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96 (1999), pp. 5581–5585. Krupnik, 1985 I.I. Krupnik, The male–female ratio in certain traditional populations of the Siberian Arctic, Inuit Studies 9 (1985), pp. 115–140. Lank, 2002 D.B. Lank, Diverse processes maintain plumage polymorphisms in birds, Journal of Avian Biology 33 (2002), pp. 327–330. Lummaa et al., 1998 V. Lummaa, J. Merila and A. Kause, Adaptive sex ratio variation in pre-industrial human (Homo sapiens) populations?, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B 265 (1998), pp. 563–568. Mallegni & Fabbri, 1995 F. Mallegni and P.F. Fabbri, The human skeletal remains from the Upper Paleolithic burials found in Romito Cave (Papasidero, Cosenza, Italy), Bulletin et Mémoires de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris, n.s 7 (1995), pp. 99–137. Manning, 1979 A. Manning, An introduction to animal behaviour, Edward Arnold, London (1979). Manning et al., 2000 J.T. Manning, L. Barley, I. Lewis-Jones, J. Walton, R.L. Trivers, R. Thornhill, D. Singh, P. Rhode, T. Bereckzei, P. Henzi, M. Soler and A. Sved, The 2nd to 4th digit ratio, sexual dimorphism, population differences and reproductive success: Evidence for sexually antagonistic genes, Evolution and Human Behavior 21 (2000), pp. 163–183. Manning et al., 2004 J.T. Manning, P.E. Bundred and F.M. Mather, Second to fourth digit ratio, sexual selection, and skin colour, Evolution and Human Behavior 25 (2004), pp. 38–50. Martin, 1974 M.K. Martin, The foraging adaptation—Uniformity or diversity?, Addison-Wesley Module in anthropology 56, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass (1974). Mason et al., 1994 S.L.R. Mason, J.G. Hather and G.C. Hillman, Preliminary investigation of the plant macro-remains from Dolní Věstonice II, and its implications for the role of plant foods in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europe, Antiquity 68 (1994), pp. 48–57. Mather et al., unpublished Mather, F., Manning, J.T., Bundred, P.E. (unpublished). 2nd to 4th digit ratio, hair and eye colour in Caucasians: Evidence for blond hair as a correlate of high prenatal oestrogen. Mazess, 1967 R.B. Mazess, Skin color in Bahamian Negroes, Human Biology 39 (1967), pp. 145–154. Mellars, 1985 P.A. Mellars, The ecological basis of social complexity in the Upper Paleolithic of Southwestern France. In: T.D. Price and J.A. Brown, Editors, Prehistoric hunter-gatherers. The emergence of cultural complexity, Academic Press, Orlando (1985), pp. 271–297. Meredith & Spurgeon, 1980 H.V. Meredith and J.H. Spurgeon, Somatic comparisons at age 9 years for South Carolina White Girls and girls of other ethnic groups, Human Biology 52 (1980), pp. 401–411. Muggleton, 1979 J. Muggleton, Non-random mating in wild populations of polymorphic Adalia Bipunctata, Heredity 42 (1979), pp. 57–65. Mundy & Kelly, 2003 N.I. Mundy and J. Kelly, Evolution of a pigmentation gene, the melanocortin-1 receptor, in primates, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (2003), pp. 67–80. Nelson & Nelson, 1986 J.K. Nelson and K.R. Nelson, Skinfold profiles of Black and White boys and girls ages 11–13, Human Biology 58 (1986), pp. 379–390. Nordenskiold, 1882 A.E. Nordenskiold, The voyage of the Vega round Asia and Europe, with a historical review of previous journeys along the north coast of the old world, Macmillan & Co., New York (1882). Remaining references in comments. Comments:2
Posted by friedrich braun on Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:19 | # The Times of London has a piece on the study. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article…058688,00.html A study by the World Health Organisation found that natural blonds are likely to be extinct within 200 years because there are too few people carrying the blond gene. According to the WHO study, the last natural blond is likely to be born in Finland during 2202. This is actually a hoax. The WHO has never done any such study. Very strange that they’re repeating an error that’s been debunked for four years now. Kind of makes me raise my eyebrows about the rest of the article. I expect better from the Times of London, somehow. 3
Posted by friedrich braun on Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:20 | # here’s a link that works: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2058688,00.html 4
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:39 | # TO J.RICHARDS-Fascinating post;I had to print it out in order to throughly digest it;your references alone will keep me going for another 10 years! Thanks-I appreciate all the additional time.LOL 5
Posted by Andrew on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 01:41 | # I over here, I have Blond hair and blue eyes, I will save us, ha. 7
Posted by karlmagnus on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:36 | # If that’s Nefertiti it’s a Ptolemaic representation of her, I think, and thus 1000 years from being contemporary. Of course cuteness is a survival gene, and so’s attractive but unusual coloring. As for what’s more attractive, personally I find the current blonde overmuscled US ideal pretty unappealing. 8
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:21 | # Update: Peter Frost has pointed out that his mention of at least 7 alleles for hair color among Europeans is outdated. There are 30 such alleles that exceed the 1% threshold among Europeans:
The evidence in the paper cited above makes Frost’s case much stronger since random genetic drift is highly unlikely to have been responsible for the accumulation of so much genetic diversity in a short amount of time. I would like to add that the leftist proponents of diversity are probably not too keen on preserving this kind of diversity. 9
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:23 | # Mark, Sexual debauchery is only part of the package, and some of it is simply a side effect of greater sexual freedom that does not lead to better looking children. Since you mention Tacitus, note that the upper class in ancient Rome consisted of a Northern population (the Latini) that had moved South to Italy. Sexual freedom has not always remained constant in Northern Europe, and one could probably find some period where a local population punished adultery severely, but the long-term trend is clear. For instance, the Nordic fairy tale of Rapunzel is derived from a Norse practice whereby young adults were allowed sexual liaisons prior to marriage, which would often follow the woman getting pregnant; this way, the parents of the bride could be reasonably sure that the groom is virile. Presently, the majority of children in Sweden are born out of wedlock, but they are typically raised by their cohabiting biological parents, who typically marry, often after having a child together. Regarding your comment that allowing women greater sexual promiscuity would not necessarily create more handsome children as women often select for resources rather than looks, it is of course true that women emphasize resources much more than looks, but if they have sufficient sexual freedom, a number of them will marry a rich man but secretly have their children fathered by an unrelated attractive man. This way, they will get the best of both worlds: a good looking man to father their children and a resource-rich man to ensure that the children are well taken care of. Now, this behavior is obviously morally unacceptable, but it cannot be [naturally] beaten when it comes to producing attractive children. The third point that you mention is relevant, but focuses on an improvement of looks resulting from rich men choosing the most attractive women. Since women are the ones who give birth, the crucial sexual freedom is the one that is available to women not what is available to men. Arabs have had a polygynous system for quite a while, and it is a boon to upper class men, but their women do not have the sexual freedom to select their own mates, let alone commit adultery. You raise a hypothetical scenario where there is no stigma attached to extra-marital sex. Well, there is always some level of stigma attached to extra-marital sex except for small sub-groups such as some tribals where such behavior may be a requisite or swingers in the West. The point is not that extra-marital sex is required to be socially acceptable for rapidly evolving better looks; all that is needed is sufficient tolerance of extra-marital sex to allow women to find better looking men to father their children than their husbands. 10
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:25 | # Comment on John Hawks: John Hawks did not correct the Times for calling Marilyn Monroe, Brigitte Bardot, Sharon Stone and Scarlett Johansson blondes. None of these women happen(ed) to have blonde hair as adults. Fred Scrooby, Your hypothesis relating the selection of blondness to the cloud cover invokes natural selection. Well, the cloud cover should strongly influence skin color. The greatest proportion of pale-skinned whites are found in Northwestern Europe (e.g., the Irish), but the Irish have a much lower prevalence of blond hair compared to the Swedes, who have fewer very pale-skinned people than the Irish. So, think again. Light skin but not light hair is relevant to Vitamin D synthesis from sunlight. One thing is very clear: it is not random genetic drift; some type of strong selection is indicated, and it does not appear to be natural selection. 11
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:10 | # It may be too late to point out I blogged a similar theory here at MR some time ago titled: Of Penguins, Paleolithic Gender Ratio and White Fertility and that there has been other prior support for this theory. 12
Posted by Alex Zeka on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:38 | # Mark R., that’s unworthy of you. You’re falling into the liberal fallacy, and failing to distinguish between freedom and debauchery. Adultery is not sexual freedom: it’s failing to keep one’s promises and refusing to take responsibility for one’s decisions. The ability to freely choose one’s partner would result in breeding for attractiveness. Easy adultery (and it’s legalised version, no fault divorce) and unfaithfullness reduce the point of finding an attractive mate, as they could be easily taken away from you. Real sexual freedom (and not ersatz “volya”) means taking the consequences of your choices. After all, every other sort of freedom does. Remember and “svoboda” and “volya”, the two words that will unlock the hitherto unfathomable depths of liberal thought. 13
Posted by Alex Zeka on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:41 | # Add a 14
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:58 | # To emphasize blonde promiscuity resulting from an oversupply of females during the environment of evolutionary adaptation is to miss the profoundly relevant condition of males of northern ancestry: a relative lack of sexual competition. It is genocide to introduce men adapted to stronger sexual competition to the societies of northern Europeans. 15
Posted by Mark Richardson on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:12 | # Alex, I wasn’t attempting to define a true sexual freedom. I was replying to J Richard’s thesis, in which a greater sexual freedom (call it “latitude” if you want to), including women committing adultery by marrying rich men but having affairs with more handsome men, produces more attractive children. J Richard’s reply was reasoned, but I still think we are in the dark as to whether the northern populations were stricter or more lax in their sexual morality. I don’t think looking at the current situation helps, as what the Scandinavians are doing now is a product of advanced social democracy. For hundreds of years before this very different conditions obtained under the influence of Lutheranism. (Note: I doubt if the single mother’s benefit existed ten thousand years ago. A woman who had a child without securing the protection of the father through marriage would have risked a great deal in those times.) I’ve read quite a bit of the pre-Christian history of northern Europe, and I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence to make definitive statements. I’ve mentioned Tacitus, J Richards a fairy tale. It’s not enough. In the four or five Norse sagas I’ve read, there’s little sense of sexual latitude (the sagas often deal with pre-Christian history, though they were written in the early Christian era). 16
Posted by JW Holliday on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:29 | # Three points:- 1. In KMacD’s SAID, we read: “20. As discussed in PTSDA (Ch. 8), one theory of the evolution of recessive genes in northern Caucasian populations is Salter’s (1996) “blank slate hypothesis” in which recessive genes act as an individualist anti-cuckoldry mechanism. Because of the commonness among the “Aryans” of recessive genes affecting physical appearance, the offspring of Jews and non-Jews in Germany therefore would tend to resemble the Jewish partner, thus leading to beliefs on both sides of the “indelibility” of the Jewish character.” Thus, Salter has touched on this issue in the past. 2. If South Asians wish to consider their women and their morality as superior, that’s fine with me, as long as these peoples continue living in their South Asian homelands. They are not the problem. The following intelligent, thoughtful, articulate, and “Popperian” quote by Razib, from his website, does illustrate a problem with the South Asian diaspora:- “i read in the economist that one out of four people in swedish are non-swedish ethnically. what the fuck??? where are my mischlinge kids going to get their supply of leggy-light-haired hotties?” 3. Er … BigBoobDreams.Com????? Another pictorial source may be preferred. 17
Posted by Zach on Wed, 01 Mar 2006 00:07 | # “To emphasize blonde promiscuity resulting from an oversupply of females during the environment of evolutionary adaptation is to miss the profoundly relevant condition of males of northern ancestry: a relative lack of sexual competition. It is genocide to introduce men adapted to stronger sexual competition to the societies of northern Europeans.” Interesting point, though I am not sure I would take the last bit too far; I think we can still be very competitive when we want to be. However the idea that we focus our competition primarily on resources, rather than women, is very interesting. Perhaps this partly explains why we have been so willing to fall for consumer capitalism and globalism over and above all else. Of course, without wealth and resource redistribution, the issue of reproductive success would not be such a problem. 18
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 01 Mar 2006 05:27 | # Actually, Zach, I think the northern tradition of Holmganga—formal combat between individual males to the death—may have arisen in response to the combination of: 1) A tendency toward sexual reserve. 2) Rising availability of calories due to agriculture. Where it failed to provide the insulation required, mass warfare tended to take its place as a means of culling the male population. Genocide of the competing males is the ultimate resort when both formal single combat and mass warfare have been successfully suppressed by them. 19
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 01 Mar 2006 18:32 | # John, Posting the bust of a North African woman does not undermine any argument on this page. At your home page, I haven’t seen very many pictures of North African or Southern European women, and it is easy to guess what kind of women you think look best. James, White males need not fear being outcompeted by non-white males when it comes to attracting the favors of white women. Most white women know better than to entertain non-white males. The problem is that unattractive white women, whom most white males wouldn’t have anything to do with, happen to be often better looking than most non-white women, and are sought after by a number of non-white males. This sets the stage for gradual creeping of non-white genetics into the white gene pool. Speaking of Holmganga, I am sure that you will find equivalent behavior in several other cultures, irrespective of the sexuality of the population. Fighting to settle disputes is very common in human history. JW, I wish bigboobdreams.com was not stamped on one of the pictures above, but the contrast between the waist-hip region of the white woman and that of the “most beautiful woman in the world.” i.e., Miss World 1994 Aishwarya Rai is striking and needs to be shown. If Hindus are not convinced, I will find other pictures without anything offensive stamped on them. Peter Frost’s sexual selection hypothesis is a much more reasonable account than the anti-cuckoldry mechanism proposed by Salter. After all, in even the blondest of regions, such as Southern Sweden, you do have a white minority with dark hair, and some of the light-haired people are light brown rather than some shade of blond. Also, during the time period of intense sexual selection implicated by the molecular evidence, it is unlikely that the forebears of present-day Northern Europeans encountered a phenotypically very different population whose males were in a position to attract the favors of Nordic women. 20
Posted by John Ray on Wed, 01 Mar 2006 19:03 | # Scandinavian skin colour has been rather misrepresented above. Given much exposure to the sun, Scandinavians rapidly tan to a beautiful golden brown. We see it Scandinavian tourists here in Northern Oz all the time. It is the Irish who are almost totally depigmented. Those of us unfortunates with Irish genes for skin-colour are more likely to go red than brown. And the sun gives us skin cancer at a huge rate. The whole theory seems implausible to me. I see loss of pigmentation as a destructive mutation that could survive only in a very cloudy climate. Nobody would want to live in the peri-Baltic or Western Ireland who had the choice of warmer and more fertile climes 21
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:49 | # John, In my reply to Fred Scrooby, I have already pointed out that Scandinavians are not as pale-skinned as the Irish, though they are blonder. Contrary to your interpretation, this strengthens Peter Frost’s case because it argues against the notion that natural selection is responsible for across-the-board depigmentation. Whereas Peter Frost has mentioned the more feminine appearance of white women, he has probably thought it best to refrain from mentioning the finer facial features of Scandinavians compared to the Irish, which once again reflects strong sexual selection. It is difficult to imagine any advantage of finer facial features from the standpoint of natural selection. 22
Posted by JW Holliday on Thu, 02 Mar 2006 03:21 | # Nerfititi’s ethnic origin is a matter of some debate. Even is she was of the Egyptian royal family, that family had a history of ethnic outmarriage (similar to the modern European dynasties) and of course one cannot assume that the ancient and modern peoples of Egypt are exactly the same in any case. 23
Posted by SD on Thu, 02 Mar 2006 08:25 | # I think by racially mixing people we rarely get a more attractive population. Indeed most mixed children I have seen tend to look hideous. Only a small minority tend to be attractive as in those lucky few cases the genes for looks have matched well (but there could be mismatches for other traits). As Anthony Ludovici pointed out many years ago in his book, Choice of a Mate (http://www.anthonymludovici.com/cm_int.htm), marriage between like is very necessary for good health, character and appearance of children. Most of the attractive racially mixed people I have come across among commoners tend to be Nordic/European-Mongoloid mixes. But in both cases the original races tend to be quite attractive in the first place. I have even come across cases when both the parents one Mongoloid and the other Nordic are attractive specimen of their subspecies, the mixed children tend to come out unattractive due to mismatch in features. South Asians and to a lesser extent people from the Middle-East and South East Asia are heavily mixed racially. As mentioned above in the original post, all the primary races, Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Australoid have mixed in India to form the so called mixed South Asian race. This has led to the large majority of the population having ugly mismatched features. Not only that, but they also tend to have unhealthy looking misshapen bodies. Only the lucky minority where the mixing has been perfect do we see some attractiveness. I was wondering if the poor performance of the brown belt from Arabia all the way to Indonesia in Olympic like sports be due to this basic mismatch inherent in these populations. Could it also be possible that the overall poor health among these populations (Indians and Pakistanis have extremely high mortality due to diabetes, heart failures etc.. compared to a Chinese or a German) be due to the inherent mismatches as well. Indeed Mr. Ludovici did stress that for children to beget healthy vigorous bodies like should marry like as far as their parents are concerned. Indeed he even disapproved of peoples in the various parts of Britain marrying each other. In the case of intermarriage between people from different continental subspecies the problems might be far more severe indeed. I have also noticed that the stray dogs in my country of origin (who are a result of mixing of many breeds) were uglier and unhealthier than pure breeds or subspecies of canines. Besides if you are wondering, I am Hindu myself of the warrior Ksatriya chaste (No.2 after the Brahmins) from Bengal. As Rajib had pointed out earlier, it is common for Indian families to have family members with completely different phenotypes in looks. My Mom’s Father looked like a Chinese actor (whose name I cannot recall). My mum’s brother has green eyes. My Fathers father looked like an Englishman but was a bit dark. My father has strong Caucasian looks as well. His sister (my auntie) has brownish/blondish hair. 24
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 02 Mar 2006 13:34 | # SD, Your ancestry is hardly relevant to your comment, but since you have mentioned it, I appreciate your looking at the matter in an objective manner and seeing it for what it is, unlike your co-ethnics over at gnxp.com. I have no problems with South Asians who are not hostile to whites and intelligent enough to function well in Western societies. On some counts, upper caste Hindus are in a more precarious situation in India than whites are in the West. To start with, they are a small minority in India, living among a great majority that resents upper caste people. A Hindu acquaintance of mine told me about the horrible affirmative action system in India for the low caste and untouchable groups, which is much worse than its counterpart in the U.S. He also told me that whereas the West focuses on discrimination against the untouchables, it largely ignores reverse discrimination, which started from Independence [from the British] onward, and includes untouchables physically attacking upper caste people. Anyway, to address your points, I will start from Sports. Outstanding athletes usually come from specific ethnic groups, depending on the sport, quite often because the physical requirements for excellence in the sport favor a particular ethnic group. Therefore, with the kind of race mixing in India, Indians will naturally be underrepresented among outstanding athletes since they have mostly lost the extreme physical traits that are a requisite for outstanding athletic performance in most sports. Some of this loss of athletic ability can also be blamed upon a weakened physical constitution resulting from race mixing. The high rates of major diseases such as you mention among South Asians are most likely partly related to race mixing. I have previously addressed data from a random, population-based study showing increased health problems resulting from race mixing, which largely appears to be related to biology. Regarding your comments about the greater odds of increased unattractiveness among mixed-race people compared to enhanced attractiveness, you have related this to a mismatch of features. This is a crude way of stating what has just now begun to be documented in the scientific literature. The more technical term for the consequences of a mismatch is “loss of morphological integration,” and a new study that will be shortly published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology is among the first to show loss of morphological integration resulting from the mixing of major races. You can download the pdf of this study here. The paper is not very intelligible for laypersons, but I will address this study in a future post at MR. 25
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:01 | # J Richards writes: Speaking of Holmganga, I am sure that you will find equivalent behavior in several other cultures, irrespective of the sexuality of the population. Fighting to settle disputes is very common in human history. Whoa there guy… It’s a long way from formalized laws for single combat to some general notion of “fighting to settle disputes”! Blood feud and war are “fighting to settle disputes”. A couple of guys going at each other, which is what animals frequently do, is also “fighting to settle disputes”. I have looked into this in some depth and haven’t been able to find, outside of the pre-Christian northern European tradition, formalized rules for dispute resolution where single combat is the appeal of last resort for dispute processing. Perhaps I missed somethng among the Inuit, or other circumpolar cultures but I would be most interseted in finding evidence of such in other cultures. 26
Posted by AD on Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:43 | # Scandinavian skin colour has been rather misrepresented above. Given much exposure to the sun, Scandinavians rapidly tan to a beautiful golden brown. We see it Scandinavian tourists here in Northern Oz all the time. It is the Irish who are almost totally depigmented. Those of us unfortunates with Irish genes for skin-colour are more likely to go red than brown. And the sun gives us skin cancer at a huge rate. Scandanavian skin colour hasn’t been misrepresented above. Did you read the charts? It clearly shows that they’re darker than the Celts. It also shows that Celts, particularly around Wales, often have dark features with ultra-white skin- a trait only commonly seen with cloudless dwelling Ashkenzai Jews. Nordics are the reverse. (as an aside, did you know that Norway and Sweden have the highest reported rates of skin cancer in all of Europe?). Yes, the sun gives you skin cancer at a huge rate, when you live in bloody Northern or Western Australia which has three times the incidence than the far South East of the country. That most aboriginals live in the North and West, while whites live in the South East should tell you something.(in Tasmania the biggest problem is vitamin D deficiency from lack of sun, not skin cancer) Nobody would want to live in the peri-Baltic or Western Ireland who had the choice of warmer and more fertile climes Do you realise that Tasmania, NZ and the southern Great Dividing Range regions of Australia are milder than any part of Ireland? Tiny South East Australia has a bigger population than all the ‘desirable’ Tropical regions of Australia combined. I think you’re approaching this debate with the eyes of a desert dweller/cane toad. 27
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 03 Mar 2006 18:45 | # For those who come in late: Part of the discussion above has continued in a separate entry authored by John Ray, titled “Pigmentation loss is of itself maladaptive,” which should be read for additional comments that strengthen my arguments above. Fred, The finer facial features also go with a more robust body skeleton compared to Southern Europeans. In light of the evidence above, this is best understood in terms of sexual selection rather than natural selection. James, I have heard of fighting to settle disputes among the Japanese, the Nuer of Sudan and the Yanomamo of Brazil/Venezuela, which has been along the lines of a man challenging another to a fight/duel to claim something or settle a dispute. These fights range(d) from one-on-one duels to group warfare. The exact details vary across cultures, but it would be remarkable if something like Holmganga were found in one group only. It may be that the Norse were more formal about the duel than most others, but the basic idea cannot have been exclusive to them. 28
Posted by Lister on Sat, 04 Mar 2006 06:32 | # Very interesting topic. Can anyone tell me where I might find more information or pictures of the beautiful Ragnhild Marie Alvær? 29
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 04 Mar 2006 17:33 | # Lister, The only other picture of Ragnhild Marie Alvær that I have is shown below. She was a participant in the 2003 Miss Norway beauty pageant, where she was identified as an 18-year-old, 177-cm-tall student from Bergen Handelsgymnasium. If you find other pictures of her, let me know.
30
Posted by AJ on Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:56 | # I’m worried about the way the world is going right now. If current population trends continue, then blondes or for that matter whites, will become a slim minority in a world of nonwhites. I’m sure the result would be a world with more conflicts and more unhappiness. I do believe blondes have more fun and are more fun to be with. So let me cut to the chase. Here’s my plan to save the There are two forces at work, natural selection and sexual selection. In order to save natural blondes from possible extinction, we have to spread the blonde genes around more. With technology, it can easily be done, and I’m not talking about cloning. All you have to do is get attractive blond men to donate their sperm and then attractive blonde women to donate their eggs. Match the blond sperm with the blonde eggs to create embryos that will turn out to be blonde babies. Now, here is the cool part. We can simply implant the blonde embryo into a non-blonde or even non-white woman. She will, in effect, function as a surrogate mother and give birth to a naturally blonde baby. If more non-blondes and non-whites do this, plus the natural blonde couples who have blonde offspring, then the number of blondes will greatly increase. I have heard cases of white surrogates giving birth to Asian couples’ babies. Why not the other way around? Of course, there’s the moral debate and people will be in an uproar over the racist/eugenics undertone. Personally, I do not advocate any “forced” campaign by Similarly, if most nonblonde women desire to be blonde, then the same logic goes. Why not give your daughter blonde genes? With IVF and surrogacy, we can produce lots of true natural blondes. But this method is expensive and very controversial. I don’t know if society is ready to see black women, Asian women, and Hispanic women having and raising blonde babies. A more “intermediate” or “compromise” method is to use So let’s say a single Asian woman desires to give her child blonde genes but does not have the money to go the full method, ie, implanting a blonde embryo, then she can go for this halfway solution. Her child will be half blonde/Caucasian, half Asian. Ideally, I would also recommend using technology to select the sex of the baby. The technique that exists currently has a 90% guarantee for female babies and 70% for male babies. Make the baby female so that when she grows up, she can also receive blonde genes again by AI. By I’m sure my proposal will sound very racist and contentious to many people. But I would repeat my most basic arguments to critics again. They are: 1. Blondes are and have more fun because they are more So again, I’m all for freedom of choice. With an altruistic spirit, let’s make the choice for blondes available to everyone, not just natural blondes themselves. It’s kind of stingy for real blondes to keep blonde genes to themselves. Share the good stuff. Pass them around. That’s basically what I’m saying. Nobody is going to be forced to do anything they don’t want. Instead, the forces of sexual selection will I think somebody ought to really open up a sperm bank and make some money selling blond sperm. Another business is to open up an agency recruiting blonde eggs. Yet another is to provide counseling and matchmaking service,ie, finding and matching male and female donors, advice on the medical stuff, etc. I welcome more thoughts and feedback. Feel free to share my ideas with others. 31
Posted by Andrew on Sat, 25 Mar 2006 03:55 | # That sound to clinical and not much fun A J, what about us blond hair and blue eyed men just go and save the planet and have some fun while we are at it. 32
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 26 Mar 2006 04:04 | # AJ, There are a few problems with your proposal. Non-whites should be discouraged from combining their DNA with that of whites because race mixing is known to increase the incidence of health problems, which is consistent with some loss of morphological integration in the skull (apparently related to disruption of co-adapted gene complexes) resulting from race mixing. Having non-white women give birth to white offspring via surrogate pregnancy is also not recommended. How will the white child feel about his different looks, and how appealing will it be to the non-white masses to raise children that are not their biological offspring? Secondly, mixed offspring with substantial white ancestry or non-whites genetically manipulated to look whiter will be more sexually appealing to whites than other non-whites, and will thereby accelerate non-white admixture into the white gene pool since whites are a minority of the human species. The possibility that non-whites will continue to have their gametes fertilized by whites in large numbers per generation will simply not materialize. At least one of a non-white pair will object to not having his/her own DNA transmitted to the offspring that he/she wishes to raise. Your aims will be better served by trying to keep the non-white masses out of the West. Besides, interracial marriages are not the norm in California by a long shot, though they are much more prevalent than in, say, Iowa. 33
Posted by Bryan on Sun, 26 Mar 2006 23:07 | # I am more worried about Blacks and Whites Mixing Quite honestly. I find asian girls attractive as do i find blondes attractive. Now if i had a choice i would stick with blondes or other white women. 34
Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:58 | # First of all let me be very arrogant and declare that I am a Biologist, and secondly that I believe that the purpose of citing these research papers [that are not really scientific] etc., are an attempt to prove something - ie white women are more beautiful than all other women - in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In fact most beauty contest results which are the only real avaialble yardstick of beauty clearly show that INDIA and Venezuela , both countries containig mixed Caucasoids and some pure Caucasoids have won the most number of beauty contests in recent times. India has won 7 titles and has 12 runners up and venezuela has won 8 times and has many runners up too. Someone here mentioned Ash Rai who was named the most beautiful woman in the world by wsterners themselves, and the most beautiful Miss World ever by the Miss world Organizers. Another fact is that Saira Mohan, A Canadian model of Indian ( and Irish ) descent was chosen as the global face of beauty in 2003 when computer modeled face was matched for most attarctive features. To my knowledge , the Biology of it is that physical attractiveness tends to favor mixed races as mixing eliminates all extermes such as , albino white skin, freckles, masculine features, slant eyes, curly hair , thick lips etc and moves the mixed race women towards the median. And most importantly the proof is in the pudding as beauty contest results show. If you consider the top 1% beauties of the world , I am sure mixed race women from India, Latin America, Iran etc., will produce the winners. Thats why they say thee is no beauty like an Indian beauty 35
Posted by Ethnocentrist on Thu, 06 Apr 2006 16:08 | # Malcolm, your yardstick for what is considered beautiful in this day and age is nothing but forced political correctness onto the global stage of pageantry. Nothing more. When Black women started winning these contests over gorgeous, voluptuous White women, it didn’t take a biologist to realize that the fix was in. 36
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 Apr 2006 18:57 | # Malcolm, JR can converse with you from the biological standpoint, if he so wishes. From the political standpoint, however, I can do the job passably well. If you are of European descent, and not of mixed-race, it is worth you quietly asking yourself how you became a carrier of anti-white opinions. How did you come to feel uncomfortable with the kind of self-advocacy that is considered healthy and normal by every people in the world but which liberalism denies to us alone? How did you come to lose touch with reality in that way? The answer, probably, is that you have not been strong enough intellectually and emotionally to stand against the tide. You probably never even tried. But here at MR you get a chance. Now, dealing with the specifics of JR’s post ... for me there is no Marxian political barrier to clear before I can freely consider whether facial delicacy attaches to the Nordic type more than any other, and whether such delicacy is not only our ideal of facial perfection but, strangely, that of much of the world. This is the import of JR’s work. Is he right? I think he might be. But either way the issue cannot be considered until you strip out the racial Marxism from your mind, and disdain forever that familiar and infuriatingly self-destructive spasm of faux-moral correctness. There is no benefit to allowing yourself to be duped. 37
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 06 Apr 2006 21:31 | # Malcolm A, For a biologist, it is curious that you have labeled the paper unscientific without bothering to refute anything in the paper. International beauty pageants are cesspools of political correctness and have to deal with the dilemma of avoiding charges of racism by consistently letting the most attractive women (read white) win and alienating their audience by frequently selecting Negroids or Mongoloids as top-ranked contestants in order to avoid charges of racism. Therefore, they have shifted toward crowning non-white women that would simultaneously help avoid charges of racism and also be less likely to alienate their audience by virtue of their being closer to whites in looks, which explains the success of Hindu women from the 1990s onward. The contestants from Venezuela tend to be whiter than the Hindus, and it is apparently not enough for PC reasons to stick with Venezuela or other Latino contestants. You mention the accolades received by Aishwarya Rai and completely fail to address her pictures that I have posted. How many white people would regard Aishwarya as a very attractive woman? Let me see you cite evidence that a large number of whites have labeled her the most beautiful woman in the world. She has a part-Mongoloid face, broad shoulders and a wide waist compared to so many attractive white women that I know of; also compare her physique to that of the white woman shown below her. I have already addressed the [relative lack of] attractiveness of Saira Mohan. Your notion that race mixing leads to the average is incorrect. Phenotypic average is defined for a race but not for the species. Whereas race mixing averages some traits, not all traits are averaged by race mixing; there are multiple deviations from the average related to disruption of co-adapted gene complexes and loss of morphological integration (evidence here). Correspondingly, there is also an increase in health problems among mixed-race offspring. Besides, you only have to look at non-white facial features more closely to appreciate the aesthetically disastrous consequences for whites that will result from the absorption of non-white genetics into the white gene pool (see here, here and here). Chances are that you are a South Asian and may find it difficult to understand that the top 1% of good-looking women from the PC-free perspective of whites are all white. 38
Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 08 Apr 2006 13:47 | # Hi J Richards Thank you for your kind comments in response to my post. 1. I am a white though born in South Asia, married to an Indian and living in N. America. 2. I am a Scientist and I believe that scientists are trained to speak the truth ( as they see it ) unless and until proven wrong. 3. Here is where I agree with you and others of my own race. - White caucaisans are the most advanced race on earth in terms of Technological achievement and innovativeness . I totally agree with this statement as there is proof ! Almost all major scientific achievements as well as inventions were made by white Caucasians and continue to be so even now. - In general our women tend to be more beautiful than most other races. Certainly so. - But when it comes to comparing the top beauties in the world, I would disagree with you and others totally, for the following reasons. a. The pictures you have posted of Ash Rai are not the best ones available. Perhaps you may agree that there are good pics and bad ones of any beauty. eg Liz taylor, once considered the most beautiful woman , appears rather fat and ungainly in some pics. So maybe a little bias on your part caused some of the less attactive pics of Ash Rai and other Indians to be posted against the best pics of the European beauties. b. As for beauty contsts being cesspools, I doubt whether any of us would say that aloud if our favorite won the contest. c. I apologize for stating that the research articles were unscientific, but what I intended to say was that these papers ( I have published in exess of 40 research papers myself ) do NOT necessarily pertain to beauty in real life, because beauty in essence is a combination of ‘physical beauty + inner charm’ that projects itself outwardly to the onlooker. d. The biological reason that India, a real cesspool of a country in many ways, manages to produce great beauties is because of a very large genetic pool resulting from mmigrations from the caucasus, Turkey, Iran, Syria, Israel, Africa etc., compounded by a 1billion + population. I believe the British also added a considerable amount of genetic variance to that country’s genepool while tthey were there ! So blaming Indians is partly blaming ourselves ( Though I am more dutch than Brit ). e. recent Genetic research by cavalli Sforza, Bamshad et al, Oppenheimer, Spencer Wells etc have clearly indicated that an Aryan gene exists and that the Aryans did arrive in India. In fact most high caste Hindu Brahmins carry genes that are mostly Western European in origin ( R1a1, R1b ) etc.. So the Indians should thank us whites for their beauty too, as so elegantly said by you while posting that pretty pic of Aditi Govitrikar ( Ms World 2000 ). In fact, Indians set a world record in beauty by winning all 4 major international beauty contests (Miss world, Miss Universe, Miss Asis Pacific and Mrs World ) in 2000. Will give detailed references if required. 39
Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 08 Apr 2006 14:06 | # Hi Guessedworker, Thanks for the kind response. If you would care to read my reply to J Richards you would find answers to most of what you asked me. As I said, I am with the whites on most issues. BUT sometimes there are certain undeniable truths , such as ’ there are some very beautiful women in other races too ’ who might be just a tad more beautiful than our best women occasionally. Also, I am not denying that Nordic faces are the most attractive. But, then Indians are also caucasians and some do have mostly nordic faces. Richards himself says [ in another post here ] that some good looking Hindus like Aditi Govitrikar, Ritik Rosan etc., have us nordics to thank for their beauty !! Isn’t that a tacit acceptance or what ? It is true that there are about 75% mixed population in India but there are about 25% [ 250 million souls ] including some relatively unmixed upper caste elite as proven by Bamshad et al who studied the Aryan genetic composition in India. So Indians are a watered down version of Caucasians. Sometimes we have to call a square a square , whether drawn by a white or someone else ! Some truths are difficult to deny. 40
Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 08 Apr 2006 14:21 | # Hi Ethnocentrist Beauty contests are the only yardstick avaialble. Even Richards is comparing beauty contest winners, as you can see. If you ask the Chinese they will say that Chinese women are the best looking. So someoen has to decide, and thats what happens in beauty pageants. If our white women won or kept on winning would you say the same thing about beauty contests ? 41
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 10 Apr 2006 00:23 | # Malcolm A, Better looking facial pictures of Aishawarya Rai show her with heavy make-up, colored contacts and light overexposure. You need to see through make-up wizardry. Anyway, there is no way camera tricks could make her physique look anywhere as feminine as that of the white woman shown below her. Political correctness is obvious in Western and International beauty pageants, regardless of the race of the winner. The 2005 Miss Universe and 2005 Miss World beauty pageants were won by white women, but this does nothing to change the fact that these pageants are PC-ridden. I have not based some comparisons on beauty contests because they are an appropriate yardstick of beauty, but because the Miss India contest likely does not have to deal with the political correctness that Miss USA does, yet white women beat the Hindu women hands down. You talk about inner charm as a component of beauty. This is true, but this entry has nothing to do with inner charm; it addresses physical appearance. There is no Aryan gene, but genetic correlation structures that distinguish races, and I am aware of the white genetic contribution to India, but this contribution is minor and most extensively found in the upper caste people who themselves are a minority of the population. It is incorrect to describe Indians as Caucasoid when only a minority of them look Caucasoid, and in even the latter, significant non-Caucasoid genetic material can be easily shown. Since you acknowledge that white genetic contribution is a major component of the best-looking Indians, if white contribution is what it takes to make an ethnic Hindu better looking, then it follows that the best looking people are white unless you believe that there is something about the looks of whites that could be improved upon via Hindu admixture, but I am not aware of any such features. 42
Posted by Westhoek French on Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:51 | # Does this lady [Néfertiti] upset any applecarts? Although much rarer, North Africans beauties do exist. I acknowledge a personal strong anti-arab bias, yet I already saw young Algerian girls like that. Especially among those whose origins go back to Kabylia. 43
Posted by Malcolm A on Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:37 | # Hi J R Thanks for your comments. 1. As for pic’s of Ash Rai being heavily madeup etc., pictures of both Indian as well as European beauties are always taken with the best possible makeup, camera angles and light exposure. This is a norm in the beauty industry, and therefore this factor should not play a role. 2. The contention that political correctness is a trend in beauty pageants is challenged by the fact that the Mongoloids have rarely, if ever, won an international beauty pageant, whereas Mongoloids play a significant role in both world politics and World Economics these days - vis a vis CHINA, JAPAN etc. Also, the very fact that, as you say, Nordics won in 2005 ( Miss Australia & Miss Canada ) only goes to prove that there is NO trend towards ‘political correctness’ in these pageants. 3. Research geneticists such as Spencer Wells and Prof. Bamshad have used the R1a1 gene (M17 marker) to establish Aryan migration to India as a fact, and R1a1 is called the ‘Aryan gene’ as it helps to establish evolutionary clusters of the Aryan branch of the caucasoids and prove that the Caucasoid group known as Aryans who are further linked to 4. Unfortunately, or fortunately, as it may seem, current Linnaean classification recognizes Indians as the NORDINDIC sub group of the Caucasoid race ( Nordindic and Nordic are closer than we think !) and even classifies the darker skinned Dravidians of South India as primitive Caucasians of the Dravidic sub-group. I am aware that many of us whites like to equate CAUCASIAN to WHITE, but it is ABSOLUTELY NOT SO in scientific terms. 5. The contributions made by the British, French and Portugese etc.. to the Indian gene pool may appear insignificant at first glance, but it helped form well-defined and isolated social groups in India such as the Anglo-Indians and the Goans etc., which maintained very distinct physical features. The scientific principle that applies here is that of 6. As you say, Indians may have to thank those ancient white Caucasian Aryan ancestors ( Persians, Greeks, Turks and Russians ), and to a lesser degree, the British and other European Colonialists for the exceptional physical beauty they have inherited, but thanks are also due to the gene pool they received from those other Non-Aryan Caucasoids from Hence, a little admixture with other groups have erased some unflattering traits of our race such as Albino skin leading to a nice peachy or creamy, off -white hybrids such as Preity Zinta, Udita Goswami and others. Take care 44
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:30 | # Malcolm A, The heavy make-up and light over-exposure in Aishwarya Rai’s pictures are remarkable, and not your ordinary level of make-up in European models. Anyway, here are three more pictures of her. Notice her part-Mongoloid features, massive jaw, thick lips, facial masculinization, colored contacts and brown hair coloring. Are you seriously telling me that this is a very attractive woman?
And, here is a picture of the masculinized and unimpressive Udita Goswami, which I do not understand why you find to be attractive:
I have posted a picture of Preity Zinta above, but here are two more pictures of her:
How can you be a white man and find these Hindu women attractive, let alone very attractive? To reply to your second point, I have previously mentioned that letting too many Mongoloids or Negroids win will alienate the audience, and hence they use Hindus and Venezuelans to avoid charges of racism. It is remarkable that you refute the notion of political correctness by virtue of a Nordic occasionally winning; a Nordic has to occasionally win or else the audience will be alienated. Once again, the balance for the pageant organizers to achieve is to intersperse crowning the most attractive women (read white) with crowning non-white women—generally not as different looking as Mongoloids and Negroids—to best retain the audience as well as avoid charges of racism. To reply to your remaining points, term such as Nordindic and related classification terminology are outdated terms that are not in current usage. As the pictures above show, most Hindus do not have Caucasoid facial features and the genetic evidence for substantial non-Caucasoid ancestry among Hindus is overwhelming. Therefore, it is incorrect to describe Hindus as Caucasoid, notwithstanding European genetic contribution to the Indian gene pool. Additionally, a marker pointing to part-Aryan ancestry is best not described as an Aryan gene. You have mentioned hybrid vigor, but have failed to back up evidence for it. I have disputed this idea in my entry on Saira Mohan and offered evidence for the negative health consequences of race mixing and craniofacial evidence for loss of morphological integration resulting from race mixing (links in a previous comment). The only feature of whites that you identify as something that can be improved upon via Hindu admixture is albino skin. This is not the view of most whites. I prefer a slight tan myself, but want the baseline to remain albino; this way you get a pasty white woman in the winter and a tanned woman in the summer. 45
Posted by Malcolm A on Tue, 11 Apr 2006 21:27 | # Hi JR 1. It was not I who praised Ash Rai as the ‘most beautiful woman’ etc etc., It was mostly those from our own community. such as Julia Roberst, Roger Ebert ( when asked ‘who is the most beautiful woman,’ he replied ‘Ashwarya Rai’ and when asked , ‘who is the second most beautiful woman’ he replied ‘Ashwarya Rai’ again !), 60 Minutes, David Letterman etc etc.. She was also selected as the most beautiful Miss World ever, and Most beautiful woman by the Hello Magazine poll. So it is NOT my personal opinion. There are aslo 17000 websites devoted to her from what I hear !! So obviously I am NOT the only white with a thing for Indians! I am not into Hindus, Xtians etc., etc., as that has nothing to do with the physical. I think gorgeous Uma Thurman is a Buddhist, if I am not mistaken… 2. I am NOT clear as to why choosing a Mongoloid /Negroid Miss Universe would alienate anyone as it would prove the exact opposite of ‘racism’ or ‘political incorrectness’ 3. If, as you say, the Nordindic classification is outdated , could you please provide the current classification for me. I admit that I am NOT a geneticist but a Population Biologist ( Did take a lot of Genetics courses in Grad school though ). 4. As for your point about Aryan heredity, ‘Aryan’ is a now extinct group believed to have given rise to all the Indo-European speaking people of today. They form one of the 2 major branches of the caucasoids ( Aryan branch and the Semitic Branch ) and whether we like it or NOT the Dravidians as well as North Indians are classified as caucasian. The term Indo-Aryan is used to describe 72% of the indian population in the 2005 CIA World Fact book. 5. Spencer Wells studied the R1a1 distribution and discovered that it originated in the Caucasus (Kurgan culture) and traced it to India. I believe his book is titled “The Journey of Man ” if I am not mistaken. 6. I am sure you are familiar with the term ‘hybrid vigor’ which is a common term for a genetic trait, where inbreeding causes deterioration of the Genepool of a population, as opposed to admixture which adds new genetic variation enriching the gene pool. I believe that, in the case of physical appearance, traits such as skin color, eye color and other physical traits are mostly governed by multi gene effects ( more than one gene ), and admixture with slightly different populations will smoothen out harsh or extreme features as extreme whiteness, masculine features etc.. and lead to a median off-white, soft, oval faced beauties of Italian mediterranean, Middle eastern Indian looks. I find our white women very pretty, but on average, their bone structure, demeanor and appearance tends more towards the masculine rather than the feminine, which is compounded by the easily reddened sensitive white skin, and it is this disparity that gives an edge to the non Nordics. I have no problem with the Caucasian facial features of white as well as non-white caucasians at all. They are the most beautiful. 46
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:27 | # Because JR indicated a preference for tanned women (and of course Malcolm A. is going on about swarthy women as well) I’d like to chime in here and defend white skin on Euro women. I like white women’s white skin. Skin on a Euro woman that is alabaster-white, ivory-white, milk-white, snow-white—with no tan, not even a hint—is extremely beautiful, by far the most beautiful woman’s skin in the world. On some Euro women, white skin is so white it has almost a bluish cast, as if sort of marbled by the veins or something. On the right kind of white woman, that all by itself can make strong men faint from its sheer beauty—strong men of sense, that is; men who know the value of things. Women who are incapable of tanning, but only burn—natural fiery-red or orangey-red redheads, and a large proportion of blonds, in other words—have exquisitely beautiful skin. I have never in my life, ever, not once, felt a tan improved a woman’s looks. Never. To my eye white women are the most beautiful, with their swan-like white skin and everything else about them. They don’t need to be emulating swarthy women in anything, nothing: not one single thing. So that, for me, is part of the matchless beauty of white women: their snow-white skin, those divine human swans who have it. With that said, I find Subcon women among the world’s most beautiful (Euro women have them beat) and I certainly don’t have aught whatsoever against tan, brown, or black skin on a woman. But the tan, brown, or black skin itself is not as beautiful as white skin itself. White skin itself actually has its own beauty exclusive of the woman, which tan, brown, or black skin itself doesn’t have, to my eye. But tan, brown, or black skin don’t detract from a swarthy woman’s beauty. If something detracts from a swarthy woman’s beauty, for me it’s never her swarthy skin. If the rest of the package is right, the skin makes no difference for my taste. For me, if a white woman who was beautiful on other grounds had jet-black skin she’d still be beautiful. What makes Grace Jones unattractive to me isn’t her dark-chocolate skin but everything else about her looks (and the personality that shines through her looks). Anyway, I wanted to get my two cents in, in defense of whiter-than-white-skinned Euro women: they’re angels as far as looks go. They have nothing, not one thing, to envy in swarthy women (though swarthy women can of course also be very beautiful). When men talk about how much a tan improves a white woman’s looks I start yawning ... “When’s the interesting convo gonna start around here? ... Oh, that again? That ‘tan’ thing? These men don’t know beauty when they see it ... OK someone wake me up when they start talking sense around here .... “Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz .......” 47
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 03:14 | # Malcolm, In answer to the alienation factor I blogged on the Miss America beauty pageant here.
MTV, of course, is a symbol for all that is counter-white at a political and cultural level in public discourse. I do urge you to detach yourself from the public mind in a more scientific vein. The door to white dispossession and deracination was opened by powerful and careless people in Britain and Europe in the aftermath of WW2, and in 1965 in America. It was opened in Australia when the White Australia policy was first loosened then dumped, also after WW2. At this point in the process, public perception among whites the world over is floating detached from its biological moorings, the plaything of a false-moral imperative towards extinction. You seem not to have realised this fact or, if you have, not formulated an inner resolve to do what you can to resist it. You argue, basically, that we are told something therefore we believe it, we believe it therefore it is true. We are not told the truth, however. The fact that people think the haggish Aishwarya Rai is, from the non-existent standpoint of racial disinterest, objectively the greatest beauty in the world speaks more of the power of money interests and our own suggestibility than anything else. JR is commending us to return to the understanding that beauty, for white men, lies in the white woman, from whose perfection others shrink by comparison ... and whose refinement might actually be the basis for an objective beauty, if such can be said to exist at all. I think this is a fine riposte to the “sexual socialism” we are sold everywhere everyday. What are you doing in this thread and in the rest of your life to rectify present-day wrongs and promote our survival? 48
Posted by Steve Edwards on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 09:17 | # Every single Asian woman I have ever spoken to about the subject has told me that they want to be whiter than they are. Not surprisingly, the whitest women in Asian societies are generally seen as the most beautiful (that includes the sub-continent). I don’t really have a strong preference either way, some darker women are gorgeous as are some white women, but let’s not kid ourselves about the preferences of most women in foreign countries - they prefer to be pale. 49
Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 10:51 | # Hi Fred Scrooby 1]. .
I respect your opinion. We are all entitled to ours 2]. .
Hehe….If you find this topic boring, blame JR. It is his fault.. He started this thread. Not I. 3]. This is about whether nordic, blue eyed women with There are several aspects to this topic. I am trying to discus the 3rd [scientific] aspect of it. I stumbled on this forum when I ran across JJ Ray’s Indian beauty thread. There are 3 related topics ; Indian Beauty, More on Indian beauty and Evolution of Nordic blue eued women. The question is why are our beautiful women losing more these days ? All of you seem to believe ‘political correctness’ to be the key factor. I believe, once individual /racial bias is Isn’t this supposed to be under ETHNIC GENETIC INTERESTS ? So genetic explanations matter. The question is though, like all other races, we have concluded our women to be beautiful, what happens when collective global perception comes in ? This is the crux of the matter when it comes to beauty. 50
Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:14 | # Hi G W 1]
Thanks for a most interesting response. Could you please explain to me how your 1st statement above relates to your 2nd above. 2]
. Ashwarya does look a bit haggish at 32 years, though JR’s agenda of posting the most unflattering pics available is partly to blame ! But that’s what age does to most beauties white or otherwise. Personally, I have seen both white and Indian women who are much better looking than Ashwarya! Hey, as I said, don’t blame me. Blame all those judges at Miss world,( mostly anglos Nordics ) and the likes of Julia Roberts, Roger Eberts , Bob Simon etc.. I personally don’t believe there is such a thing as the most beautiful woman. 3] JR is commending us to return to the understanding that beauty, for white men, lies in the white woman, from whose perfection others shrink by comparison I totally agree with you on that. We whites are self destructive. See what we Americans are doing with China. Helping them to become more and more powerful so they can challenge us. I am NOT a race traitor but I also don’t believe that just saying that there maybe a scientific reason behind why there are some prettier women out there is a BETRAYAL of my race. BEAUTY is not that important a matter for survival of our race , is it ?. 51
Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:25 | # Hi Fred Scrooby 1]
Hey don’t waste your time. White women know this already and believe it too ( at least my 1st wife did !). I am with you on that one. But, and I repeat, what we wanna do here is debate WHY our beautiful gals don’t win as much. As far as I can see there are 2 explanations given so far. a. Beauty contests are rigged ( political incorrectness ) That’s all . 52
Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:35 | # Steve E 1] Every single Asian woman I have ever spoken to about the subject has told me that they want to be whiter than they are. Not surprisingly, the whitest women in Asian societies are generally seen as the most beautiful (that includes the sub-continent). In India the ’ Fair and Lovely cream’ , a skin whitener is doing great business for the very reason you have mentioned. That is because the browner women want to get fair skin. Does that mean they wanna be 100% white ? I dont know that for sure. Many North Indians , Punjabi, Kashmiris etc , who are very very fair, don’t use any creams, which I know from personal experience. It is a craze in China too for sure. But that I believe is ‘cos fair skin is about the only really beautiful feature they have ( their facial and bodyshape attractiveness is very marginal ) 53
Posted by EV, EF, ER! on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:40 | # Malcolm must be one those millions of smallish, dusky subcons whom imagine themselves to be blue and blonde Teutons, a delusion that won’t survive the purchase of a mirror (which they cannot yet afford on India’s $300/year wages). 54
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:45 | # EV, EF, ER! - I dont like the sneering tone of your comments. Malcolm has stated various things here in a polite and open-minded manner, I think you could manage the same. 56
Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 12:02 | # Hi JR Try this one 1.http://www.santabanta.com/wallpapers/rating.asp?catid=475004 more here ; cheers 57
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 14:22 | #
I apologize—I didn’t mean to say I found the topic you and JR are discussing boring. What I find boring is when white guys start talking about how much better white women look with a tan. When I hear that, my eyes glaze over. But as for your comments and JR’s in this thread, I’ve found them quite interesting.
That’s true but to make it clearer, it’s not about whether their alabaster skin is what makes them more beautiful, but about a whole series of physical qualities.
OK but for my part, I wouldn’t say I “wasn’t a fan” of swarthy skin in women. I certainly have nothing whatsoever against swarthy skin in women. Not a thing. What I’d say is I find white women’s white skin ravishing, I find white women (complete with untanned white skin) the planet’s most beautiful, and I find Hindu and Paki women often quite beautiful also, though Euro women have them beat (sorry, all you subcon girls out there ... hey you’re often gorgeous but Euro women are the undisputed queens of gorgeous ...). I added somewhere that, esthetically, I have naught whatsoever against brown skin on a woman per se (or tan skin, or yellow, or red, or literally jet-black for that matter, assuming jet-black exists somewhere—maybe among the North-African Tauregs? or somewhere in the Subcontinent? I think it or damn close to it can probably be found)—if the whole package is right, brown skin or skin of any color is fine with me. I’m literally never attracted to Negro women and it’s not the chocolate-fudge color of their skin that makes it that way but other qualities that make it that way, including non-physical ones (personality). Their particular skin color by itself is perfectly fine. Put the exact same chocolate-fudge skin color on a woman I find very attractive and I’ll still find her very attractive. 58
Posted by Alex Zeka on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 14:46 | # For what it’s worth, in my opinion darkish skin tones (i.e. Mediteraneanish) combined with Euro features are the most attractive. A. Rai looks fairly attractive, but then she also looks like a Euro with dark skin. You should look at a real Indian. Indian friends tell me England is a huge relief! Oh, and EV, EF, ER!- you are a scandal and should be ashamed of yourself. 59
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:08 | # Malcolm, the lady has a hook nose, thick lips, masculine jaw. In a white women these things would be sexually disadvantageous, no? I don’t believe that there there is a general mean to which all peoples can assent. I believe we all fight like hell for our own reality, for not to do so is to relinquish power to an enemy. On my two statements, the link is liberalism. Everything I scribble is anti-liberal. I accept that my scribblings do not state at the outset, “this is an anti-liberal statement.” I expect people to take that as read. And now I have explained it clearly, you, at least, can do exactly that. But for the sake of absolute clarity, I am against liberalism, modernity, cultural Marxism, white racial dispossession and deracination, feminism, buggers’ licence, democracy and universal suffrage, equality, anti-Darwinism, anti-traditionalism, anti-racism, Jewish racism, Firedoglake-ism ... In fact, you had better just assume I am against everything in the modern liberal zeitgeist unless I specifically exclude it! Geez, with all this goin’ down inside my head how do I manage to be so happy? 60
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 21:18 | # Malcolm A, The reason that a huge number of websites are devoted to Aishwarya Rai is that there are a billion-plus Indians. Given the looks of the average Hindu, it is understandable that Indians would hold Aishwarya Rai in high regard, but look at her photos carefully and tell me how a white person could see her as a great beauty; once again, notice the part-Mongoloid face, facial masculinization, thick lips, big cheekbones, massive jaw, hooked nose, masculine waist-hip region, etc.—and these are not an illusion based on me posting the most unflattering pictures of her; the pictures that I have selected are the ones that clearly show these features; for instance, most of her pictures show her from the front, and it is easy to miss her hooked nose in these pictures. The examples of whites that find her attractive are hardly impressive. Some of these people are giving politically correct comments, Julia Roberts is far from the best looking white woman, and since Roger Ebert married an ugly black woman, Aishwarya Rai would naturally appear to be a beauty queen in comparison. If Miss World Organization can crown the likes of Aishwarya Rai as a Miss World, then given the voice of a billion-plus Indians, it can surely say that she is the most beautiful Miss World ever. The reason choosing a lot of Mongoloids and Negroids as pageant winners will alienate the audience is as follows. Whereas many non-Caucasoids find Caucasoid facial features attractive, few non-Negroids and non-Mongoloids find Negroid and Mongoloid faces attractive, respectively. Therefore the best choices of non-white winners are those that have facial features leaning toward the Caucasoid. Regarding the obsolete term Nordindic, there is no official scientific racial classification anymore. Geneticists avoid the word race and use, instead, population stratification and populations clusters, and most South Asians fall into a South Asian cluster that is clearly distinct from the cluster that Europeans fall into. Besides, genetic studies have revealed substantial East Asian genetic affinity in South Asia. It is for this reason that if you insist of using traditional terms such as Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid, then South Asians are correctly classified as a mixed population with varying levels of Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid ancestry. Regarding hybrid vigor, there is also something known as outbreeding depression, which is what applies to human races, and I have cited literature on this in an entry on the negative health consequences of race mixing and the paper on loss of morphological integration as a result of race mixing. You mention soft, oval faces as attractive. Well, oval faces are the classic ideal for Northern European women, and most extensively possessed by these women, and several of my entries have pointed out the finer facial features (read soft features) of Nordic women compared to other women. Race mixing involving Nordics will be less likely to produce such traits. It is remarkable that you describe Nordic women as having a more masculinized bone structure, when my entries, common observation, and Peter Frost’s data show that Nordic women have a more feminine appearance overall than other women. The strongerbetter chins and smaller breasts in Nordic women may appear to be less feminine than in women in some other populations, but overall, Nordic women have a more feminine appearance, on average. The link that you posted to Udita Goswami’s pictures doesn’t help your argument. Most of the pictures don’t show her facial features clearly enough, and masculinization is evident in one picture where her features are clearer, but the woman’s torso is clearly manly. Since you have mentioned that you have seen Indian women who look better than Aishwarya Rai, and you obviously know much more about Indian women than I do, why don’t you post or link to images of attractive Indian women? You can host images at imageshack.us and hotlink them in your comment. Your argument is that Nordic women are, on average, better looking than Indian women, but between these two groups, the best looking women are the lighter-skinned and more Caucasoid Indian women. We can have a contest and see who can come up with the best looking women; the rule being that facial features should be clearly evident in the pictures. I’d be interested to see you come up with Indian women who look better than beautiful Nordic women from a facial structure standpoint (we will ignore pigmentation). If you plan on posting plenty of images, it would be best to do this in a separate entry. Thus, you find the pictures that you are going to use and upload them to rapidshare.de, zupload.com or equivalent and post the link here, and I will post your pictures besides pictures of beautiful Nordic women in a separate entry and we can ask the blog readership to compare the pictures. 61
Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:19 | # Hi GW 1. On my two statements, the link is liberalism. Everything I scribble is anti-liberal. 2. But for the sake of absolute clarity, I am against liberalism, modernity, cultural Marxism, white racial dispossession and deracination, feminism, buggers’ licence, democracy and universal suffrage, equality, anti-Darwinism, anti-traditionalism, anti-racism, Jewish racism, Firedoglake-ism ... In fact, you had better just assume I am against everything in the modern liberal zeitgeist unless I specifically exclude it! Why so radical ? ...Sounds very extremist to me. Aren’t the statements, given above, proof that you are NOT SO MUCH concerned about the TRUTH, but just a firm supporter of anti-liberalism at any cost and NO MATTER WHAT. i.e. If an Anti Liberal says ‘Horses have 8 legs’ would you blindly support him, because he is anti-liberal ? Isn’t that a perversion of truth on your part ? And do these thoughts apply to your perception of beauty too ? Take care. 62
Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:39 | # Hi Fred 1.That’s true but to make it clearer, it’s not about whether their alabaster skin is what makes them more beautiful, but about a whole series of physical qualities. 2. if the whole package is right, brown skin or skin of any color is fine with me. This is the very issue that I have been grappling with so far. Most genetic differences between Nordic and Non-Nordic Caucasoid females are largely superficial and can be found in the eye color, height and skin tone. If significant differences existed they wouldn’t fall into Caucasoid group. See Mongoloid and Negroids have major, very obvious structural differences and are classified accordingly. The most admixture has done , especially in middle eastern populations, is to smoothen out some sharp features of nordic populations. This is where I disagree with JR. Cheers. 63
Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:01 | # Hi JR Thanks for the detailed response. 1. I have a question about the 4 pics you have posted from the Miss USA , above..Miss California, Kentucky etc… Is your point that they are white but non-nordic and therefore won for reasons of political correctness ? 2. About Ash Rai, why beat a dead horse ? I think she got attention from the West only after she appeared at Cannes [ 2001 or 2002 ?]in a yellow saree…Looked good that day! 3. I am trying to post the latest Linnaean classification of Homo Sapiens for you. Give me some time. As a Biologist, I do not accept your claim that there is no current classification of the human species. I am a Population Biologist ( now semi retired ) who worked for over 25 years in the pest management field, and I am sure I can locate the latest classification .. The one I have posted might be the one, but I will check whether it has changed. 4. As for Udita I will try to post the correct link. I am very bad at posting pics and maybe you can help me out by posting one or 2 that I will provide links to. I think she looks pretty difficult to identify separately, especially in this one photo with a blond wig, I thought she was a nordic 1st.. There are also some other beauties that you might not have even heard of 5. But, I think the most important factor is the biological aspect of this debate and would you post what you say are the significant bone structure differences between Nordic and Non -Nordic caucasians. The detailed paper you have posted does not clearly indicate the differences. Also why do you use the term Nordic if you believe it to be outdated ? maybe as a point of reference ? In a hurry. Will be back later. Cheers 64
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:49 | # Malcolm A, My point is not that the non-blond white women won because of political correctness. There is a great deal of hair and eye color diversity in Europe, and minus political correctness, it is unlikely that all the top white contestants will be blonde, though one would expect them to be overrepresented if you average over multiple beauty contests. Linnaean classification is old stuff. Cladisitics is more popular, and whereas a scientific classification of human races is possible and can be inferred by anyone who takes the trouble of looking it up, such classification is not official and discussion of it is generally avoided. I have been able to get the pictures of Udita by copying your link and pasting it instead of clicking on the malformed link. Anyway, Udita is an unimpressive woman by European Standards, especially her physique. See if you can come up with better examples, and I am especially interested in you coming up with lots of examples of Indian beauties so that we can see whether the best looking Nordic women or best looking Indian women look better. Adriana Lima and Laetitia Casta look better than many women, but there are plenty of much better looking Nordic women around. Nordic is not a racial term per se, but it is short for Northern European or something that pertains to Northern Europe. There are a number of skeletal differences between European populations. Perusing the [mostly old; e.g., C. S. Coon] anthropological literature will provide you with plenty of examples: more slender skeletal build of Southern Europeans, rounder crania in Central Europeans, especially elongated crania in several Northern European populations, greater height in Northern and [related] Eastern European populations, relatively greater leg lengths in some Northern European populations, finer facial features in Northern and Central Europeans compared to Southern Europeans, etc. 65
Posted by Malcolm A on Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:29 | # HI JR 1.My point is not that the non-blond white women won…etc 2. Linnaean classification is old stuff. Cladisitics is more popular ...etc., I am not aware of Linnaean classification being outdated at all. The old classifcation of human races was suppressed for the very reason we are discussing- political corectness. However, all that is largely irrelevant to our discussion. Replying to your contention in regards to differences in height, finer bone structure, skull shape etc., between nordic and non nordic caucasian women ( S. European etc ), do you know of any studies that show a statistically significant difference between such populations, because this question can only be answered by comparing representative samples from each population and conducting a statistically valid study. 3. Your usage of ‘Hindu women’ is misleading because, all Indians are not Hindu per se. There are many Xtians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Pharsis (persian ancestry) as well as Anglo-Indians and other Eurasians etc in India 4. I made a little mistake while posting the Udita Goswamy link by pasting it next to 1. Sorry about that. I never quite managed to master the art of posting pics. Also, some links are too long and breakup into 2 lines causing a bad linkup. In such cases copy-pasting the link should take you to the pic. 5. I am posting below, one with Udita in a blond wig and I would like to hear your opinon as to how close her look in that pic is to Nordic and if NOT how so ? If you wanna compare this with a Nordic woman, please post both pics side by side here so we can each see what the other is talking about rather than having to go back to the web site. I am posting 2 more links to Amrita Rao and 2 others, who, in my opinion, has very narrow jawline and sharp aryan features. My main objective is to demonstrate that there isn’t that great a difference between the physical features ( especially facial parameters ) of these women and Nordics except in hair, skin and eye color. 1.Udita Goswami 2.Amrita Rao 3. Katrina Kaif 4. Diya Mirza
Cheers. 66
Posted by Malcolm A on Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:50 | # Hi JR Re above post. I notice that the 2 Amrita Rao links did not post fully when uploading to your site. Others are working. Please type in percent symbol followed by 20 in the dotted gap after Amrita and before Rao to complete the link. com/stars/Amrita…...... Rao/pictures/4.shtml 67
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:56 | # Malcolm A, Classification of organisms in terms of genus and species is, of course, the norm, but it is a different matter when it comes to subspecies, i.e., race. There is no official acknowledgement of whether there are subspecies within humans, and for reasons that you have described correctly. Anyway, there is no way South Asians can be classified as Caucasoid when they have a substantial non-Caucasoid element in them. Even aside from genetics, only a minority of South Asians look Caucasoid. In my previous comment, I linked to a paper that shows finer facial features in Northern and Central Europeans compared to Southern Europeans and Middle Easterners; read it. I don’t believe I need to cite any papers on some of the more obvious differences such as height differences between European populations. You can look up W.W. Howell’s data for differences in skull shape between European populations:
I know that not all Indians are Hindu, but I believe that the Indian women that I have shown above are all Hindus, and Hindus being the dominant group in India, I might as well use Hindu as a proxy for Indian because Indian in the U.S. typically means Native American. Even though your links are malformed, I have been able to see the pictures of the women by copying and pasting the links. Anyway, now you are talking! Nothing beats an actual comparison of some of the best looking Indian women with good-looking Nordic women to see who looks better. Like I said previously, we will ignore pigmentation. First up is Udita Goswami. As you can clearly see below, Udita Goswami does not have European facial features, let alone Nordic facial features, and I cannot imagine any white man finding the face of Udita Goswami better than that of the Nordic woman shown to her right. Udita Goswami has facial features in between Caucasoids and Mongoloids, and there is no way colored contacts, bleached skin and blonde hair dye could make her look Nordic.
Next we consider Amrita Rao, who once again does not have European facial features, let alone Nordic facial features, and as in the case of Udita Goswami, her facial features lie in between Caucasoids and Mongoloids. Once again, I would be surprised if any white man found the face of Amrita Rao better than that of the Nordic woman shown to her right.
Now, let us consider Diya Mirza. Diya Mirza clearly does not have Nordic facial features; the gracile jaw and facial fineness seen among attractive Nordic women is simply lacking in Diya.
Finally, we consider Katrina Kaif. Katrina Kaif looks European, and is the closest to a Nordic among all your examples, but she is nowhere close to being among the best looking woman within a European context.
Between Katrina Kaif and attractive Nordic women, some white men will likely prefer Katrina, but in all other cases, few to no white men will prefer the facial features of the other Indian women that you have mentioned. Additionally, among the four Indian women that you have mentioned, only two—Diya Mirza and Katrina Kaif—have Caucasoid facial features, and your choices of the four women are no match for the fine facial features seen in attractive Nordic women. More importantly, your choices do not help your argument that between Indian/Hindu and Nordic women, the best looking are the ones with some combination of Indian and Nordic looks because of all the women that you have pointed out, the whitest, i.e., Katrina Kaif, will be seen as the most acceptable to the majority of white males. See if you can come up with better looking Indian women. 68
Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:16 | # Hi JR Thanks for the side by side comparisons. A I said, I am not good at posting pics. This, in fact, is the first time I am trying this stuff. Sorry about the bad links. 2, Some of your assumptions are correct while others are incorrect. Some of the women I have posted are not hindu ( religion ) I am pretty sure that Brahmins like Udita , Amrita Rao has no Mongoloid blood in them. 3. These wome certainly aren’t the best looking women in India. They are just good looking women with acting talent. If you have no acting talent you would not be an actress.So beauty is not the only criterion though it is a major one. ANd the same goes for the Nordics too. 1.Priyanka Chopra (Miss world 2000) 2.Amisha Patel 3. Celina Jaitley ( Miss universe 2nd runner up) More will follow. I really must find time to go into the various sites and get some more pics for you. Perhaps by the week end! As for your scientific argument I will post a detailed response as soon as I have time. Also one more thing before I go. As you’ve said here, the Nordics would certainly prefer the women you posted but then that is not the criterion. What would the whole world prefer ? Also we were discussing fine facial features and jawlines , and I think I see no difference between Amrita and the Nordic girl in you comparison. Also this comparison illustrates my point that Nordic women look too intense and masculine and aggressive as compared to the sweet, innocent and soft look of Amrita etc.. Also check out Amsiha Patel for the same reasons. Talk to you soon. Take care. 69
Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:26 | # JR I would have liked to see that one link of Udita with the blond wig that I posted , but perhaps you overlooked to post that pic. Gives a very good comparison. The one you have posted here is not from the link I posted .. Also some of Diya’s and Katrina’s pics are not from the links I have given above. Those would have given a better comparison ! Cheers 70
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 22 Apr 2006 21:25 | # Malcolm A, I said that the women whose pictures I posted above my previous comment were probably all Hindus, not that all pictures of Indian women on this page feature Hindus. Anyway, I am just using Hindu as a proxy for Indian, as explained previously. You are mistaken that Brahmins do not have any Mongoloid ancestry. Some of the genetic data about castes in India that you have cited shows absorption of the mitochondrial DNA of low caste Hindus by the higher caste people, revealing female-biased Asiatic ancestry of the upper caste Hindus. Besides, Mongoloid ancestry is clearly evident in the facial features of Udita Goswami (there is no way you could say that her face is Caucasoid). Acting ability is required on the part of an actress and may not coincide with good looks, but given India’s large population and the romantic theme of the vast majority of Indian movies, one expects to see some of the best looking Indian women as lead actresses, and so far your choices are nowhere as good looking as the best looking Nordic women. You have asked what would the World prefer? I think most would prefer the Nordic women to the Hindu/Indian women in the comparisons above and also below. How can you not see any differences in the jawline and degree of fineness of facial features between Amrita Rao and the Nordic woman to her right? The Hindu has more massive jaws, larger cheekbones, a broader nose and a pasty face. The Nordic woman has much more refined and sharper features. I don’t see how you see the Nordic woman as having more intense and masculine features! The pictures of the Indian women that I have used are mostly different from the ones that you have linked to for good reasons: your pictures are not clear and often too small. For instance, you asked me to use a picture of Udita Goswami with a blond wig, but the photo you linked to was too small. I found a larger version of it, and as you can see below, her hair is obscuring a lot of her facial features, and she does not look Nordic at all.
Now, I will post the pictures that you have linked to, followed by clearer comparisons. You linked to the following picture of Priyanka Chopra.
However, a clearer picture of Priyanka Chopra clearly reveals non-Caucasoid facial features and nothing approaching the fine looks of a Nordic woman.
You linked to the following pictures of Amisha Patel. Both your links show obscured features.
On the other hand, a clearer picture of Amisha Patel shows heavy-set non-Caucasoid features that are completely devoid of the refined features of attractive Nordic women.
You linked to the following pictures of Celina Jaitley.
However, the following clearer picture of Celina Jaitley shows non-Caucasoid facial features that are far removed from Nordic fineness.
This time all three women that you have chosen have non-Caucasoid facial features with clear evidence of part-Mongoloid ancestry. How can the heavy features of these women compare to the fine features of attractive Nordic women? 71
Posted by Malcolm A on Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:00 | # Hi JR First of, several inconsistencies in the points you have raised. 1. It is the differences in the pic’s ( angle, light etc ) rather than the differences in the faces that stand out ; i.e : compare the 1st 2 pics of Udita and Priyanka with those of the 3 Nordics you have posted and I see hardly any difference in the overall facial structure/features. It is just differences in the angles of the specific portraits that stand out . 2. I agree that Amisha and Celina do have somewhat more smaller and less angular facial bone structures, but so do lots of nordic like Britney Spears etc. It is just that you have Second of, my point in posting Amisha and Celina’s pics was to demonstrate that they have much more feminine, softer looks compared to the Nordic women in you next to last post The woman you have posted next to Amrita Rao ( Sarah Peachez) looks like she could kill some one, point being projection of aggressive appearance ( not saying she is really that way). Indian women are on average, much more respectful, gentle and tolerant to adversities in life, which probably accounts for the very low divorce rates (<7%) in the 3. Some of the Nordic women you posted apear to have brown hair ( Charlize Theron ) showing that it is all in the pic ( brown filter). Also most of them have a very unhealthy looking pinkish skin color ( Annah next to Amisha Patel ). 4. As for Celina Jaitley, she was 3rd runner up in Miss Universe, and her boyfriend is a Nordic movie producer ( ? Teague ), who is lving in India for the last 3 years . I don’t think Charlize even compares. Maybe someone like Kate Beckingsale ? ( One good looking Nordic in my book ) 5. As for Udita’s blond pic, her jaw looks pretty pointy to me and if you are calling her Mongoloid, what about Catherine Zeta Jones and Rene Zeilweger ? Pretty chinkish looking In regards to Brahmins Maternal DNA ( mitochondrial ) being mixed with lower castes it is the otherway about. Brahmins were infusing their genes into the lower castes. Brahmins could sleep w/ any women they wanted. 6. A VERY IMPORTANT POINT before I go. You mentioned that this non-Nordic beauty trend is a recent phenomenon ( ‘90s) caused by political correctness, but Indian women have been appreciated for their beauty as early as in the 1950s and 60s too. i]. Ayesha , Queen of Jaipur : Find below, some more south Indian filmstars who are supposed to be Dravidian Caucasoids , but look pretty northern. Also as you’ve posted Grace Kelly etc., I am posting a coupla pics of Indian movie stars from yesteryear. i]Asin (South Indian)
ii]Simran (south Indian) iii]Sneha Ullal(2000s) iv]sonali bendre(1980s) v]sadhana (1960s) 72
Posted by Phil Peterson on Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:23 | # “Malcolm A”, You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Earlier on this thread you said that Indian women were the most beautiful because they were of mixed race. Now you say Indian (“Upper Caste”) women are not mixed because the mixing occured lower down in the social structure because the (“Upper Caste”) men could have sex with any women they wanted. 73
Posted by Malcolm A on Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:48 | # Hi Phil JR’s contention was that Brahmins are mixed with Mongoloids and low castes etc..And I was trying to show that Brahmins could cause their genes into the lower castes but the lower castes were not able to infuse theirs into the Brahmins. Maternal DNA is carried from mother to progeny, and means that the Brahmin men took non Brahmin women and not the other way around. 2. When it comes to Indians ‘mixed’ is often used but is misleading . The proponents of the Aryan Theory like Spencer Wells argue that Aryans [ (M17) R1a1 carriers] displaced and later admixed with darker Dravidians who were non aryans, BUT were and are still considered Caucasian in Systematics. 3. Also, for a Brahmin, a lower caste could mean the warrior caste (Kshatriya) or merchat caste ( Vaishya). So here the word ‘mixed’ has to be considered in a totally different context. 74
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:43 | # Malcolm A, You have to be kidding me that you cannot see any differences between the facial features in the specific pictures of Udita Goswami and Priyanka Chopra you mention and the Nordic women that I have compared them to. Notwithstanding the obfuscation (by hair or angle) and the small size, some prominent differences are clearly visible. For instance, in the photo of Udita Goswami with blondish hair coloring, you can see widely spaced eyes, a somewhat flattened nose (especially in the upper region ), somewhat flared nostrils, a tendency toward having slanted eyes and massive cheekbones; all these traits are leaning toward the Asiatic rather than the European. You address Udita’s chin, but most of the variation in humans as far as the chin is concerned is within populations, and you need to look at the overall face to see evidence of racial ancestry. You are right that Catherine Zeta Jones and Renee Zellweger do not have very European facial features, and this is the major reason why these women are unattractive. Their glamorous portrayal is make-up magic. More importantly, very few Nordics (and Catherine Zeta Jones certainly isn’t one) have multiple facial features shifted toward East Asian facial features, but most of the Indian women shown on this page have facial features shifted toward East Asian norms, including the aboriginals in southeast Asia. I did not say anything about Amisha Patel and Celina Jaitley having smaller facial bones; their facial bones (especially cheekbones and jaws) are more massive than those of the Nordic women. Controlling for face size, Nordic women have longer faces than Indian women, on average. Anyway, Britney Spears is not an attractive woman and it is pointless to address her looks. Amisha Patel and Celina Jaitley have less angular features than white women, and this is what you are calling softer features. Well, having more Mongoloid ancestry than Nordic women is bound to make their features less angular, but the reduced extent of angular features in them is not due to greater femininity but because of greater Mongoloid ancestry, instead. Their facial bones are more massive than those of the Nordic women, and this makes them look less feminine. Additionally, the part-Mongoloid pasty features of their faces are not what most whites prefer. Besides, I doubt that there are very many white men who would prefer the robust facial features of Celina Jaitley to that of the finer facial features of Charlize Theron. The Nordic woman next to Amrita Rao looks aggressive? Are you kidding me? She has much more refined looks and a finer bone structure than Amrita. I cannot comment on the gentleness of Indian and Nordic women since I have barely interacted with Indian women, not come across any relevant studies, and have known plenty of good-natured Nordic women, but the most likely reasons for the low divorce rate in India are 1) massive female illiteracy and low status of women, which make women dependent on men, forcing them to suffer male abuse without divorce as a practical option, and 2) a biased sex ratio, whereby reduced female availability implies than some men who do not like their wives would rather have a helping hand at home than try their luck at getting a new wife. Yes, Charlize Theron does have brown hair, but so what? Not all Nordics have blond hair. With the exception of some parts of Scandinavia, only a minority of Northern Europeans have blond hair in adulthood. Brahmins surely have been transferring their genes to the lower castes, but they also have absorbed lower caste genes among them—including the lowest caste and untouchable people—via upwardly mobile lower caste/untouchable females. Here is proof:
So you find pink skin unhealthy looking? Like I said, this comparison should ignore pigmentation because we are addressing facial features, but as far as I am concerned, pink skin is preferable to yellow or yellow-brown skin. Besides, pink skin can usually be changed with a little help from the sun, and in Nordics this produces a beautiful bronze tone that is devoid of the yellowish tinge in Asiatics, and one can always resort to a spray-on tan to avoid unnecessary skin damage and/or if the Nordic cannot tan. I did not say anything about a recent non-Nordic trend in beauty pageants; a focus on appreciating Nordic beauty has been problematic since the time the Nazis were in power. What has been seen in recent years is a sudden notable improvement in the placement of Indian women in beauty pageants. You mention four examples of Indian women being appreciated for their beauty in the 1960s. Big deal! A population of several hundred million people with a significant Caucasoid element is bound to produce a handful of very good looking women. And, here are some pictures of the four women that you have mentioned. Maharani Gayatri Devi, with features in between Caucasoid and Mongoloid, but she does look good.
Leela Naidu, with Caucasoid facial features but nothing approaching a fine Nordic nose.
Rita Faria (on the right; couldn’t find a better picture of her).
Shakira Baksh, with nothing Caucasoid about her looks, and she looks much worse than both the white women next to her.
If the 4 women above were among the best looking among hundreds of millions of Indian women in the 1960s, then the apparent conclusion is that beauty is largely alien to Indian women, with the best looking also happening to be the closest to Caucasians. And, here are some more comparisons based on the newer women that you have mentioned. Asin, with a hooked nose (apparent in lateral view); compare the fineness of her nose and other features to that of the Nordic woman.
The manly Simran who doesn’t look Caucasoid, compared to a Nordic woman whom I don’t particularly like, but I am going easy on Simran.
The aboriginal-featured Sneha Ullal.
The coarse-featured Sonali Bendre.
The masculine and part-Mongoloid Sadhana.
Once again, none of the Indian women that you have pointed out are any match for the fine facial features of Nordic women. 75
Posted by Jules on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 07:20 | # Well I read a lot of the post and as a Nordic woman, I can honestly say I am NOT ATTRACTED To most white men, unless they have brown hair or eyes. Those of English descents with their dark features, I find attractive. Now I agree with Malcom to some extent, some of the women are attractive, however some of them not to my standards of taste, such as Rai, whose figure I would say is “Overweight.” However someone posted pictures of indian women next to nordic women, an on the contrary, I found that most of the indian women were actually better looking then the nordics. Yes majority of inidan people are indigeneous and not appealing to me, but those women are prettier then the nordic women compared to them. Just because you have blond hair blue eyes does not mean you are beautiful. You are beautiful because certain features are attractive and overall your face is shaped nice etc I am constantly sunning myself because I hate the paleness of skin colors and I would hate for people to say that I or any other Nordic women tan because we are trying to be more ethnic, just as I can understand when someone says a negroid or mongloid or asian or latin wants to have lighter skin because they want to be white. If one was smarter and well traveled, you would know that in those countries, perhaps not latin america as most do seem to want to be white, but in those of Indians or asians, they want lighter complexion to show that they are not poor field hands but rather wealthy people who are pale due to being in their house all day. Again, yes I wish to preserve the aryan roots, but unfortuantely, mine and many of my nordic friends are always attracted to the dark haired men whether they be latin, white or anything else that deems attractive. You know how they say, opposites attract, so perhaps, you could date women who dyes their hair blond. 76
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:51 | # Jules, Try to seperate the influence of your biology, which is eternal and true, from your own suggestibility, as evinced by your interest in obtaining a tan. Little in what you have said is free from influence from without your own psyche, and strongly infers the powerful embrace of modernity. As freedom is not self-expression when the expressions are acquired from without, so sexual preference is not genuine when it favours other races over one’s own for the same reason. In that regard, women are situated somewhat differently to men, since sociobiologically they must adapt to accept tribal victors so as to pass on their own genes in whatever circumstances prevail. But in evolutionary time tribalism is not antipathetic to racialism - tribal competitors, victorious or not, would likely be extremely close genetically. The golden letters inscribed on the entrance of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi remain a better guide to freedom than liberalism. 77
Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:24 | # Hi JR Thanks for the detailed response. This time I will try to respond in detail too. 1.
I assume you must have some grounding in science. I am a field Biologist who has authored over 40 research articles in accredited journals and know something about scietific research methodology. Why I state this is for the following reasons. i) There are individual variations within populations ( chance or random ) and often two close but different populations overlap at their tail ends. The diffferences between Udita, Priyanka etc and the Nordics you have posted are individual variations within a population or ones that fall within the overlapping zones. These do not prove anything. (Type I and II errors in Biometry). ii) This is why I inquired whether you possess or know of any publications proving a significant statistical difference between a combination of facial featues ( not just one or two ) between nordic and non-nordic Caucasians, which may prove that their facial structure pputs them in entirely different statistical populations. iii ) The research papers you have provided are largely theoretical and do not provide any methodology, data or analysis thereof.
Catherine Zeta Kones was voted the second or 3rd most attractive woman in the world ( behind Aishwarya Rai ) by a recent poll in the UK. SO I am not sure whether you are on solid ground with the above theory of yours.. 3.
Amisha and Celina would certainly look different and appear to have less ‘massive’ jaws, if the angles were different and if I could post pics I would be able to post some Nordics with ‘massive’ jaws too..So you have the edge over me in posting the pics… About longer faces , again, do you have a definitive statistical study ? About Britney’s looks , we Americans would disagree with you totally. Folks here were crazy about her [before marriage]...Nordic and everything you know… 4.
In fact, as I said, Celina’s boyfriend is a white man who moved to India to be with her ! And about Charlize , did you know that her mom shot her dad ? So some aggressiveness is certainly present. 4.
This is wrong. If the women were aggressive the men would divorce them. So the women’s status does not apply. THe availability of women does not apply to all parts of India equally ( true only in a few parts ) and in China it is even lower. 5.
As i said, i. In India the elite families look down on movie industry and women who act in them ( a a form of exhibitionism and prostitution ) and would rather die than send their women to Bollywood. Though some change has occured in recent years ( Amisha Patel ) ii. India has 1 billion + and even if 1% of them were pretty it would be a very big number ( more than 4 ). As I said I move a lot in elite Indian circles here in N America and have seen Indian girls who can beat even Ash Rai in looks and no body even heard of them. iii. Actually there were a lot of Nordics winning in the 50s to the 80s. It is just that the Indians , Latins etc are beginning to TRAIN better and speak and carry themselves better so that their superior looks are not masked by POISE. 5.
Your argument does not hold. Did you know that a panel of judges voted Aishwarya Rai (India, 1994 ) the most beautiful Miss World EVER, Claudine Auger (France in 1958 ) the most beautiful 1st runner up EVER, and Shakira Baksh (Indian 1967 ) the most beautiful 2nd runner up EVER, as recently as in 2003.. The judges were [ international panel w/ NO Indians] Ms. Janet Boring (photo), Miss New York State and Miss United State’s 1st runner-up from 1961, Dawid Baraniak, Poland , Nick C, Turkey/NewZealand , Markku Erkkila, Finland , David Aizik, Israel, Donald West, Canada, Heidar Jonsson, Iceland, Lee Grindley, England , Peter Sereno, Australia/Philippines , Woojae Chung, Korea, Alberto Dubal, Brazil , Rafael Delfin, USA/Philippines , Marjukka Nieminen, Finland , Jimmy Steele, Canada and Julio Rodriguez,Venezuela http://www.globalbeauties.com/contests/mw2ndru.htm So please dont say that this was a poll result with Indians voting en masse. 7. Asin has a hooked nose etc.. This is mostly because of selective posting of pics. I am sure you have seen better pics of most of these women but did not post them. Would you post the 3 pics of Asin that I linked and then maybe we will compare. 6. Brahmin ancestry As this is a scientific subject I will reply below with some references. Cheers 78
Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:12 | # JR As for your theory about the ancestry of Brahmins, here is an abstract of a very recent study published in Ann. Hum. Biol. using Mt DNA variations. Mitochondrial DNA variation in ranked caste groups of Maharashtra (India) and its implication on genetic relationships and origins. Ann Hum Biol 2003 Jul-Aug;30(4):443-54.
This clearly indicates that whatever genetic infusion it was that took place into Brahmins was not sufficiently significant to alter their racial sub-group status. If it is your contention that even mild incorporation of non Aryan genes would contaminate the Aryans, welcome to the real world ! Even we Nordics carry a lot of non Caucasian genes that are common to other groups as we all emanated from Africa ( re Stephen Oppenheimer’s The Real Eve. Modern Man’s Journey Out of Africa ?? not sure if the title is exact ). Also, responding to Phil Peterson’s commnets above, no one is arguing that Indo Aryans and Nordics are different sub groups. relative to Nordics the Indo Aryans ( Iranians ) are indeed different ( ‘mixed’ if you will ). But my contention in stating that brahmins aren’t mixed is that they remained largely isolated form other non-aryan groups such as Mongoloids and Dravid Caucasians, which is proven by the above study Think Iranian when I refer to Aryans and not the Nordic aryans. These two groups split , reconnected and split again many a time durng the course of history. Accounts for the lighter, peachier pale skin color of the Iranians [ as opposed to the less pigmented Nordic paleness] that most Northen Indians (Punjabis, kashmiris, konkana Brahmins etc ) carry. 79
Posted by Jules on Thu, 27 Apr 2006 07:48 | # Whoever quoted that Catherine Zeta Jones was not attractive is absoulutely crazy!! there is nothing about that woman that isn’t perfect! Rene I find unique looking, not beautiful but rare and different. Blond hair and blue eyes have become so common nowadays. As for someone’s comment saying that white men prefer to date Nordic women over other races, please tell me where, I am a very attractive Nordic woman and get plenty of attention and admiration, however my friend who is half nordic and half asian of some sort, as soon as any man or woman sees her, its as if I or anyone else does not exist!! We have traveled all over the world, and no matter where we go, whatever race we encounter, the girl seems to hold some sort of spell over people because as long as she is around, its as if men who love nordic women forget that they do. So to say that most white men prefer a nordic woman is based on my experience and many other people’s experience absolutely wrong!! I wonder where are you based that such an argument can be made?? 80
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:45 | # Jules, Personal experience is no basis for disinterring Truth, and even popular conceptions are invariably misconceptions. For what it’s worth, I find non-white skin and facial features disinteresting. I look at a woman through a race-aware sexuality, and regard those of my countrymen who do not do likewise as slaves to fashions of which they are sublimely ignorant. 81
Posted by Phil Peterson on Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:24 | # I am a very attractive Nordic woman and get plenty of attention and admiration, however my friend who is half nordic and half asian of some sort, as soon as any man or woman sees her, its as if I or anyone else does not exist!! Some Asian-white mixes do look good. But then there are many that do not. I have seen many Asian/white mixes in London and there are some that do not even deserve a second glance. It all depends. In addition, I have never been attracted to Mongoloid or Negroid women. But there are lots of white men who prefer asian women. I would say that those who do are generally incapable of winning over the better looking white women (this may not be universally true but it generally holds). Culture also plays a part. I hope I will be forgiven for saying this by my American friends and colleagues here. I have never, with one notable exception, been attracted to any American women I ever met (although they may not be a representative sample). Even the better looking ones sounded more masculine (and Im not alluding to the tone of someone’s voice but more to the manner and style of speaking and their demeanour). European women tend to be more feminine (although there are many that are obviously not). Incidentally, the American girl I found attractive grew up in Britain! This has less to do with race (if we consider that there are many Nordic women in America too) and more to do with culture. Also, unlike JR, I do find some Italian and Greek women very attractive. As I have written on a previous thread, the best looking woman I have yet seen, IMO, is probably Monica Bellucci (when she was younger). 82
Posted by Phil Peterson on Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:40 | # and regard those of my countrymen who do not do likewise as slaves to fashions of which they are sublimely ignorant. Someone should do a study as to what types of women and shapes very considered beautiful in which age. Looking at paintings a from a few centuries ago and we find most of the women in the paintings (when seen from my 21st century lens) obese or at least very plump. I would not consider them attractive. But they were clearly the standard of beauty at one time and that is why they were chosen as models for those paintings. At the other extreme, we have anorexic women with little more than skin and bones on their body dominating the fashion ramps (for reasons we all know) these days. So fashions obviously keep changing. And given the modern/post-modern obsession with multiculturalism, it comes as no surprise that race-mixed women are elevated to some sort of platform (which may not have happened in another time). 83
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 28 Apr 2006 18:50 | # Jules, Nobody here is arguing that blond hair and blue eyes make one beautiful. The issue is the attractiveness of people with a high frequency of these traits (Nordics) versus those with an absence of these traits (e.g., South Asian Indians), and with Malcolm, the debate specifically is about the best looking Nordic and Indian women. The comparisons are one of facial features and the physique [most of the data pertaining to the physique are in the form of citations rather than pictures]. The fact that you like dark eyes and dark hair is not relevant, and is in fact true of several white women, but if you find the facial features of the Indian women better than those of the Nordic women in the comparisons, on average, then you surely are an outlier among whites. Once again, the aforementioned comparisons address facial features, not pigmentation. Regarding your tanning, you are just tanning and not trying to have your facial features surgically altered to make it more non-white, which cannot be described in terms of your trying to look more ethnic, but the non-whites who are trying to lighten themselves are also disproportionately going for plastic surgery to make their features look less ethnic and are thereby trying to look whiter. Regarding your argument that you, an attractive Nordic woman, barely gets noticed if you are standing next to a white-Asian friend, I will believe you if I see a picture of you and your Asian friend together. Host it at imageshack.us and link to it or click on the contact link at the top of this image and email it to the site owner (use the email address mentioned since emailing the owner from within this site will not allow you to send attachments). As far as my being absolutely crazy for not finding Catherine Zeta Jones attractive goes, I will let the following image speak for itself; even with extensive plastic surgery, she is no match for Nordic beauty.
Malcolm A, Regarding your comment concerning Type I and Type II errors, even if you compare blacks and whites, the majority of the overall variation with respect to several skeletal parameters will be found within populations and only a minority between, yet there will be no difficulty in separating blacks and whites if a sufficiently numerous cluster of traits are examined. More relevant to our discussion, yes there are Nordic women with massive cheekbones, Nordic women with large jaws, Nordic women with weakly developed chins, Nordic women with somewhat flattened noses, Nordic women with hooked noses, etc., but examining the cluster of traits such as jaw shape, nose shape, cheekbone shape, etc. clearly reveals Indians to be physically distinct from Europeans and especially Nordics. Your own pictures reveal that the majority cannot be said to have Caucasoid features, let alone Nordic facial features, and most show some combination of European and East Asian features, which dovetails with the two major population affinities of South Asians. You have asked again whether there are data that show statistically significant differences between the facial features of Nordic and non-Nordic Caucasians. Did you not notice that I cited two of W.W. Howells’ books on this issue in a previous comment? They have all the skull measurements you could want and are not devoid of data analysis. You can download W.W. Howells’ data and run a cluster analysis on it to see if all Caucasoid populations are indistinguishable from each other. Howells’ did not include South Asian Indians, but then South Asian Indians are not Caucasian, as shown below. In a study of racial variation in facial flatness, South Asians, including people from Punjab and Delhi, both in the Northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent, thereby comprising of Indians that are closest to Europeans genetically, had, compared to whites, multiple facial features shifted toward Australian aborigines, Melanesians and related people in Southeast Asia; the Indians had flatter forehead profiles, a deeper infraglabellar notch, less projecting nasal bones and more protruding jaws at the level of the teeth. See:
So you have multiple shifts in average features of South Asians toward southeast Asiatics, even in people in Northwestern India, and an aboriginal contribution to South Asians is self-evident to any astute observer of the facial features of South Asians. Is this an example of variation within a race supposedly comprising of both whites and the majority of South Asians? Consider the following genetic study.
Here is another study you need to look at.
Thus, the facial features of Central Asians and the Northwestern inhabitants of South Asia would be in between Europeans and East Asians, just as several Russians bordering the Mongoloid World clearly show Mongoloid influence in their facial features. So do you believe that there is anything anomalous about the pictures of Hindus/Indians on this page, most of which show features in between Europeans and East Asians, and will you still insist on classifying the majority of South Asians as belonging to the same race as whites? Mitochondrial DNA behaves as one locus, and notwithstanding the mtDNA paper that you cite whereby Brahmins can be distinguished genetically from low caste Hindus, the multi-loci studies above are quite informative and show Hindus as not belonging to the same race as whites. As a group, Northern Europeans can be genetically distinguished from Southern Europeans just as Brahmins can be distinguished from non-Brahmin Hindus, but both Southern and Northern Europeans belong to the same race but Hindus do not belong to the same race as whites. The important thing that you do not seem to appreciate is that the classification of Hindus as outside the race of whites can be made using a cluster of facial features alone. Continued below. 84
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 28 Apr 2006 18:52 | # Reply to Malcolm A. continued from above: Regarding the placement of the likes of Catherine Zeta Jones and Britney Spears in some prominent lists of attractive/sexy women, these lists are based on celebrities, and famous women who look decent though not really good and have some talents will invariably end up on such lists. This does not mean that these women are particularly good looking. Regarding my edge over you when it comes to posting pictures, this is half true, and the reason is your ignorance. For instance, you can host images at imageshack.us or a similar free host and hotlink to the images in you entries. Yes, you could find pictures of Amisha Patel and Celina Jaitley where their jaws look less massive, but this will be because of the obscure nature of the pictures rather than because these women do not possess massive jaws in reality. Note that in the comparisons that I have shown, I have tried to show pictures that are sufficiently large and the women posed in a roughly similar manner. So what if Celina Jaitley has a white boyfriend? This is a sample size of one and doesn’t prove at all that many white men will prefer her facial features to those of Charlize Theron. You have made the absurd claim that some aggressiveness is present in Charlize Theron because her mom shot her dad! Behavior genetics studies of the heritability of aggression do not reveal anything close to genetic factors explaining the majority of the variance in aggression. You have argued that pictures can and do make a difference by pointing out Charlize Theron’s brown hair. Well, her brown roots are evident in the picture, and once again we are not discussing pigmentation. More importantly, I have myself pointed put that your pictures are sometimes too small or obscure as in the two pictures of Amisha Patel that you linked to. Therefore, I am acknowledging that the angles and obfuscations in pictures can make a difference. This is the reason that I have tried to provide sufficiently large pictures and similar posing angles in the comparisons. Regarding my comment on the most likely reasons why the divorce rate is low in India, you have ignored a major reason and pointed out that if the women were aggressive then men would divorce them and therefore the women’s status does not apply! All right, look at it this way. A desire to divorce can arise in either partner. However, if you have massive female illiteracy and low status of women such that few can lead an independent existence, then women-initiated divorce will generally not be feasible. This should substantially reduce the divorce rate. Then, it is very reasonable to postulate that if a man doesn’t like his wife for any reason (not necessarily aggression), and there is a shortage of women, and the man is guaranteed of a woman that cooks and cleans for him if he remains married to her, then why would the man want to divorce the woman unless he was forced to? India does not having a widespread dating culture, especially in its villages, and if a man who is not young divorces his wife, then how easy will it be to obtain another woman and how easy will it be for a not-young woman to obtain a new husband? Therefore, the appropriate conclusion is that the discrepancy in divorce rates between the U.S. and India do not suggest that the supposed greater aggressiveness of Nordic women plays any role in the discrepancy. First you post pictures of Indian women, apparently mostly actresses, to point out really good looking Indian women and now you claim that these are not the best looking women because elite families will not let their women act in movies. Well, the page where I got the picture of Leela Naidu from mentioned that Leela, a high caste Hindu, was an actress at a time when high caste women would generally not be among the movies stars, but this was decades ago and things have changed considerably. Therefore, your point doesn’t apply. You have mentioned that you move in elite Indian circles in the U.S. and have seen Indian women who look much better than Aishwarya Rai [whose lack of attractiveness is apparent in the pictures posted in the entry and comments]. Why don’t you photograph some of them and post their pictures? Then I will see whether they look anywhere as attractive as beautiful Nordics. You can tell them that this is for modeling opportunities. This site does get a decent amount of hits and if these women are good looking, then some people may enquire about contacting these women. On the other hand, your statement about having seen really good looking Indian women—who look better than the best looking Nordic women— is a mere statement and you need to come up with actual pictures to make others believe your point. Like you, I could mention anecdotal experiences, too. For instance, I have been to India and have traveled through Bombay and New Delhi. I don ‘t recall seeing any Indian woman whose facial features looked Nordic, and I found none of them attractive, and most of my interactions were with upper class people who were presumably upper caste people. Two of the people that I interacted with extensively had the last names of Sharma and Chatrvedi (not sure of the spellings). Maybe you can tell us what caste these people belong to based on their last names. In a previous comment of yours, you asked why I was beating a dead horse, i.e., mentioning more about the looks of Aishwarya Rai? However, you have rehashed your argument by pointing out that Aishwarya Rai has been named the most beautiful Miss World ever—by an international team of judges—and mention Shakira Baksh in a similar vein. Well, all Miss World competitions are judged by an international team of people with some distinction. Therefore, if Miss World organization can crown an unattractive woman like Aishwarya Rai as Miss World 1994, then why should it be surprising if she is named the most beautiful Miss World ever by it? Once again, it is evident from her pictures on this page that she is part-Mongoloid, has massive cheekbones, thick lips, large jaws, a hooked nose and other unappealing features in a European context. Try to understand that international beauty pageants are hardly about beauty or else the likes of Aishwarya Rai or Shakira Baksh would not even be competing. And do you believe that the hook-nosed appearance of Asin is because of the selective picture that I have posted? The picture that I have posted does not reveal a hooked nose, but I mentioned this because I saw her hooked nose in a different picture, and I am posting it below.
On the other hand, not one of your links to Asin’s pictures reveals that the woman has a hooked nose because the pictures don’t show her in profile view. 85
Posted by Malcolm A on Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:30 | # Hi J.R. Hey, thanks for the detailed technical analysis including citations and references which purportedly support your view. However, I wish to raise a couple of points… 1.
As you may observe, I have clearly said they are different sub groups of Caucasians.(i) The Nordindic Indo Aryans and (ii) the Nordic Aryans. The arguments laid out by you only support this very superficial difference ( skin color, hair color, eye color differences ). Your references including those of TT Howell, Hanihara et al, Yang et al, Rosenberg et al are merely cluster studies based on cluster analysis , which is specifically a technique used in taxonomic studies. These are useful in placing various inter-related groups in common clusters rather than prove significant morphological variation. I have done a few of those myself. In fact, L.L. Cavalli Sforza’s A MAP OF HUMAN HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY ( Title ?? ) almost solely depended on such claustering and ran into some criticism, though I agree with his basic assumptions within the confines of Cluster Analysis. BUT, what you need for conclusive proof of your hypothesis is a simple statistical study like a 2 sample t, F test etc showing that these 2 groups fall into entirely morphologically different sub groups statistically.
A very general and erroneous statement. Hindus ( Indians ) are not from one race anyway. There are Mongoloids (Assam etc ), Semitics (Jews ) among others in India. What would you call Nepalese Hindus ? You rely on cluster analysis way too often. Clustering can prove that Toy Poodles and Regular Poodles fall into different clusters , BUT they are still poodles. 3.
So how about Grace Kelly, Chynna Phillips, Charlize Theron etc.. that you posted. Same theory applies to them then ? So both of us are wasting time comparing women who are NOT particularly good looking ?
I have already admitted and apologized for my weakness in posting pics, and was hoping that you would act in good faith by posting only the very same links that I post for the sake of our discussion. This would enhance the quality of our debate and strengthen each other’s hand, as otherwise I could always maintain that you have overlooked the pics I wanted posted because you were afraid they would PROVE my point. 5.
. Obviously Celina is NOT the only one. I am married to one too !! and that makes two. What matters is NOT what whites prefer but what the whole world prefers ( Remember we are comparing universal beauty ?) 6. 7. 8. Sharma , Chaturvedi ( Not Chtrvedi) etc could belong to a lot of different castes as Indians change their last names all the time. My wife is Kashmiri hindu ( paternal) and Punjabi/Farsi Xtian (maternal) who has lived 3 generations in the USA. She’s Been to India only twice and does not even speak Pun.. 9. 10. I am also taking up your argument that she looks pudgy etc.. in the post below and I challenge you to post both pics that I have linked below, they are. and compare them with any other Nordic that you may care to, for slimness of figure, beauty, skin tone, and symmetry as well as excellence of facial featues etc.. Gotta go. My challenge appears in the post below. Cheers 86
Posted by Malcolm A on Fri, 28 Apr 2006 23:13 | # Hi J.R. Here is the challenge that I talked about in the previous post. Please post these pics as theyare and in No 1, I have a very clear shot of Ashwaryas face when she was at her peak and 1. 2. For the sake of comparison, please do post the pics as they appear ( regardless of whether in your opinion, they are obfuscate or links were broken etc ) Ash Rai, when she was at her peak, was declared So it is difficult to accept your word at face value that she is a rather unattractive woman, and as they say ” A pic is worth a 1000 words ” Although. pushing 32 now, she was a stunner when she was at her peak. P.S. Here’s a bonus of Urmila matondkar, declared one of the sexiest women in the world by MAXIM mag http://www.phoolwala.net/filmstars/images/urmila/urmila matondkar3.jpg Cheers 87
Posted by Jules on Sat, 29 Apr 2006 05:00 | # On the posting of Catherine Z Jones, There is no comparison to posting a pic of a girl when she was 16 to now a woman of 38. NO ONE looks the same, either you get worst or you get better!! She doesnt look like she has had plastic surgery, on the contrary their are bogus websites out there that claim that so and so had this done which is all bull, because they take a pic of someone at a different lighting or different make up and say look, he had this done or she had that done. Thats rediculous! But thats how those sites make money and attract people to them. Dont believe all the crap they put out there on the internet! On posting a picture, 1) I am not savvy enough to post on the image thing and 2) Do not wish to expose myself so disgustingly and 3) would never betray anyone that I care about and post their pictures up for the world to see. Just put it this way, we both went in for modeling and got the agents interest, but shes the one that books all the ads. Maybe she just has a charm about her. Why dont whoever asked me to post, post some pictures of themselves up and I will tell you if you are an attractive nordic man or not?? I also want to say Phil, Are you from England?? Do you think Keira Knightly is attractive?? Women in america are attractive, but it depends on where you go. 88
Posted by Phil Peterson on Sat, 29 Apr 2006 07:37 | # I also want to say Phil, Are you from England?? Yep Do you think Keira Knightly is attractive?? Yep Women in america are attractive, but it depends on where you go. Well, I think my argument might have been misunderstood. I wasn’t saying that American women don’t look good. They do. But feminine charm is less common among American women than among European women. I am open to being contradicted on this obviously. It isn’t a very strong opinion I have. Just an observation from personal experience. 89
Posted by Steve Edwards on Sat, 29 Apr 2006 18:14 | # The film depicting Aishwarya and Will Smith, as husband and wife, or perhaps as lovers, simply has to be made. It will certainly test the true convictions of a few bloggers out there, but I don’t have to name names, now, do I? 90
Posted by Phil Peterson on Sun, 30 Apr 2006 05:00 | # Steve, That’s an interesting point. I have a feeling those chaps will swallow a few bullets on that one. Here are my own thoughts on it. I think I disagree with the majority of people on this blog who say that the Subcon and Oriental bloggers act in furtherance of their respective EGIs in promoting race-mixing for whites. I don’t think that is the real motive. Their actual motives are more petty than that - individual self interest in being able to do as they please since that is the defining principle of everything they hold politically. Note that petty self interest and EGI do not always converge. I don’t think they will object too much. The majority of those people are believers in borderless cosmopolitanism (which serves their petty individual interests). Will Smith had an oriental play opposite to him in one of his earlier films (Wild Wild West, I think it was). I don’t think they complained too much. The reaction in Aishwarya Rai’s native India might be different though. 91
Posted by Malcolm A on Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:55 | # Hi Phil
In regards to the above comment, I must say that I do NOT view anyone here as Neanderthals. What J.R. and I are trying to discuss , I believe, is does beauty fall on a curve, or is it more dependant on the degree of the purity of gene expression. My contention is, though individual racial groups or sub-groups may contend that theirs is the most beautiful, gene expression tends to favor the average global gene pool rather than any isolated gene pool, and in India such a global representation exists due to migrations from all over the globe into India during the course of history . J.R. obviously has other ideas . As I said earlier I was born in the sub continent, but I can assure you I am not a sub con. As for Ash Rai and Will Smith, explicit sex scenes are not popular in India even among Indian film stars. So naturally it will be body double or nothing if such a scene is in the script. I am sure Ash rai will NOT jeopardize her global status by doing such a scene. cheers 92
Posted by Malcolm A on Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:23 | #
The film can be made. But, in India no one acts out explicit sex scenes with any one, white, black or blue. Would be suicidal. So body double it is, if at all. Also, no one here is advocating race nixing. It is a debate about admixture and beauty statistics. Not whether admixture is advisable or NOT. I have both white and admixed offspring cheers 93
Posted by raj on Mon, 01 May 2006 20:38 | # J Rich you could have chosen better looking Indian women then the pic posted above. go through all the pages http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=8875&st=80 94
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 01 May 2006 21:27 | # Jules, Where have I posted a picture of Catherine Zeta Jones at 16? Both pictures show her as an adult. Now, how is it possible for a woman in her mid-30s to have a better looking face than in her early-20s? Hint: Heavy make-up and plastic surgery; look at the picture carefully. Anyway, I don’t see how you would be exposed in a disgusting manner by posting your picture here (hotlinking an image hosted at imageshack). If you indeed are an attractive Nordic woman, you will only be praised, and if you are not so attractive, then I will not be picking on your looks. Alternatively, you can email your picture to us and I won’t post it; I just need to look at it to believe that your white-Asian friend is indeed better looking than an attractive Nordic woman. On the other hand, judging by the fact that your friend has made a much better impression at modeling agencies than you and you have also gotten some agents interested, my guess is that both of you are somewhat masculinized women, with your friend being more masculinized than you. This is so because fashion models are rarely feminine. Thus, you are probably better looking than your friend. 95
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 01 May 2006 21:46 | # Malcolm A, I have not misunderstood your argument that South Asians are a sub-type of Caucasians that are different from other Caucasoid sub-types. However, if the term Caucasian describes the race to which whites belong, then it is clear than Hindus and other South Asians do not belong to this race, i.e., are not Caucasians. You are mistaken that the arguments that I have put forth only support superficial differences. Firstly, in mentioning the superficial differences, you have included pigmentation variables and conveniently left out the skeletal differences that I have mentioned. Secondly, the superficial traits are related to genetics. The genetic studies address neutral DNA markers, i.e., DNA markers not involved in gene expression. Therefore, there are multiple markers, a cluster of which are classifying Hindus as outside the race of whites. I am surprised that you undermine the important of the cluster analyses that I have cited and mention t-tests and F-tests as somehow more relevant. You can run these analyses on Howells’ data and see the differences for yourself, but these tests are not useful when it comes to determining whether there is a correlation structure underlying multiple differences between two groups, and it is the correlation structure that is relevant to taxonomy, which is what our interest lies in. Therefore, cluster analysis is appropriate and it shows South Asians as lying outside the European racial cluster. Regarding Cavalli-Sforza, as far as I recall his study did not run a cluster analysis, but used principal components analysis, instead, whereby he extracted the principal factors underlying the variability of DNA samples from different populations. The first two principal components separated the populations into four groups, and the graphical depiction of these groups into 4 quadrants is all over the net. The 4 groups were Europeans, blacks Africans, N.E. Asians and S.E. Asians. South Asians were placed in between Europeans and East Asians, which is what most of the pictures of South Asians here clearly show. Regarding the controversy over this study, it wasn’t over the methodology but over the evidence for racial clustering of humans. You wrote that my argument that Hindus are outside the race of whites is a general and erroneous statement and then follow this comment by saying that Hindus are not from one race anyway. Irrespective of whether Hindus belong to their own race or are a people resulting from the mixing of several races and cannot be said to have their own race, the evidence that I have cited makes it clear that they are outside the race of whites, something that you have not been able to disprove by citing evidence. As to what is the racial status of, say, Nepalese Hindus, it is like this. This question can be addressed in a standard manner by examining a large, random sample of neutral DNA makers around the world and examining whether there are correlation structures that result in population clusters. The studies that I have seen so far do not reveal a separate South Asian cluster, but show the contribution of several racial clusters to South Asia. Thus, South Asians are readily genetically distinguished from others, as in the example of the Yang et al. study where South Asians turned out to have their own cluster based on ancestry-informative markers, but randomly selected neutral DNA markers have not shown a separate South Asian cluster. Thus, South Asians are not assigned a race. A crude analogy to help understand this scenario is to picture a rainbow. A rainbow has distinct color bands but the region where a color band blends into another color band is not assigned a particular color. Regarding my statement that the placement of a female celebrity in prominent lists of attractive/sexy women does not mean that the woman is particularly good looking, it is not the case that none of these women are good looking; some are good looking, and the faces of Grace Kelly and some of the other celebrities that I have shown look good regardless of what lists they are in or not in. There have been a couple of occasions where I have posted exactly the pictures that you linked to (e.g., Priyanka Chopra, Amisha Patel, Celina Jaitley), followed by clearer pictures of the women to show the obfuscation in your selections. Besides, people can copy and paste your links and see for themselves all your linked pictures. Additionally, like I have pointed out, I have tried to provide clear photos and comparisons using roughly similar angles. Therefore, there is no inadequacy from my part in the comparisons. All right, Celina Jaitley has a white boyfriend and you have a Hindu wife. This makes a sample size of two and is hardly of any significance. Of course, there are other white men married to Hindu women, but none of this proves that white men generally appreciate the looks of South Asian women. As far as the whole world is concerned, why should I believe that the world would preference South Asian women over Nordic women? As far as I know, Japanese men have a preference for Russian prostitutes, not South Asian prostitutes; rich Arab sheiks have a preference for European prostitutes, not South Asian prostitutes; Eastern European rather than South Asian prostitutes are especially hot in Israel, and so on. The reference to prostitutes is because non-prostitute white women will generally not have anything to do with non-white men except if they are unattractive, obese, mentally ill or if the non-white men are rich. You have said that Hindus have changed their last names frequently. Then how do Hindus keep track of their castes? So what if different panels of judges voted Aishwarya Rai as Miss World 1994 and the most beautiful Miss World ever? Both these events occurred under the auspices of the same organization—Miss World Organization—which has not shown any commitment to focusing on beauty in beauty contests. Anyway, I see that you will just not let off Aishwarya Rai and have asked me to compare her to a Nordic woman for slimness of figure, beauty, skin tone, symmetry as well as excellence of facial features. It is not necessary to compare skin tone, and there are plenty of pictures of Aishwarya Rai and Nordic women here, which should allow the reader to compare facial features, but I will address the physique of Aishwarya Rai. First up are the pictures that you have posted. The face of Aishwarya Rai is from an obscure angle, not showing her hooked nose and the massiveness of her cheekbones and jaws.
Here is the picture of Aishwarya Rai’s physique that you linked to. You should have posted a picture of her in a bikini so that it is easy to see how shapely she is.
I tried to find a picture of Aishwarya in a bikini and wasn’t successful, but I found some other pictures that reveal her shape. Aishwarya Rai does not have very feminine hips.
Aishwarya Rai has almost no butt.
Aishwarya Rai has the kind of legs that are seen in Negroid and Australoid women, and do not even approach the shapeliness of Nordic women.
Aishwarya Rai also has shoulders on the broad side, as seen in some pictures above. Now tell me is your idea of a shapely woman or is the world’s idea of a shapely woman a woman with the physique of Aishwarya Rai? Next up is Urmila Matondkar. I am posting all the pictures that you linked to.
To please you, I have been able to find a picture of Urmila that makes her look close to white and am comparing her to a woman that I am not fond of, but she will do.
However, the following pictures of Urmila Matondkar show her ethnic features and a hooked nose.
On the other hand, showing the white woman at different angles does not reveal ethnic features or a hooked nose.
I tried to find pictures of Urmila in a bikini, but was not successful and the following pictures are the closest that I came to.
Now, Urmila has a nice, shapely figure, but does she beat the shapeliness of the white woman? I don’t think so.
I recommend that you re-read Peter Frost’s paper and note the references to the more feminine appearance of white women compared to non-white women (the references do not specifically cite the more feminine appearance of Nordic women (except for breasts), but this can be inferred by careful observations). Therefore, you had best stick to comparing facial features and not bring the physique into this debate. 96
Posted by Indian Girl on Tue, 02 May 2006 01:16 | #
The Konkani Brahmins have lived in the South for centuries, and they don’t acknowledge their northie roots. They are South Indians now.
Not all Punjabis and Kashmiris are “very fair.” They might have a higher amount of light-skinned people due to climate, but a brown/dark one isn’t rare. Punjabis that live in Delhi and in the South become dark/brown due to climate. Southern Punjabi farmers also are dark, due to working in fields. If you ask me, the Konkani Brahmins, South Indian Tulus, and the Iyers have a higher amount of light-skinned AND light-eyed people. No, I’m not a South Indian if you think I am. 97
Posted by IndianGirl on Tue, 02 May 2006 01:36 | # To the author of this blog. I’m not going to try to “prove” my point of view to you, lol. BUT, I’m just curious as to what you think about these women? These are some of my favorites, but I’m not over-analytical about a girl’s jawline or how Caucaoid/Mongloid she looks. I just like their overall look. That would be funny to see you talk about these girls in detail, lol. Rajshree Thakur
Anu Agarwal
Rekha
Sheetal Mallar
Leena Chandrevekar (from the 60’s)
Bipasha Basu
MadhuBala
Sonal Chauhan
98
Posted by Malcolm A on Tue, 02 May 2006 16:08 | # Hi J.R.
i. Unfortunately, though you and I would very much prefer to believe the above as true, Systematics as well as Genetics tells us a whole different story. Cavalli Sforza, Spencer Wells, Bamshad et al ..etc ..support the theory of a Caucasoid Race that includes Indo Aryans and Nordic Aryans . Eg: The Map of Genetic Diversity - LLCavalli Sforza 1994.(History and Geography of Human Genes )
i. Not only are they superficial but eye color etc., are simply not acceptable statistical tools unless they do NOT show dissimilar within and between group variance ( ie are uniform ). Iranians, Afghans , Kashmiris etc., display a range of eye colors including blue, grey etc too.. 3.
i. I have included the following review of Cluster Analysis for your perusal… ii. In order for me or anyone else to run a test on Howell’s data, such data should be from an experiment designed for such tests. So unless that information is avaialble it is not possible.
i. Here is an excerpt which refers to clustering in Cavalli’s 1994 book I believe cavalli even developed his ow clustering methods for some of this stuff. ii The controvercy was over the results but that led to the methodology being questioned.
I do NOT find the need to disprove the difference between the white race and the hindu race because these 2 races do NOT exist. There are NO such races or even sub races in Biological vernacular. 6.
Your contention is that the celebrities selected by you are good looking while, those selected by me or others are NOT. I find such a statement from a learned man like you very biased.. 7.
As I said Indian street people and poorer classes are not that great looking. It is the elite society that produces most of the beauties. I don’t think either any Jap man, A Muslim Saudi or a White could even get close to a elite Hindu family ( recently here, an Indian killed his daughter ( jailed or 16 years ) for trying to marry a white kid). I faced great opposition and had to elope with my wife. Still not fully accepted into her family. Indian apartheid makes S. African apartheid look like child’s play. Know for sure that many old Saudis marry young muslim Indians and recenty India passed a law against it. 8
Well, Miss World Organzn’ has also selected a lot of Nordics and other groups. So are you questioning their ability to select beauties in general .. 9.
i Well we came back to Ash when I brought up Shakira being selected as the most beautiful 2nd runner up..Also you focussed a lot on Ash at the beginning of your thread and posted rather flabby pics of hers.. SO it is fair game for me to contest that ii. Looks to me like she is staring straight ahead at you and me…Very clear frontal shot..All facial featuresare clear and visible..So bring it on ! iii. That was when she was 20. Now she does have those assets you are so critical of. But the pic shows how slim and elegant she looked earlier on… iv. About butts and hips, it is considered rather peasant and lower classy to have large child bearing hips and hottentot butts as you may know from Victorian values. High class = tall, slim and willowy..hehe.. Think Uma Thruman, Gwynneth Paltrow etc.. always in Victorial dramas.. v. Urmila has a great figure; Bikini or no bikini. Why are you comaparing her with that Rudolf the red-nosed and freckled Nordic gal ( We must look for better Nordic specimens. Kate Beckinsale was voted one of the 100 best looking women w/ Angelina topping the list this time by PEOPLES ). Those are the types of women you should dig out if you wanna even get close to comparing with these Indian women.
Here is Manisha Koirala , a Nepalese Hindu, Indo Aryan who ruled Bollywood in the 90s. Andrew Lloyd Weber made Bombay Dreams after watching her in the Bollywoof flick Bombay . http://www.phoolwala.net/filmstars/images/manisha/manisha koirala13.jpg
99
Posted by IndianGirl on Wed, 03 May 2006 16:10 | # Just to let the author know, Diya Mirza is half-German from her dad’s side. LOL, how do you know she didn’t get her “manly features” from her white dad’s family? She has a Muslim last name, because her Muslim step-father adopted her. 100
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Wed, 03 May 2006 20:04 | # IndianGirl, in my experience whites (both sexes) tend towards gracility more than non-whites.
Neither woman you mention is a good example of the Nordic type. Beckinsale has east Asian blood and Jolie has some non-white blood, I forget from where. 101
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 04 May 2006 00:28 | # Raj, I went through some of the pages in the mega-forum that you linked to. The women pointed out by Malcolm were included and some of the newer women that I come across did not look better than those pointed out by Malcolm, but then I didn’t go through the 51 pages of the forum. Why don’t you pick out the ones that are comparable to attractive Nordic women and then I will see how these women look. Indian girl, It is not necessary to address the jawline, nose shape or racial elements of the facial features of a good looking woman. However, the reason I have addressed these features is because Malcolm continues to insist that South Asians are classified as Caucasians, and can’t seem to tell that most Indian women on this page don’t look Caucasoid. Anyway, regarding the women that you have pointed out, I don’t like any of the faces except for the face of MadhuBala. All the other women that you have pointed out have discernable Mongoloid and/or aboriginal elements in their faces, although this is not clear in some of the pictures that you have posted (e.g., Bipasha Basu, Rajshree Thakur, Sonal Chauhan). Sonal Chauhan looks masculinized and her photo is overexposed, making it difficult to make out her features in the picture that you linked to. I searched for pictures of Sonal Chauhan and found clearer pictures that show her ethnic, part-Mongoloid features that are clear in side view or at an angle, and didn’t like her features much. If Malcolm had pointed out MadhuBala, I would have readily acknowledged the attractiveness of her face and wouldn’t have bothered comparing her to an attractive Nordic woman, though it would be possible to find a Nordic woman who looks better than her. Regarding the ancestry of Diya Mirza, I had no idea that she had a German father, and you are of course right that she could have inherited her jaw structure from her white father, but I can’t tell because I don’t know how her parents look like. I hadn’t even heard of her before Malcolm pointed her out, but Diya’s ancestry certainly doesn’t help Malcolm’s case. Assuming that Diya’s mother is at least half European, which should not be unusual for upper caste Indians/equivalent, Diya is mostly European yet has ethnic features that make her facial features deviate from Nordic fineness. If some of the other women pointed out by Malcolm have a white parent, then let me know. For instance, Katrina Kaif would be a possible candidate for having a white parent. Malcolm A, Of course genetic evidence supports a Caucasoid race inclusive of both Nordic Aryans and Indo Aryans, but the Indo Aryans existed a long time ago and absorbed too many non-Caucasoid racial elements to remain Caucasoid anymore. I have cited enough evidence, but where is your evidence for classifying most present-day South Asians as Caucasoid, i.e., part of the same race that whites belong to? Since you have mentioned Cavalli-Sforza’s map on the cover of his book, this map assigned green color to Europeans and light blue to the part of the world in between Europids and Mongoloids (this type of blending is evident in Northernmost Scandinavia; Central, West and South Asia). Therefore, I don’t see how Cavalli-Sforza’s data classify South Asians and Europeans as part of the same race.
Another way of looking at the issue is to consider a profile of a South Asian from DNAPrint Genomics.
In reference to the figure above, the question is what is the cutoff of non-Caucasoid admixture that you will be willing to accept beyond which one ceases to be a Caucasoid? Your statement that clustering does not prove anything because the traits examined have to be uniform within groups shows ignorance of both cluster analysis and the apportionment of variability within the species, whereby the majority of overall variation is within groups. Yet, this does not pose any problem for racial classification because there is a correlation structure to the variation. I recommend that you read Edward’s debunking of Lewontin’s fallacy in BioEssays [Volume 25, Issue 8, Date: August 2003, Pages: 798-801]. Regarding Cavalli-Sforza, the graph showing the grouping of humans into 4 quadrants using the first two principal components (based on principal components analysis) as the axes was not based on cluster analysis, and this is what I mentioned in my previous comment, although Cavalli-Sforza has undoubtedly performed various analyses on his data, including cluster analyses, which I was not aware of until now. You have mentioned that the scientific community does not recognize a white race. This is obviously true since the scientific community does not recognize any human races, but what does evidence say? See the Rosenberg et al. study cited above for proof of a European racial cluster. Let me see you cite evidence that South Asians belong to the same racial cluster. I have already pointed out that there is no present evidence for a South Asian racial cluster based on randomly selected neutral DNA markers and South Asians are not assigned a race. I am not being biased by saying that the celebrities selected by you are nowhere as good looking as the women selected by me; it is obvious which of the women in the comparisons are better looking. Besides, the celebrity status of the women is irrelevant; what matters is how they look. Yes, Miss World Organization has selected Nordic winners, who are not necessarily particularly good looking, but this doesn’t mean that the Miss World contest is about beauty; just look at the contestants in general. Regarding Aishwarya Rai’s face pic that you requested me to post, yes she is staring straight at the camera, but her face is pointed downward and her picture is therefore obscure. So you say that at age 20 Aishwarya Rai did not have a shapely figure, but now she does. Well, the Nordic woman that I have compared her physique to is about age 20 and is shapely. On the other hand, Aishwarya has gained flab. Her hips have gained fat and her waist has become broader, too. Thus, she has not acquired the shape of the Nordic woman and is clearly incapable of acquiring the Nordic’s shape because she simply doesn’t have the genetics. You have to be a bizarre man to believe that there is anything peasant-like or lower class about a shapely butt in women; heterosexual men of all socioeconomic classes prefer a shapely butt on a woman rather than the flat butt of Aishwarya Rai; it is a different matter if you are a sodomite. The Nordic woman that I have compared Aishwarya with does not have Hottentot butts; she has just the right kind of butt for a woman. Why should I bother with Kate Beckinsale or Angelina (Angelina who?) when the white woman that I have compared Urmila Matondkar to beats Urmila hands down in the physique department? Now you have posted links to the pictures of another woman with a hooked nose and lots of Mongoloid ancestry—Manisha Koirala—and have called her Indo-Aryan! I don’t know what is wrong with your perception, but her looks are easily beaten by a Nordic woman. Besides, what is up with all the hook-nosed women? Do you like hooked noses?
102
Posted by IndianGirl on Thu, 04 May 2006 00:44 | #
Yes, I think Katrina has a white parent. Celina Jaitely also had an Afghan mother. But there are some white/Indian mixes where the mixture isn’t too noticeable. Even I thought that Diya and Celina were fully Indian. Here are some Indians with immediate white blood. Padma Lakshmi -Could easily pass for a full Indian. She is darker in real life than she appears in pictures.
Lara Dutta (who is 25% white). She does have somewhat of a Mongloid look. She looks like someone from the Eastern/North-Eastern part of India
Dino Morea
103
Posted by IndianGirl on Thu, 04 May 2006 00:48 | # Hey J.R. I guess Padma Lakshmi isn’t half-white. Some of her biographies say that she a pure South Indian, and other sites claim that she has a white mother. I think I’m going to believe that she’s a full Indian. That woman doesn’t look like she has any white in her, or I could be wrong. A lot of people lie about their ethnicity anyway. 104
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 04 May 2006 03:18 | # Is there any way to objectively measure beauty? 106
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 04 May 2006 21:01 | # Interesting output after I took the test on comparative attractiveness:
Now I’m wondering what the variance is… 107
Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 04 May 2006 21:35 | # Hi J.R.
The most recent classification of Causcasoids follows. I. Caucasoid or Europid Subspecies (Geographic distribution centered in the Caucasus mountains) A. Mediterranid race This should indicate how the classification works as of now. I am sure you will argue that this is outdated ( i.e Lewontin’ etc ). I have contacted some of my colleagues and they are certain that the above is the most recent human race classification available. So there is the answer to your conundrum.
You are confusing races and sub-races. There are only 3 major biological races and Caucasoid is one of them. As the above classification shows both whites and Indians fall into this race (under Caucasoid see E and I sub-races ) Cavalli’s book cover shows clustering of different sub-races. The excerpt cited by me in the earlier post, i.e. ” The color map of the world shows…...it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe,....... and in the West, South and much of Central Asia…” was intended to indicate to you that West, South and Central Asia has caucasoids according to Cavalli’s own analysis. South Asia = India. Also here are some excerpts from Cavallis other works, b) ...Any classification of races is arbitrary, imperfect, and difficult. Yet anyone can see that there are certain relatively clear differences between a typical Caucasoid and a typical Mongoloid or a typical Negroid.... Ref : W.F. Bodmer and L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, 1976. Genetics, Evolution, and Man. WH Freeman and Company, San Francisco. pp.559-574 [ Note : note the words in bold type Cauacsoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Indo -European, extra -European caucasian etc ]
The typical South Asian you have shown is a Caucasoid. But of a different sub-race than “Nordic’. Please do NOT confuse differences between sub-races as those between races.
You misunderstood me again. I am reposting the excerpt. Cluster analysis is an exploratary data analysis tool for solving classification problems. It’s objective is to sort cases (people, things, events etc) into groups….Cluster analysis is thus a tool of discovery... My intention in posting the above review was to indicate that Cluster analysis is primarily an EXPLORATORY technique and a TOOL OF DISCOVERY & not a DEFINITIVE one. I have done some clustering myself. It helps you form an idea. Does not allow you to determine whether differences are significant or NOT.
Lewontin argued that, as variation observed within groups for a single locus allele ( ~85%), was larger than variation between groups (~15%) (cline studies), the race concept does not hold. Edwards later provided evidence that some of lewontin ‘s assumptions weren’t correct either. Scientists later came to accept that low (Sewell Wright’s) Fst statistic (measures genetic distance) did not necessarily debunk race. Any positive Fst is evidence of subgroups (rejects the null hypothesis that all groups are genetically indistinguishable). This was what Lewontin’s fallacy article was all about and I’ve read it some years ago. However, my point in discussing within and between variance was in regards to ANOVA and not about clustering. What I intended to point out was that eye color, hair color etc., are qualitative and do not lend themselves to such variance analyses unless coding is used ( A good contingency Table/ chi sq., study maybe ). But then that does not prove anything. Also, I already agreed that skull measurement studies etc., are the best and would be much more preferable to hair color etc ( re earleir post ) and it is this type of study that is lacking.
Well, now you know. Most of his conclusions were based on cluster analysis and he came under some criticism for that, though most of his findings were pretty sound as he just used taxonomic clustering to create dendrograms showing eucleadian and other distances between races and sub races. Most correlation figures were given to relate the groups for ranking ( Pearsons Product Moment Coeff (r ( jk)] etc : by far the most useful. Estimates the resemblance between 2 OTUs and takes into account mismatches as well as matches ( Can also be used for multi state characters ).
Again you are confusing ‘race’ with ‘sub-race.’ Does a european race or sub-race exist ? Could be ( eg; Nordic ). Europe has mostly Caucasoids only. As for S. Asian cluster it would be impossible as S. Asia has Negroids, Mongoloids and Caucasoids. So showing all those belong to one cluster would not be possible. Part two of reply follows… 108
Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 04 May 2006 21:39 | # Hi JR Here is the second part
First you said celebrities are not particularly good looking ( ie; Catherine Zeta Jones ) but get their pic’s posted nonetheless because they are famous. I pointed out that all women posted by you were celebrities. Your second statement that those posted by you are BETTER looking only reinforces my statement that you tend to be biased, when in fact it is ‘you said; I said’ ( vote of 1 each ) with no way to decide.
Nowhere did I say that Indian men can get close to our women easliy. It was you who brought up the subject by saying Japs ( Indians are way superior to Japs etc. in looks ) do not prefer Indian women. I responded that Indian masses are not that good looking, and that the elite who are good looking are not accessible. I can assure you that elite Indians do NOT care for whites OR think highly of us, the way we imagine they do. For most of them caste is the be all and end all.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. According to you, all Miss World contestants are average or below average ! Well, if Nordic winners are not that good looking then so are the non-Nordics. So you can just imagine the non-nordic beauties ( who do not contest ). Stunning wouldn’t they be ? Maybe you could post a Nordic in a similar posture and then compare w/ Ash. Our women (Nordic ) that you posted so far are no match for most of the Indians I have posted ( Diya Mirza (Miss Asia Pacific ), Celina ( Miss Universe Runner up, Ash (Miss world ) by any standards. Also they (the Nordics) all look the same with no variablitly or range (inbred ), like the Indians, who come from a wider gene pool. Indians show a wider range of looks that suits a range of tastes in skin color, facial type, height, features etc as they all come from an Indo Aryan Caucasoid base topped up by a very fine genetic contribution form other races which enhances their exotic beauty. Again the median is the preferred . Also any neutral observer can see that these women ( both Nordic and Indian ) are Caucasoids, and NOT either Mongoloids or Negroids. The Nordic gal you have posted against Urmila is one of the worst looking I have seen and I know many Nordics who can beat her hands down. Notice her red nose, freckles, wide face and the toothy grin. There are many very beautiful Nordics out there and by trying to go too ethnic and post British/Euro based women you are missing out on a lot of American Nordics who are much more glamarous and beautiful. Try to dig up some better women. Angelina, as in Jolie ( I am sure you know her -the most beautifu woman in the world -People Mag ) Manisha is an Indo Aryan Nepali. Not Tibetan Nepali. So a little Mongo Admixture is there. But you ( like old Andrew Lloyd ) were intimidated enough by her so as NOT to post my links ! If you are so enamored with straight noses, I can post a 1000 Indian beauties with straight pointed noses. Madhubala Here is Mallika Sherawat who was called the next Pamela Anderson (sex appeal) by Howard Stern and offered a centerfold spread by Playboy. Jackie Chan who has openly declared that Indian women are the most beautiful, wanted to cast one in his MYTH flick, and chose Mallika Sherawat ( who is not so highly ranked in Bollywood.. Jackie wasn’t influential enough to get the top stars I guess ) who appeared at Cannes with him.
Happy hunting. Cheers 109
Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 04 May 2006 21:58 | # Hi James B.,
In 2001? a beauty products corporation conducted a worldwide survey where random samples of all races were questioned for their preferences of various facial features and characteristics, and the most preferable of these features were used to create a computer graphics model considered the global face of beauty for women. And this global face of beauty belonged to Saira Mohan a mixed descent ( Indian + Irish ) caucasian model from Canada. Proving your point that the average or median facial features with a little quirk tend to be the most attractive. This is why the Indian subcon and Latino women lead in beauty statistics. Cheers. 110
Posted by IndianGirl on Thu, 04 May 2006 23:57 | #
Hi Malcolm, What do you mean by “elite?” Indians that are rich or Indians that are of high-caste descent? My mom hails from a respectable high-caste that has a glorious history of courageness, chivalry and honor (The Rajputs). BUT, her family is pretty darn poor. They aren’t the poorest of the bunch, but they can be considered poor in comparison to middle-caste families from Mumbai and Delhi. The Rajputs originated in Rajasthan, but my mom’s family lives in the backward North Indian state of UP. So, not all high-caste people are rich and not all middle-caste/low-caste people are poor. My mom didn’t even have any shoes to wear to school. But you know what? She was known as one of the prettiest girls in her school. The rich Indian boys drooled over her. Rajput women have been historically known for their beauty in India, but that’s not to say that only Rajputs are pretty or that there are no ugly Rajputs. Gayatri Devi, the woman that you mentioned, is of Rajput descent. Rajputs are theorized to have a lot of Scythian ancestry, but a lot of Rajputs like to think of themselves as native Indians.
If you mean “rich” when you talk about elite families, I don’t fully agree that the prettiest girls come from the richest families. There are some who are really pretty, but some aren’t pretty at all. It really depends. My dad’s family is filthy rich, but he is of a lower-caste than my mom. But, I think my mom’s family has prettier girls (even though they are poor, lol). A lot of the rich Mumbaikers get fat from eating too much, or maybe it’s just from what I’ve seen? Most of the women in my dad’s family are overweight and don’t take care of themselves. You would think that they would watch their looks, because they have more money and they live in a cosmopolitan city. 111
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 05 May 2006 03:18 | # And this global face of beauty belonged to Saira Mohan a mixed descent ( Indian + Irish ) caucasian model from Canada. Proving your point that the average or median facial features with a little quirk tend to be the most attractive. This is why the Indian subcon and Latino women lead in beauty statistics. Well, first of all, it wasn’t my point—I was reporting what they said. Secondly, looking for a single global standard of beauty is different from coming up with an operational definition of beauty. For example, in the study to which I subjected my self, all the faces were very much the same. I was amazed actually that they conducted a supposedly scientific study of beauty with the apparent presumption that it is a simple “hill climbing” optimization problem. No one is that stupid in real operational systems. 112
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 05 May 2006 05:58 | # Indiangirl - isnt it likely that these poor, pretty high-caste girls will, on average, get to marry into money though? Like your mother in fact. 113
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 05 May 2006 21:42 | # James, There are objective correlates of beauty. See the following literature review and meta-analysis.
This paper is sound except for its mention of research on the attractiveness of mixed-race people, which I have previously critiqued. On the other hand, there is also some truth to the adage that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. Therefore, beauty cannot be measured 100% objectively. Thus, the debate that I am having with Malcolm over attractiveness is objective in the sense of racial elements in the face and degree of fineness of facial features, but he and I cannot see eye to eye because our preferences are oriented in different directions. The website that you have linked to does mention some decent research. Malcolm A, Your classification of Caucasoid races is citation-less and has obvious roots in 19th century anthropology. Do you have any modern citations that show European populations to be divided into races? I am not talking about a position statement, but evidence, that supports races among whites? And, do you have citations that support the concept of sub-races? There is a valid concept of race or subspecies in taxonomy, but I have not heard of sub-sub-species or sub-race as part of the taxonomical literature. The citation from Cavalli-Sforza that you have mentioned is 30 years old. More recently, Cavalli-Sforza has denied the existence of races, obviously to not have his funding dry up. Besides, saying that Caucasians are spread out as far as India is not to say that Indians are a Caucasoid people, but simply implies that some Caucasoids are found in India, and Cavalli-Sforza has mentioned that there is a transition to Easterners in India. More importantly, if you are a man of science, you should know the difference between an argument by authority (so and so says this….) and an argument by evidence; the former being unacceptable. Therefore, where are your citations involving evidence? You have not cited any proof of there being only 3 major biological races. I can cite modern genetic evidence for at least 5 races (all major population groupings) among humans (Europeans, black Africans, East Asians, Melanesian/Australian, Native American):
Some populations not included in the 5 races are mixed groups—such as South Asians—and are not assigned a race because of the failure of such designation to satisfy phylogeographic criteria for race assignment. A series of 24 neutral craniofacial assessments also revealed the following 8 population clusters:
Note the classification of Indians as outside the group of Europeans, something that can be easily appreciated by going through the pictures of Indians on this page. So much for your claim that it would be impossible to show a South Asian cluster because of the contribution of multiple races to South Asia or your claim that:
There is clearly a South Asian cluster based on both ancestry-informative markers (see the Yang et al. citation above) and 24 neutral craniofacial markers. Thus, whereas South Asians are not assigned a race of their own because this would not be consistent with the phylogeographic criteria of race assignment, it is clear that they are outside the race of whites. Besides, I can see that I am wasting my time citing all this current evidence when you are willing to assign Caucasoid status to a non-white with about 50% non-Caucasoid admixture; ref: the profile of the South Asian from DNAPrint Genomics shown above. You obviously cannot be convinced by state of the art molecular and craniofacial evidence because you will not accept any evidence. Therefore, do not waste my time over this issue again unless you can cite comparable evidence (not an argument by authority) showing that South Asians belong to the same race as whites and argue against the evidence that I have provided. Regarding cluster analysis, let us consider populations that are assessed on multiple variables. If there are no significant differences between the populations on each count, then would it be possible to show that the populations belong to separate groups by virtue of cluster analysis of the variables assessed? Obviously, if cluster analysis distributes the individuals sampled over separate groups, it is because there are statistically significant differences between the clusters with respect to multiple variables and there is a correlation structure underlying these differences. Continued below. 114
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 05 May 2006 21:48 | # Malcolm A, Regarding celebrities, I have not implied that all of them are not good looking. Some obviously are good looking. Once again, the celebrity status of the women that we are comparing is not relevant; it is how they look that is relevant. Besides, you are grossly mistaken in assuming that all women that I have posted are celebrities. A number of the women that I have posted are non-celebrities and some are ordinary women who, far from being famous, just have their pictures on the internet without having their names mentioned. A number of these women are also American, unlike your impression that they are all residents of Europe. Where have I implied that all Miss World contestants are not good looking? One need only look at most contestants, including top-ranked contestants, to understand that the Miss World contest is surely not about an emphasis on beauty, but this is not to say that none of the contestants are good looking. As I have extensively pointed above, it is unlikely that Miss India has to deal with the extent of political correctness that Miss USA has to, yet white women competing in the Miss USA contest easily outcompete South Asian participants in Miss India contest, on average, in looks. I will quote the following passage by you verbatim because of the sheer nonsense in it.
You have to be seriously deluded if you think that most of the Indian women shown here easily beat the Nordic women shown here in looks by any standards. When it comes to having finer facial features, the Nordic women shown beat the Indians shown hands down. Finer facial features means having less massive jaws, not having hooked noses, having less rugged facial features, having narrower noses, having less massive cheekbones, etc. Only two of the comparisons above have addressed the physique, and with the exception of sodomites, it is a universal standard among men that feminine physiques in women are preferred. It is clear that both Aishwarya Rai and Urmila Matondkar have less feminine physiques than the women that I have compared them to. It is not unusual for people to think that others of a different race look alike, but if you are a white man, then your statement that the Nordic women that I have shown all look the same is evidence of your piss-poor perception. The Nordic women that I have shown are so different looking that no two of them could be seen as sisters by Northern Europeans. Additionally, no neutral observer with reasonable perception will get the impression that most of the South Asian women shown here have Caucasoid faces, which would be in accordance with the 24 neutral craniofacial markers classifying Indians as outside the grouping of Europeans (see above). Besides, the “fine genetic contribution” of non-Caucasoids to Indo Aryans in the past is a type of contribution that is unwelcome in the present West. You have again pointed out, twice, that the median in looks is preferred. Where are your citations? It has been shown that whereas the average within a population is good looking, average faces are the not the best looking faces, and you have ignored evidence that I have cited in previous comments showing that there is no average face when it comes to the human species. Race mixing produces an intermediate shape on some counts only; many face shape variables in racially mixed offspring clearly deviate from the hypothetical shape obtained by averaging the parental shapes, something that is accompanied by some loss of morphological integration in the skull, undoubtedly resulting from disruption of co-adapted gene complexes (read: bad outcome). You have ignored the fact that when non-Nordic men desire women from other populations, these women are usually Nordic women rather than South Asian women, including elite South Asian women. Regarding straight noses, you had no idea that a number of the women that you have pointed out have hooked noses and blamed me for using pictures from a certain angle to give the impression of hooked noses, which prompted me to come up with clear profile views to show that these women indeed have hooked noses. This again reflects on your piss-poor perception. Besides, I am not enamored with straight noses; straight noses in profile view are typical in Northern Europeans and are a standard requirement in an attractive person in a European context. You have again rehashed your argument about Saira Mohan, without citations, and ignored my debunking of the alleged good looks of Saira Mohan. Whether the white woman that I have compared Urmila Matondkar to can be beaten hands down in looks by many Nordic women is not relevant; what is relevant is whether this woman beats Urmila in looks, and she indeed does so in both the face and body. Your piss-poor perception again shows in your comment that the white woman has a wide face. The white woman has a narrower face than Urmila; she has more fat in her cheeks though. Urmila clearly has more prominent cheekbones; just look at the pictures that you yourself linked to. I picked a photo of Urmila that would please you, but this photo shows her face tilted downward, yet her more prominent cheekbones are visible. Besides, I have not seen any criticism of the physique of the white woman by you in comparison to Urmila’s physique, which is the important issue because your posting links to Urmila’s pictures was apparently in the context of the physique. The rest of your criticism addresses pigmentation that I have repeatedly asked you to ignore since we are focusing of facial features. I don’t like yellow or yellow-brown skin and could point out these features in the women that you have selected, but the point is to focus on face shape. In addition, I have pointed out that I am not fond of the looks of the white woman that I have compared Urmila to, but she is okay for the comparison, and if a white woman with her looks can easily be beaten hands down by many Nordic women, then this can only mean that Indian beauty is no match for Nordic beauty because a not-so-attractive Nordic woman can easily beat some of the best looking Indian women. You have asked me to dig up better looking women and suggested Angelina Jolie. Previously you mentioned Catherine Zeta Jones in the context of attractive women. I wonder how bad your perception can be? I have shown a picture of Catherine Zeta Jones above, which speaks for itself. Angelina Jolie is a fine example of an attractive Nordic woman, right?
Angelina Jolie is part Native American in case you didn’t know. Anyway, tell me between Mallika Sherawat and the Nordic woman next to her, who has finer facial features?
115
Posted by IndianGirl on Fri, 05 May 2006 23:39 | #
Yes, you’re right. Not to mention that many second-generation Indian boys are going back home to get brides. The fact that these poor, high-caste girls also have traditional values may make them more appealing to a rich man.
116
Posted by tyutyu on Sat, 06 May 2006 03:40 | # you are all stupid and wasting your time. Go get a gf. 117
Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 06 May 2006 23:31 | # Hi J. R.
(i) Here is the citation. Unfortunately it is based on the book, Racial Compact (1994) by one of our own, the great white nationalist, preservationist and Nordic theoretician, Anthropologist Richard McCullough. So obviously NOT 19th century. If a great white supremacist of the ilk of Richard accepts Indics and Nordics as sub-groups of Caucasoids, who am I to disagree. Do you (disagree) ? (ii) The concept of sub races is well founded in both Social Biology and Darwinism. There are variations within species that cause sub-species(races) and then there are variations within sub species that lead to varieties ( some debate over this term) which would eventually grow into separate races. I cite Charles E Darwin’s ‘On The Origin of Species’ if you really insist on citations. This is a famous piece of work and I am sure you can track it down. (iii) As for citations in regards to the division of European population into sub races what better citation than our great white hope, Richard mcCullough himself. AND btw do you have citations proving that they are NOT divided into sub races ( Nordic, Alpine etc )
(i) This contention is erroneous. The Theory of Relativity, The Theory of Evolution, Quantum Mechanics etc., are more than 70 years old and still stand. (ii) Cavalli has NOT denied the existence of Races more recently as, his own words in his The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994), quoted by me yet again here, indicate otherwise ”..it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe,... and in the West, South and much of Central Asia.” I am certain you had no difficulty in understanding the underlined portion of the quotation which cannot be made any clearer. (iii) Please change the words ‘some Caucasoids’ to ‘some Mongoloids (3%)’, and your 3rd statment would be accurate. There are many caucasoids (97%) in India according to the latest CIA world book (2005).
(i) I am a experienced Population Biologist with 2 (ii) The citations do exist and I have indeed cited some of the highest authorities ( Cavalli, Bamshad etc ), which you tend to dismiss as outdated etc. Luigi Luca Cavalli Sforza is considered the foremost authority on Gene based systematics and I have cited him again above. I am also citing below another famous scholar Prof. P. Rushton who wrote in support the 3 Races theory as recently as 1994
(i) I cannot help but emphasize the fact that I have repeatedly stated to you that I am NOT saying Nordics and Indics are similar. There maybe so many differences between them as you cite. BUT they do fall under the same major group Caucasian. In regards to cranial differences etc, I beg to revisit Rushton’s satement above which typifies the major identifying differences between the 3 races based on cranial measurements.,
(i) You seem to be losing your patience which is not a good sign in a scholarly debate. (ii) Although you say I have NOT cited evidence , it is very clear that I have indeed done so as shown above. Is it your premise that Indians have no classification status in zoological systematics because, in your opinon, they are ‘mixed’ The craniofacial evidence you cite proves Indians and Nordics do not match as sub groups and NOT that they are not Caucasians. S. Asians maybe outside the cluster of whites but both groups cluster under Caucasoids. (see my citation of Rushtons statement above). (iii) Well, let’s then analyze these latest ‘findings’ of yours, that have you greatly excited. a) You have given four citations indicating evidence for 5 races based on genetic studies (clustering etc.). Two of these citations involve Rosenberg who is not even an authority as compared to Cavalli. Also according to your own earlier posts, modern science refutes ’ race’ ? So which one is it. Are there 5 races or NOT? Further, according to these esteemed articles, the Indians cannot even be classified by their criteria. A gaping hole in their theory, technique and conclusions. Ever heard of a zoological classification that left out a whole chunk of the species ? Aren’t there any identifying criteria specific to this mongrel Indian populaton if it is indeed a single unit ? I propose to you that this difficulty arose due to the fact that S.Asians come from many different races [ Caucasoids ( Indics, dravidics etc ), Mongoloids etc ] and therefore cannot be sampled as one statistical population. If, as you say, they are a mixed population, there would be identifying parameters that separate them as one distinct unit b) You cite 1 anthropological paper by Brace et al, identifying 8 clusters based on craniofacial measurements. MY question to you is, if you are indeed a Biologist , which I assume you should be in order to debate me on this matter, how does these 5 races fit into these 8 clusters ? 8/5 = 1.6 or 5/8 =0.6?
(i) As intimated to you earlier, I have done some of these studies myself. Correlation analysis is used to show signifcant association and not significant differences between groups of OTUs.This helps in clustering them together.[correlation = association ].. Please consult a good stats manual…
(i) In regards to the above comment are you sure that Edward’s debunked Lewontin’s fallacy, or did he debunk Lewontin’s theory as a fallacy? This comment of yours has made me somewhat suspicious of your biological knowledge. (ii) Are you a Biologist, because, if NOT, we are both wasting our time. But I am cartainly not one to back off , when I have clear supporting evidence. I Consider this as an educational experience for both of us. Part two follows.. 118
Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 06 May 2006 23:53 | # Hi J.R. Here we go again 8. Here is another citation that you may want to look up. The US Supreme Court vs. Bhagat Singh Thind. During the era of draconian Jim Crowe laws, having considered anthropological and other evidence the US Supreme Court ruled that Indians were caucasians.
This is not that important and you maybe right…but when deciding on beauty on this thread, it is a “I said ; you said” situation ...
Neither you nor I can decide on our own as we have different tastes in beauty. That’s why we have panels of judges and international opinion. To bring up “political correctness’ etc to explain away’ losses and losers, ’ after the fact, sounds like sour grapes….Any complaints should be made prior to the contest. If a Nordic wins I would never complain.
Same as above. Taste differs. But this time around, I backed up my contentions with some stats ( winners of international pageants ) as evidence. If any of your Nordic pic selections are winners too, you have to only point that out and I will agree…..
(i) Ok. We agree to disagree on this point. But I did back up my contention with beauty stats, that at least some of the Indians were internationally recognized beauties (ie pageant winners ). (ii) You do NOT have any evidence to backup most of what you say about massive jaws etc, I have posted Indians who were accepted as exceptional by International Mags , pageants etc.. Urmila was commended by Maxim Mag and you should take up her looks with them.. (iii) I agree with you that a shapely figure is an asset, but, as you may well know the Victorian standard of beauty was totally different. Indians have fine figures too. You should see women like Asha Parekh if you want to see bodies. (iv) I have replied to your craniofacial argument above as non acceptable. Even otherwise, the mere fact that Nordics and Indians have 24 measurements that differ does not indicate which group has the better ones.
Well, you never ever post my links…If at all rarely. Makes me think you are afraid that they look too good and would prove my point. There are some here who can’t connect to the links.. Even though you have posted some the worst pics of the Indians ( mallika, Manisha etc ) vs some the best of our Nordic women , you are still in trouble judging by the comments. Complains about Angelina Jolie ? Take it up with People and also that other UK monthly that did a poll on beauty last year which also elected her as the most beautiful. As for Saira Mohan, I did not select her. It was a panel of experts. You should take it up with them. As of now, despite your claims to the contrary, she is the global face of beauty and no two about it. Pardon my American slang !
Hmm… let’s see. Between Mallika’s bad pics and your favourite’s excellent pic… seems to me like your favourite is a little anemic looking. But as you say skin color doesn’t matter. They both do have straight noses and a pointed chin, but then would Howard Stern give the time of day to your choice. I’m not sure. Will Jackie Chan offer her a role in a movie. Who knows? Let’s ask Jackie. Anyway, here is someone you know very well in disguise ! http://www.bollywoodblitz.com/stars/madhuri/md11.shtml> and here is Namrata Shirodkar, 1st runner up Miss Universe, and praised by Geoff Boycott ( test Cricketer ) and some American movie critics ( Bride and Prejudice )as even better looking than Ash Rai !!
Take it easy. Talk to you soon. Ciao. 119
Posted by Malcolm A on Sun, 07 May 2006 00:15 | # Hi JR http://www.bollywoodblitz.com/stars/madhuri/md11.shtml Here are some more for comparison w/ our Nordic beauties.
cheers 120
Posted by Malcolm A on Sun, 07 May 2006 00:22 | # Hi IndianGirl, Based on my experience with Indians, an elite Indian family is one which is descended on both sides ( maternal and paternal ) from families that have belonged to high society for at least three generations. Here high society = old wealth, aristocracy/ high caste, western education, and high class all combined. Cheers. 121
Posted by C. M. on Mon, 08 May 2006 08:43 | # This malcolm is clearly a hindu in disguise as white man, yeah this guy is also spamming other forums with his non existing hindu stupidities. He uses 1976 books as source or 19th century old stuff to make a point, yeah before genes research was invented and he accept no sound scientific reason. Something else: stop calling these hindus part mongoloid, they are part middle eastern (hooked noses, massive jaws) and part australoid, australoid is not the same as mongoloid, they would have looked better if they have mixed with mongoloid. 122
Posted by C. M. on Mon, 08 May 2006 09:28 | # Another good reading is: It describes the composition of paleolithic genes and neolithic genes of todays Europeans as 80% paleolithic and 20% neolithic (9000 years ago when farmers from fertile crescent migrated into Europe bringing not only new food plant and animals but also Indo European speech, Indo European language is from the area now called Anatolia). 123
Posted by C. M. on Mon, 08 May 2006 09:41 | # I have this to say: the hindu women depicted here look like middle eastern women. I am not getting excited about it. I have another thing to say: I did not know that Catherine Zeta Jones was so plain to speak of… she looked like some woman from Spain, Italy or Greece before her plastic surgery and after plastic surgery she looked like some woman from Ukraine with Mongoloid admixture. Before complaining about flaring cheekbones, they make women look better, look at the picture of the girl immediately after the header. Kirsten Dunst has them too, as Ali Larter, or Evangeline Lilly to name a few. 124
Posted by C. M. on Mon, 08 May 2006 10:27 | # Yes, Nordic women are the prettiest. It’s not only the fine facial features or the blue eyes or the blonde hair. Women from Southern Europe are more like those as in Middle east, too fat, fat ass, too puny and too coarse in facial features. It must be the middle eastern admixture. 125
Posted by C. M. on Mon, 08 May 2006 10:31 | # This thread rocks! Let’s move this to front page! Oh yes keep up the good work of posting the pics of these pretty women minus the hindus. 126
Posted by JB on Mon, 08 May 2006 10:34 | # Malcolm all you have to do to post pictures is to put ‘img’ and ‘/img’ in brackets [] (i have inverted them just to show) ]img[]PICTURE LINK——.JPG[]/img[
Melanesian/Australian and Native American can’t really be called major due to their numbers. Where would Arabs and Turks fit in those five categories ? Malcolm A:
that doesn’t mean much. Who are on the juries in these contests ? Nationality, race, gender, age, income, etc. any idea ? Do you think a south asian special edition of say Penthouse magazine would outsell a nordic one ? I think those stats would be more meaningful C. M.
maybe he’s one of Razib’s or GC’s cousins 127
Posted by C. M. on Mon, 08 May 2006 10:56 | # “Melanesian/Australian and Native American can’t really be called major due to their numbers.” Yes, they can. I can explain it too. There were two waves out of Africa, a land route and a coastal route. The other route involves a landroute and these people were the ancestors of what is to become European, North East Asians and middle easterners. There are more than 3 races, even more than the 5 that you cited. The reason why people look “different” is due to genetic drift and isolation. You should understand that there was a very small founding population especially for the nordics. 128
Posted by Malcolm A on Mon, 08 May 2006 11:17 | #
. I am neither a Hindu nor an Indian, and you can take that to the bank. Just playing devil’s advocate to see how J.Richard’s ‘scientific’ theories stand in the face of real science Name the sites I am supposedly spamming so others can see for themselves too 129
Posted by Malcolm A on Mon, 08 May 2006 11:59 | # Hi JB
You probably haven’t read the thead carefully. I have given all the names of one panel in an earlier post. BTW
That depends. Witht Ash Rai, Mallika Sherawat etc, it may well do good business.. But, in any case, Indians and Latinos have , in recent years, begun to outclass Nordics in Beauty pageants etc and where the most Beautiful 1% of women are concerned. eg India won ALL 4 major international beauty pageants in 2000 (Miss Universe, Miss World, Miss Asia Pacific and Ms World ) . A world record . So undoubtedly something is going on besides JR’s ‘political correctness’ theory 3. Although I am quite reluctant to talk science with non-scientists, I must say the 5 race, 7 race theory etc., are NOT proven at all. The only accepted races are the 3 already known ones. Others are just ‘proposed’ races. Cheers 130
Posted by AD on Mon, 08 May 2006 12:16 | # Jules said: Again, yes I wish to preserve the aryan roots…[ ]...Blond hair and blue eyes have become so common nowadays…[ ].... I am a very attractive Nordic woman and get plenty of attention and admiration..[ ]...we both went in for modeling and got the agents interest, but shes the one that books all the ads. Maybe she just has a charm about her…[ ].... to say that most white men prefer a nordic woman is based on my experience and many other people’s experience absolutely wrong!! A “Nordic woman”, also a “model”, who wants to preserve “the aryan roots” but can’t compete with her half asian “of some sort” friend, taking the time to post on Majority Rights. Sounds believable. 131
Posted by JB on Mon, 08 May 2006 20:25 | # Malcolm:
their names not their race, age, sexual orientation, occupation, whether they have investments in Revlon, etc. For all I know the men on the panel could be homosexuals or metrosexuals working for fashion magazines. Malcolm:
yes, the validity of their opinion concerning female beauty. When I see beauty pageant contestants I see living ads for cosmetics companies not attractive women. I don’t like the glitz and the makeup overdose and I suspect a lot of men don’t either. And I don’t consider white fashion models to be particularly beautiful. I’d like to know the % of women VS men in the audience that attends or watches a beauty pageant or some other contest like Miss America, Miss Canada, etc. And the same for the readership of glitzy glossy fashion/beauty magazines Malcolm:
Who besides heterosexual men are in a better position to judge a woman’s beauty ? I’ve seen more beautiful women on the streets of small canadian towns than in the pages of glossy Revlon sponsored magazines. Beauty pageants are like the Grammies for music, the Oscars for movies, the Pulitzers for journalism, the ??? for books, etc. media creations that are mostly meaningless by themselves. Malcolm:
A good scientist is someone who can explain science to the common man and since probably most MR readers are a notch above you shouldn’t hesitate to enlighten the non scientifically trained among us. Even though I don’t have a degree in one of the hard sciences I can understand a scientific debate if the debaters are coherent and use terms for which there is a established definition. I can probably understand most of what you or JR wrote but I haven’t read the whole page because this particular topic bores me and is not really important anyway. I’m familiar with Rushton’s racial trichotomy because I’ve read the short version of his book. Malcolm:
there seems to be a contradiction between this assertion and your approval of Cavalli-Sforza’s work :
132
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 08 May 2006 20:57 | # C.M., Hindus are indeed part Mongoloid, as both genetic data and facial features reveal. Hindus also have Middle Eastern and Australoid/aboriginal elements, like you have pointed out. Additionally, in East Asia, there is clinal variation from the southeast to the northeast, and hence some continuity between the flat-faced NE Asians and the less-overall-flattened SE Asians, yet there is no difficulty in assigning Australo-Melanesians and NE Asians to separate races, just as some level of continuity from Europe to India does not imply that Europeans and South Asians belong to the same race. JB, Racial classification takes into account genetic profile, physical appearance, geographic residence, etc. (read about the phylogeographic criteria for race assignment). Thus, Australo-Melanesians are appropriately classified as a prominent racial group, major racial group if you please, in spite of their small numbers, though the term major should not be used because of its ambiguity. Regarding the classification of Arabs and Turks, if you read about the phylogeographic criteria for race assignment, you will understand that some human populations cannot be assigned a race. Fred Scrooby, Kate Beckinsale in one-eight Burmese, yet it doesn’t show in her. Therefore, you cannot assume that Benazir Bhutto has no Mongoloid ancestry. The fact is that there is a large East Asian component in South Asia, and it is not just limited to those who look part-Mongoloid. Malcolm A, I told you not to waste my time over the race stuff unless you can cite comparable evidence and refute the evidence that I have cited. Do you not understand the difference between an argument by authority and an argument based on evidence? Look at what you have cited to support the classification of South Asians as Caucasoids and the division of humanity into three “major” races: 1) Richard McCullough, a Nordicist who has not cited molecular and/or craniofacial evidence to support his classification scheme and one who has simply lifted the classification scheme from old and largely qualitative anthropological work; 2) an obscure statement by Cavalli-Sforza, which implies some level of continutity between Europeans and South Asians, which should not be surprising since there are well-documented clines and also because South Asia has seen European migrations in the past; 3) a statement by Rushton, who has not cited molecular data and has mentioned craniofacial traits that distinguish blacks, whites and NE Asians, which does not prove the existence of only 3 races; 4) the 2005 CIA Worldbook, which allegedly classifies 97% of people in India as Caucasians; and 5) the U.S. Supreme Court that labeled a South Asian as a Caucasian in the Jim Crow era! You have not cited molecular and/or craniofacial evidence from peer-reviewed journals to back up your claims, whereas this is the type of evidence that I have cited to back up my claims, and you have not refuted my citations. The stance of a top-ranked scientist isn’t worth a damn unless he can cite empirical evidence to back up his claims, and empirical evidence is what you need. Look at it this way. If you submitted a paper to a journal to argue that South Asians are overwhelmingly Caucasoid and that there are three “major” races among humans with your kind of supporting evidence, what will happen? Unanimous rejection! If the concept of a sub-race is a valid taxonomical category, why have you been unable to cite a supporting reference based on the current literature? You have cited Darwin to support the notion of a sub-race! Back then, the classification scheme was nowhere as formal and substantiated as in the present. For instance, Josiah Nott classified blacks and whites as members of separate species, yet included both among mankind. Additionally, the formal concept of a biological species (Ernst Mayr) is a 20th century concept, and so on. Since you raised the notion of sub-races, it is your responsibility to provide evidence for sub-races based on the current taxonomical literature rather than my responsibility to provide evidence against them. The classification scheme that you cited classifies Nordics, Alpines and Mediterraneans as separate races, but the question you ask me is to provide evidence that these groups are not sub-races. What is this? Of course, Northern, Central and Southern European populations look different, but is sub-race a valid taxon and are these groups sub-races based on this valid taxon? Cite current empirical evidence from peer-reviewed journals; don’t waste my time by saying so and so says this. In response to my saying that a statement by Cavalli-Sforza is 30 years old, you came up with the absurd response that “The Theory of Relativity, The Theory of Evolution, Quantum Mechanics etc., are more than 70 years old and still stand.” Just because some old ideas still stand doesn’t mean that all old ideas still stand. Do not repeat your statement that it is not your argument that Nordics and South Asians are similar. It is obvious that you believe that these groups differ but fall into the same race. However, evidence from neutral DNA markers, ancestry-informative markers and neutral craniofacial measurements unambiguously reveal that South Asians do not belong to the same race that whites belong to. I am obviously wasting my time in trying to convince you of this because you classified the South Asian shown in the data from DNAPrint genomics as Caucasoid even though this person has close to 50% of his genetic material derived from non-Caucasoids! You have written that it is my contention that all Indians can be classified as ‘mixed race.‘ Where have I implied this? Most Indians are mixed race. Even the Brahmins are mostly mixed race, as per one of the citations that I have mentioned above and also common observation. For instance, when I was in India, I never came across one South Asian that could be passed off as a white person, though there were some rare cases that approached the looks of borderline-white Southern Europeans, which is not to say that white-looking South Asians do not exist, but they are obviously very rare. You have acknowledged that Europeans have migrated to India in the past, including Nordic types such as the Aryans, but if these people had remained largely unmixed, then high caste Hindus would mostly look white, but they don’t. The pictures of Hindu women that you have pointed out mostly show non-Caucasoids, and in some cases where they look Caucasoid—e.g., Diya Mirza and Katrina Kaif—it turns out that these women have a white parent each. Therefore, the central tendency in India is to be mixed race, whereas in a multiracial society such as the USA, the vast majority of whites are overwhelmingly European (some have been living in parts of the nation that are predominantly white) and the mixed race people are American blacks, a large number of Native Americans, Hispanics, South Asians, and some other groups. Continued below. 133
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 08 May 2006 20:59 | # Malcolm A, You said that I seem to be losing my patience, which is not a good sign in a scholarly debate. Of course I am getting frustrated, and it is because of your unscholarly arguments; scholarly debate my ass! You started off by citing your degrees and background, none of which matter one bit when it comes to supporting one’s arguments by citing empirical references. The evidence that you cite comprises of arguments by authority; this authority said this, this major organization ranked this woman as very beautiful, and so on. You rehash your arguments, ignore a number of things that I have cited, and have yet to show how it is possible for cluster analysis to assign individuals to separate groups if there are no statistically significant differences between the groups. I will elaborate on why I am getting frustrated by commenting on the following passage by you:
You twist my words. I did not cite evidence for 5 races; I cited evidence for at least 5 races. You undermine two of these citations by saying that Rosenberg is not an authority like Cavalli-Sforza is. I repeat that there are no arguments by authority in science. Rosenberg provided 1) molecular evidence comprising of neutral DNA markers, which is the gold standard in taxonomy; 2) his 2005 paper used 993 micorsatellites, a much higher number than most studies in this regard, including the studies by Cavalli-Sforza and others leading to Cavalli-Sforza’s 1994 book; 3) used geography-based sampling rather than the population-based sampling seen in previous studies, thereby refuting a major objection to racial clustering in humans; and 4) showed racial clustering regardless of model choice whereby the neutral markers are assumed to be either correlated or uncorrelated, which takes care of another objection to racial clustering of humans. Therefore, I have cited recent and state of the art evidence for at least 5 races in humans, but you have not cited anything comparable to support your contention of three major races in humans. You have twisted my words by saying, “Also according to your own earlier posts, modern science refutes ‘ race’ ?” I said that there is no official acknowledgement of races in humans. Official acknowledgement is something on the part of scientists. Science, as in scientific data, unambiguously supports the existence of human races. Then you go on to say that “according to these esteemed articles, the Indians cannot even be classified by their criteria.” This is absurd refusal to look at the data that I have cited. Both the paper by Yang et al. and Li et al. show a separate South Asian cluster based on ancestry-informative DNA markers and neutral craniofacial measurements, respectively. Therefore, South Asians have their own distinct group, which reflects the central tendency in the population, the existence of which is not undermined by outliers. The question, however, is the racial status of South Asians. I made repeated references to phylogeographic criteria for race assignment in a recent previous comment, and you have completely ignored it or else it would be clear to you why the nature of race mixing in South Asia, including its heterogeneous and asymmetric nature, and the known history of the peopling of South Asia prevent South Asians from being assigned a race. There is no shortcoming in methodology here. Sometimes two species can be viably crossed, but this does not mean that the hybrid offspring are assigned a species, and even if the hybrid offspring are assigned a species, it will not be the species of either parent. Recall again the rainbow analogy. Whereas the color bands of a rainbow are assigned a color, the region where one band blends into another is not assigned a color. The problem is not simply your ignoring what I am saying, but also your failure to understand some of the things that I am saying. For instance, you wrote, “If, as you say, they are a mixed population, there would be identifying parameters that separate them as one distinct unit.” Guess what? What do the Yang et al. and Li et al. papers show? They show that the great majority of South Asians are characterized by a cluster of shared molecular and craniofacial structures that make South Asians stand out as a separate group among the major divisions of humankind. Once again, phylogeographic criteria for race assignment prevent assigning a separate race to South Asians, but it is clear that they, as a group, don’t belong to any of the following races: European, Mainland Asian, Australo-Melanesian, sub-Saharan African and Native American. As to how the [at least] 5 races based on molecular markers fit into the 8 population clusters based on the neutral craniofacial markers, 5 of the 8 craniofacial clusters correspond to the 5 races based on molecular markers. The three remaining craniofacial clusters comprise of India, Eskimo-Siberia and Jomon-Pacific. Extensive race mixing characterizes the India and Jomon-Pacific groups, and these groups cannot be assigned races in accordance with phylogeographic criteria, though the vast majority in each of these groups can be easily distingushed from other populations. The Eskimo-Siberia group was not included in the molecular studies that I have cited to support at least 5 races among humans, and this is part of the reason why I have been talking about at least 5 races. You wrote:
Let us say that there are two groups and there is variation within each group on, say, 20 variables, each of which is normally distributed. The groups do not differ with respect to each variable, i.e., the trait distributions for all 20 variables are identical in either group. You are saying that cluster analysis of these 20 variables will in some such cases separate individuals, randomly and blindly drawn from both groups, into separate clusters. Find me one such example among humans; it doesn’t have to be 20 variables, but there should be at least 10 variables, and the cluster analysis should separate the groups based on at least 3 of the 10 variables or if you reference a study with a large number of variables, then the groups should be separated by at least 15% of the variables. More importantly, if you look at the genetic and craniofacial data, not only is it clear that there is population clustering, it is also clear that there are statistically significant differences between populations with respect to several variables that go into the cluster analysis. Once again, download Howells’ data and see it for yourself. And, I will mention some such data shortly. You asked whether I believe that Edwards has debunked Lewontin’s fallacy or whether he has debunked Lewontin’s theory as a fallacy. What theory are you talking about? Edwards debunked Lewontin’s fallacious conjecture rather than some theory proposed by Lewontin. Anyway, you have become suspicious about my biological knowledge and have asked whether I am a biologist. I am not a biologist. I am a pimp and a high school dropout at that. Now, hopefully you, an esteemed scientist, will consider it beneath your dignity to debate me on biological issues and stop wasting my time. Continued below. 134
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 08 May 2006 21:02 | # Malcolm A, You wrote:
When you twist my words, I have to defend what I wrote, and when you no longer can play around, you just try to ignore my defense instead of acknowledging that you did twist my words. I am not bringing up political correctness after the fact to explain why a Nordic woman did not win in a beauty contest, and unlike you who would not complain if a Nordic woman wins a beauty pageant, I will not be pleased if the Nordic woman is not attractive. Your talk about there being some validity to the aesthetic judgments in beauty pageants because of an international team of judges is pure absurdity. Just go through the pictures of the white women that have participated in recent international beauty pageants and see how attractive these women are, on average. Several of these women are unattractive, and this is all you need to see in order to conclude that these pageants are not about beauty. What do you mean that we agree to disagree that Nordic women have finer facial features than upper caste South Asian women? How can there be any disagreement when it is clear that East Asian, aboriginal and Negroid admixture will make one’s facial features less fine, and upper caste Hindus have a considerable amount of such ancestry compared to Nordics. Your own selections show the Indian women to have more massive cheekbones, broader noses, thicker lips, a higher frequency of hooked noses, etc. I am tired of having to repeatedly respond to why I don’t always use your pictures; your pictures are often too small; often overexposed, making it difficult to see the facial features; and obscured by hair or angle. It is appropriate for me to search for clear, non-overexposed pictures of these women to see their features. Thus, Mallika Sherawat is shown to have more massive cheekbones, thicker lips, a wider nose and less fine features than the Nordic woman that I have compared her to, all of which you ignore and point out, instead, that both these women have a pointy chin and a straight nose. You have said that there are some people who can’t connect through the links right after quoting a passage by me that says that anyone can copy and paste the links to see the pictures for themselves. Are you retarded? Copy and Paste works. Besides, several of your links are clickable. I am starting to wonder whether you lack a basic aesthetic sense. Your defense of the looks of Angelina Jolie and many other women in this thread is that some prominent organization or magazine labeled these women as very attractive. The look of an attractive woman speaks for itself and an attractive woman will look good from any angle. There is no need to have some authority label a woman attractive in order for us to see whether the woman is attractive. Now you have linked to some pictures of Madhuri Dixit; 5 of them very small and one with a blondish hair dye and features obscured by hair, and ignored a picture of her that I posted in my entry. Anyway, Madhuri Dixit is easily beaten by Nordic women who are barely good looking.
And here is a picture of Madhuri Dixit showing her hooked nose.
You linked to a highly ranked beauty pageant contestant, Namrata Shirodkar, and mentioned a movie, Bride and Prejudice, where she appeared. Here is a screen capture of this movie, showing that Namrata Shirodkar (far right) has massive jaws and a hooked nose.
By the way, the seated woman is Aishwarya Rai. This hook-nosed issue needs to be addressed formally.
Similar data can be shown for many other aspects of facial features. So don’t tell me that the assignment of South Asians to a separate cluster from that of whites does not reflect statistically significant differences between these groups. Additionally, the craniofacial measurements and known genetic composition easily allow one to infer which group among the best looking Nordics and the best looking South Asians looks better by your own standards. You have acknowledged that whites look better than East Asians and black Africans, and since it has been shown that the combination of East Asian, Negroid and Australoid/aboriginal elements is a large part of the genetics of South Asians (see, for instance, the DNAPrint Genomics profile above) and that Brahmins have extensively absorbed lower caste people into their gene pool, then it is obvious that the best looking Nordic women will leave the best looking upper caste Hindu women in dust. East Asian, Negroid and Australoid/aboriginal components are bound to make facial features less fine: noses broader, lips thicker, cheekbones more prominent, jaws more massive, etc., which is what we clearly see in your choices of Indian women compared to the Nordic women. Don’t tell me that this is not objective. You have mentioned that I am not posting pictures of Nordic women that have been highly ranked in beauty pageants. I figured that I might as well contrast Namrata Shirodkar with a Nordic beauty pageant winner—Jennifer Hawkins, Miss Universe 2004—even though the Nordic isn’t that feminine, but she will do.
As far as the Victorian standards for the female physique go, who cares? Heterosexual men prefer a feminine physique in women now and this was also true in the Victorian era, and there is no way Aishwarya Rai’s physique could be the stuff of the fantasy of men who are aware of the existence of women with the kind of physique you see in the Nordic woman next to Aishwarya Rai. You mentioned Asha Parekh as a woman with a great physique, but I have not been able to find pictures of her physique. Anyway, do not goddamned waste my time by citing poor sources. 135
Posted by IndianGirl on Tue, 09 May 2006 01:41 | #
Who did this study? Punjabis in India are stereotypically known for having big noses, whether it be wide and bulbousy or gigantically hooked. No, I’m not trying to be rude, but relating them to white Europeans is just too funny. To me, I think they look more like semites. Trust me, I’m surrounded by Punjabis. Some do have a very slight Mongloid look, like the actress Juhi Chawla. Punjabis may have a higher amount of people with lighter skin, but that doesn’t mean they look “more European.” Light skin can be a result of climate, and being a light-skinned Indian doesn’t mean that you’re going to have more European features, lol. Don’t forget that Kashmir is North of Punjab. If you’re going to go by the “Punjabis are more related to Europeans logic,” then it would natural to say the same thing about Kashmiris and Uttaranchalis. Don’t forget that there are certain sects spread out all over India, who have that light-skinned/light-eyed look (such as the South Indian Konkani Brahmins, Chitpavan Brahmins from Maharashtra, the Ptallu of Hydrabad, etc). I don’t know why people act as if Punjab is some sort of special region distinct from the rest of India. In case you didn’t know J.R.-Aditi Gorivkar is a Chitpavan Brahmin. They are from the WesternCentral state, Maharashtra. 136
Posted by IndianGirl on Tue, 09 May 2006 01:51 | #
Sharmas are generally North-Indian Brahmins. They can be from Rajasthan, Punjab, UP (Uttar Pradesh), etc. But you’re right, Indians do change their last names, especially in cases of re-marriage and adoption. A lot of lower-caste Hindus also change their last names, but I don’t think it’s that common for high-caste Indians to change their last names. In our culture, it’s kind of weird for step-kids to have a different last name than the step-father. There is great emphasis on family values, so it’s natural that the step-kids adopt their step-father’s last name (even if he is from a different caste). Somebody made mention about the low divorce rate among Indians. Just to let you know, a lot of divorced Indian women lie about being remarried and divorced. So, you can’t always tell who is lying and who is telling the truth. They will tell their kids to tell everybody that their step-parent is their biological parent. They will not openly tell you that they have a step-parent, because it’s not acceptable to advertise such a thing. Indians are like any other human beings, but they choose not to openly acknowledge their personal situations to the rest of the community. 137
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 09 May 2006 03:06 | # Indian girl, The Punjab group includes samples from the Punjab-Kashmir region. On the other hand, your objection about the bulbous/prominent noses of people in Punjab is not applicable since this study assessed the upper nasal region, which is bony, rather than the fleshy part of the nose, which is what is bulbous (the study sampled skulls). You can see from the data that the upper nasals (bony structure) are more prominent in the Punjab-Kashmir region than in other parts of India, and this is consistent with other evidence, only part of which is lighter skin, for the greater European affiliation of NW India. You are, of course, right that upper caste Hindus, generally closer to Europeans than other Hindus, are scattered through other parts of India, but these people are a minority and do not undermine the general geographic trend of reduced European ancestry as one moves south and/or east of NW India. Besides, like you say that some people in Punjab look part Mongoloid, this is what you would expect since race mixing has taken place extensively in India and Mongoloid/aboriginal elements are present in NW Indians as well as upper caste Indians. Thanks for the other information. 138
Posted by IndianGirl on Wed, 10 May 2006 01:01 | #
I’m not talking about the upper nasal region. Even if you do have a higher nose bride, the bottom part can be gigantically hooked or broad. Here are some pictures of Punjabis, who fit the “typical Punjabi” look in India. The protoypical Punjabi look is hard to definte in words, but you can tell by looking at their overall face. Do they look ” European” or “fine featured” to you? I don’t think so. Famous author Deepak Chopra. Punjabi actor Dharmendra Actor Rishi Kapoor
A Punjabi boy Random Punjabi Girls
Were all of these people surveyed in the study NATIVE PUNJABIS? Just because you live in Punjab and Kashmir doesn’t mean that you are a true Punjabi or Kashmiri. Indians have migrated constantly for hundreds of years. There are South Indians who are descendants of North Indians, and there Eastern Indians who are actually descendants of NW Indians. However, these people follow the culture of whatever state they live in. So, a Konkani Brahmin would consider himself South Indian (even though his ancestors were North Indian). A Rajput from the Eastern state of Bihar would consider herself a Bihari (even though Rajputs were originally from Rajasthan).
But like I said before, these people don’t identify as NW Indians. They don’t live in NW India, speak the language or follow the customs. People don’t always base their ethnicity on their genetic roots. Indians often base their ethnicity on the language they speak, what religious customs they follow, the food they eat, etc. 139
Posted by IndianGirl on Wed, 10 May 2006 01:16 | # I accidentally doubled the pic of the Punjabi girl. Here are some more. 140
Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 10 May 2006 01:18 | # Hi J.R. Light hearted banter helps make the thread interesting. Sorry about the spelling and grammatical errors in my posts caused by some rather hurried writing on my part. The reason for inquirng whether you were a Biologist or NOT is not to undermine your integrity, but to gauge the level of response that I could come up with. Helps understand where we stand. 1. Lewontin’s fallacy : Please read the following para.which proves it was Lewontin’s view that was debunked and NOT Lewontins fallacy
The Cambodians and Burmese who are much more darker (slightly admixed w/. Dravidian caucasians) than the Japs or the Chinese, are still classified as Mongoloids ( Hope you won’t contest that one too ). You say Kate Beckinsale has Burmeses genes, but what race would she be presently classified under. I’ll bet it would be Caucasian. This is why the degree of admixture is important in classification. We are all admixed to some extent. Doesn’t necessarily affect one’s classification. b) Genetic evidence given by Rosenberg ( 993 microsattelitles ? ) and others… The most important thing to look for when evaluating a publication is the conclusion/s [ is the term caucasoids mentioned specifically, and if so have they conclusively stated that Indians are NOT caucasoids ? ]. Then we must check the degree of acceptance the publication has received from the scientific community. Have their recommendations being adopted by the Zoological society and included in modern texts etc etc.. Without such an evaluation, just citing a paper proves nothing. Although you say that you have provided empirical evidence , it appears that you have not, as the clustering in Rosenberg’s article is clearly Epidemiological rather than taxonomic in nature, and is full of holes. I have already shown that Rosenberg’s clustering is neither comprehensive nor conclusive. There is NOT a single reference as to how the Negorids, Caucasoids, Mongoloids etc would fit or not fit into his scheme. Citing your own words, ’ at least 5 races’ and ’ 5 or more races’ etc., I must say that these by themselves are an indication of the uncertain nature of this citation by Rosenberg et al. As I said, when suggesting a system of classifciation( if that is indeed what they are doing ) you cannot arbitrarily say at least 5 races etc. What does that mean ? Is it 6 , 7, 8 , or 100 ? He also admits further data is needed. (ii) It is rather strange that you cite 5 works but only 2 conclusions. Did Nei et al (1993), Bowcock et al( 1994), Rosenberg et al (2002 )and (2005) all point to ’ 5 or more races ’ OR did they each reach some other conclusions(if so please quote them separately ). Seems like you haven’t even read these papers properly before quoting them. The problem w/ Rosenberg’s reputation is further discussed below, and confirms my questions to you about holes in his technique c) Authorities, citations etc… It is in this context that I suggested Cavalli as the foremost authority on this matter, as his book is now accepted as the definitive work on this subject See ( d) below. Highly esteemed Journals such as NATURE, SCIENCE etc., reguraly call upon Prof Cavalli-Sforza to write reviews which is an honor extended to only the foremost and top experts/ authorities in their fields. 2. b) Genetic evidence for evolutionary relationships between Europeans and Indians Bamshad M., Kivisild T., et al; (2001) Genetic evidence on the origins of Indian caste populations, Virus Research 75(2): 95-106, Jun. Wells Spencer ; (2003) ‘The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey’, Princeton University Press. . Part 2 follows 141
Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 10 May 2006 01:24 | # Part 2 contd…. L L Cavalli-Sforza, A Piazza, P Menozzi, and J Mountain, Department of Genetics, Stanford University, CA 94305.Reconstruction of human evolution: bringing together genetic, archaeological, and linguistic data. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1988 August; 85(16): 6002-6006.
[iii] Luigi Luca cavalli-Sforza et all The History and Geography of Human Genes. [4] Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca et al (1995). Princeton University Press. c) Correlation analysis in clustering ??? Where did I say this ? [ie underlined portion ?].I was just trying to explain that correlation Coefficients indicate significance of association rather than that of differences. I hope you are not trying to test me or mislead/confuse me by just writing some gobbledygook! I will give you a very simple example regarding correlation as your understanding of the subject seems to be poor….If data sets A, B and C are assessed for correlation and it is found that groups A &B are significantly correlated as compared to A & C that does not indicate that A & C are significantly different.but just that A & B show more association [cluster closely ] than A & C. 3. Real Life situations b) US Supreme Court’s Ruling in the matter of People Vs Baghat Singh Thind (1937):
a) Pageants are NOT about beauty :
Says who ?.... you !!
As if anyone would believe that !
....says you !
I think I am beginning to like you a lot! We could start a comedy club !! Anyway, for your viewing pleasure , here is a very straight nosed Mandira Bedi and another stunner from Bollywood Mahima Chaudry Mandira Bedi Mahima Chowdry FEAR OF POSTING LINKS SYNDROME got you now. ?? Cheers 143
Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 10 May 2006 10:14 | # Hi JB
This statement is so crazy it is not even worth replying to. Are you suggesting that the panels are full of homosexuals. most panesl have at least 30 to 50% women !
True. But beauty pageants also attract only those considered beauties. As I told JR there are better looking wone than Ashwarya Rai in India ! 3. Scientists can explain stuff to the best of their ability but unless the person trying yo learn has a basic knwoeldge of science it woufn’t work, especially when one is discussin advanced Biology such as Genetics at the PhD and above level. 4. The Map does not show the distribution in terms of race but in terms of related groups. You can see that India, all the way upto Scandinavia, has the same color ( blue/green ). For an interpretation of the map you have to read Cavalli’s The History and Geography of The Human gene 144
Posted by C. M. on Wed, 10 May 2006 10:36 | # “The Map does not show the distribution in terms of race but in terms of related groups. You can see that India, all the way upto Scandinavia, has the same color ( blue/green ).”. This map is hugely flawed: the reason why scandinavia has the same color blue as China or India like Malcolm A. propose is that the area of the Baltics and North Scandinavia has large percentage of haplotype N3 which is a sister clade of haplotype O, the main haplotype of Han Chinese. I Know that in the Baltics and Scandinavia, you have the largest amount of blondes and blue eyed hotties. These areas have parental haplotype N3 over 50%, I think for Finnish something like 60% or 70%. Yeah ironic isn’t it that areas with N3 have the largest amount of blondes and blue eyes. You should ask yourself where nordics got their better looks from, if “European” means the same thing as southern European or Mediterenean, people in Northern Europe should look the same as Italians. But a Italian woman with dyed blonde hair and coloured contacts still looks Italian, so it’s not the pigmentation, their facial features will still give them away. I think the whole concept of what is “European” is kindda vague because a person like Cavalli-Sforza think middle easterners are “European” too, but that is because the South of Europe has absorbed large number of middle easterners in past. Like haplotype J. I think it all depends from the person involved. 145
Posted by C. M. on Wed, 10 May 2006 10:53 | # I have seen other maps too of genetic relationship. There are of course differences, in interpretation of data. I think Europe must be considered as a receiver of signals from Asia. Signal means genes. As we consider the main east and west European haplotype R1a and r1b which are derived from M173 which in turn is a derivative of the even older M45 which is Mongoloid, then you can actually say that Europeans are actually mutated Mongoloids going all the way to the neolithics when farmers from Middle east migrated into Europe with haplotype J. I will be very clear about this: northern Europeans are less affected by neolithic middle eastern farmers so they retain their look of paleolithic ancestors. Swedes should look like Italians but they don’t. Dutch should look as Spaniards if there is something like “European”, but they don’t. I think Europe can be compred like a street, your neighbour is not necessarily your relative. Europe is like a street where strangers find a home. Nordics are derived Mongoloids or mutatede mongoloids and southeren Europeans are more like middle easterners. 146
Posted by C. M. on Wed, 10 May 2006 11:25 | # This Malcolm A posts alot of bullshit. Indians are just blend of middle eastern and australoid and they don’t contribute to any region in genes. I think all the links he posted are frauds like that of Bamshad of university of Utah. I doubt that you can find R1a in India at all, of maybe a few that descended from the Macedonian soldiers of Alexander. Like I have explained earlier on R1a and R1b are actually Mongoloid so how Malcolm can claim something that clearly is not his is beyond me. Too much old stuff or propaganda from Malcolm A. Paleolithic Europeans did not speak “indo european” at all, this language family is just 9000 years old from the neolithic farmers from anatolia. People of this language family migrated west into europe in neolithics and they migrated into India about 1200 B.C. 147
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 10 May 2006 20:45 | #
Why isn’t it a surprise? You’re saying an objective of Mongoloid scientists is to prove that the term Mongoloid race is not appropriate? If so, why is that their objective? Is it that they dislike the term “Mongoloid”? Is it that they join the world’s Jewish academics who’ve been bizarrely denying that there are races since around the 1880s (something which is the same as asserting that two plus two equals five)?
Women, who are without exception disastrous beauty-pageant judges, join homosexual men in not knowing what makes a woman beautiful: they always misjudge this, for reasons ranging from not having a neuronal or hormonal clue as to what attracts men in women’s faces, bodies, or clothing to allowing sympathy for or antipathy toward a contestant’s perceived personality to prompt them to call her beautiful when she’s appalling or vice-versa, to following the dictates of PC absolutely, unquestioningly, and even completely unselfconsciously (are not even aware they’re doing it), to sheer jealousy of beautiful women in those instances where they (dimly but) accurately sense they are in the presence of such. As for male homos, they are atrocious judges of beauty pageants for the reason, oft-alluded-to in this site’s threads, that a crucifix repulses a vampire less than feminine beauty repulses homosexual men, who are attracted to the exact opposite: masculinity in women’s faces, bodies, and clothing. Judging panels ought to consist solely of non-leftist heterosexual men at least half to two-thirds of whom are happily married: “non-leftist” because leftist men’s ability to judge womanly beauty is also impaired (in some ways along the same lines as that of homos), and “happily married” because unmarried men are mere boys where women are concerned, lacking in appreciation of the deeper, realer ways in which women are beautiful: a bachelor of thirty-five judges women’s beauty still more or less the way he did at fourteen. He hasn’t grown up where women are concerned, just as a spinster or old maid hasn’t grown up where men are concerned (or where children are concerned either, often enough). Women don’t know which women are most attractive any more than men know which men are. If there were beauty pageants for men—“handsome pageants”—clearly men would have no place whatsoever on the judging panels which would properly consist solely of women.
Your name suggests it’s possible you’re a Chinaman, Mr. Chom. If so, does your nation’s “racialist” preference for the Chinese race, its policy of strictly closed borders where racially-incompatible immigration is concerned, and its steadfast espousal of others of the things that scare you about us scare you about it? I can only assume so. You’re scared-stiff of the Chinese people and of China. Absolutely terrified of them. It’s sad for a Chinaman to feel that way—but at least you’re being consistent ... (You are being consistent ... aren’t you, sir? ... I’m sure you are ... Yes, yes, I feel certain of it ....) 148
Posted by JB on Wed, 10 May 2006 22:28 | # Malcolm:
numbers don’t matter but the same goes for reputation. It’s not the authority of the author or researcher or its reputation that matters it is the validity of their work. I would have thought all scientists would be aware of that. Also scientific journals aren’t free of politics. Their editors aren’t necessarily flawless open minded scientific thinkers Leading scientific journals ‘are censoring debate on global warming’
149
Posted by Jules on Thu, 11 May 2006 05:02 | # So who was the one who wanted me to email them my picture?? I already know you will think I am good looking, so am not worried about that. I will make some type of arrangement so that you may view them since you are so desperate to see. And unlike most of you, I don’t have time to frequent this board, however, the nordic evolution caught my eyes as when I think of Nordic, I think only of Norway, Sweden, Finland, to which my descendents originally are from I dont think all mixes are good looking, I have seen some mixes that are hideous, asian white or white latin, if you are ugly youre ugly. And I am not racist in the least when I say this, but I think most Hindus are very hideous, however, and even when tehy are mixed, they are still ugly, too ethnic. I know that sounds brutal, but thats my honest opinion. Aisha Rai, sp? is very hindu lookig for me and not pretty in my standards, there was some or few indians up there that I thought attractive, but dont you Losers up there worry about it, because even the ugliest Indian woman would never mix with blood that they considered trash, meaning some of you up there, Now for the ones who liked Keira Knightly, To all of you, I feel sorry that your one desire is to have a nordic girl in your life, well, you know, let me tell you a secret to winning any womans heart. All you have to do is have a good heart, not be so racist even when you want to be, and perhaps even the cruelest of women will give you a chance. Yes I am very cruel, but occasionally I meet peple that I can tell are real, and I treat them good. The rest of the world, I jsut use all you stupid losers, because in the end, thats what you really are. 150
Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 11 May 2006 11:00 | # Hi C.M.
I believe I have already explained to my fellow posters here, that unless you are a scientist , you would not be able to decipher some of the stuff here, and more and more, that appears to be the case. What Cavalli did with the map is trace evolutionary relationships using clustering studies and his conclusions based on the map are clear in the statemnt about the UNITY OF CAUACSOIDS FROM EUROPE…WEST, SOUTH and MUCH OF CENTRAL ASIA As I have admitted here, I am NOT a Geneticist ( population Biologist - Pect Control w/ particular reference to economic thresholds and injury levels of cotton pests ) but I have taken enough 500/600 level courses in Genetics to be able to decipher the science in these articles.
, Displays ignorance of science right there. Cavalli is only stating genetic facts that prove most of these races fall under the larger group identified as caucasoids. Thats all. e.i. Elephants and whales look different but fall under the larger group mammalia as opposed to say Pisces ( fish ). Thats at the class level whereas cavalli is comparing at the race ( sub spps ) level. 3
Why is Bamshad a fraud and NOT you ( matter of opinion !)? There is an error in that BTW. ONLY the statements followed by ref to Bamshad are from Bamshads work. The references above that are just a general compilation from my own notes.
Ridiculous ! Now I am beginning to lose respect for you. Read Spencer Wells, Oppenheimer. etc etc who are real geneticists and you will know better (vis a vis R1A known as the Aryan gene )
Aryan = proto Indo European speaking ancestral population. Now represented by it’s many descendants in Europe, Iran India etc..
? You misunderestood ! I was just tryin to prove to JR that the purpose of the article was not what he thought it was.
. Reputation is built up on validity. Validity has nothing to do with integrity. A researcher may do good work and come up w/ a wrong conclusion. BUt if your work has been consistently accepted as valid by the community in general, your validity based reputation is built up. Cavalli’ is one such person. Cheers 151
Posted by C. M. on Thu, 11 May 2006 12:12 | # “statemnt about the UNITY OF CAUACSOIDS FROM EUROPE…WEST, SOUTH and MUCH OF CENTRAL ASIA” Bullshit, ask Cavalli Sforza what he meant, his answer will be he took the haplotyping. Russia is in full blue too as is China and a whole bunch of other Eurasian countries. Your assumption that India would be the same as Finland is rediculous. The map is hugely flawed, if he meant “caucasoid”, how come India isn’t green, or arab countires are green etc. The whole map is inconsistent.
“Aryan = proto Indo European speaking ancestral population. Now represented by it’s many descendants in Europe, Iran India etc.. “ I think you are American: your mixing up of “aryan” with “European” would explain your ignorance. Of course the proto Indo European speaking population did not speak the current languages! Bask is the sole survivor of paleolithic Europe. Indo-European languages is just as import from middle east like the sheep, wheat, goats and vines from the middle eastern farmers in neolithics. Bamshad is a fraud because his work does not show the scientific relevance nor the sincerity. Yeah your take of mammals like whale and cow is very clever but then you should include Japanese too as caucasoid. 152
Posted by C. M. on Thu, 11 May 2006 12:17 | # Ï have to correct one of my sentence: “the kids look as their mum so it means that south Asians and Europeans are the same” It should be of course: the kids look as their mum so it means that south Asians and Europeans aren’t the same. 153
Posted by Jules on Thu, 11 May 2006 14:56 | # Fred, So I take it you think the other women I named are attractive except for one, catherine Z JOnes, Wow 4 out of 5 women that you think are good looking that I mentioned? So needless to say, your puny thoughts of Catherine and trying to say that if I thought she was good looking says much of how I must look. Yet Ironically you fail to quote that the other 4 you find attractive, so what that means, is I must be extremely goodlooking then if that is your silly logic. You must be some ugly FAT old pervert who have nothing better to do, poor thing. I AM POSITIVELY SURE you are not married nor do you have a gf, no decent girl would be with you SAILOR!! Obviously you go to Thailand and Rio de janiero to screw with the poor little children there, pedophiles like you should be locked up!! Wish they could kill all the pedophiles. Why dont you post your picture hon, you boring old fart!! Guess you are too insecure of that lard to be showing anything huh?? I already offered to send someone my pic, so I am not afraid to be judged in any form. Beauty is truly in the eyes of the beholder. Im sure if I was nicer to you, you would be be on the ground groveling. I can only find humor in your funny comments above, thank you for making my day, because it did make me laugh, I give you that! Oh yes from a high class gal to another high class gal, Fred you are one testy bitch! thats right baby, I said you are a bitch only because you act like one. I hope you’re not gay. 154
Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 11 May 2006 22:19 | #
..AND you are a Geneticist, to know what Cavalli Sforza meant when he said that the map shows the UNITY of CAUCASOIDS FROM EUROPE…AND SOUTH ASIA ? I am sure he meant what he wrote because otherwise he would have corrected it before publication!
R1a and its successor R1a1 can be traced from the Caucasus to India through Iran ! As this route coincides with that taken by the invaders who called themslves Aryans ( see Vedic and Iranian literature ; i.e. ” I am Darius; an Aryan ; the son of an Aryan ” Ancient Iranian rock edict). It does also coincide w/ the Indo European laguage speakers. Sure it is in Russia to as it spread from the Caucasus to begin with but broke into 2 groups.
The only thing correct in all of this nonsense is the first statement. I am American.
How would you know ? You are NOT a scientist ; are you ?
This statement makes a little better sense. Yes the Japs do look different and are in a diferent group, but thats why I said to JR that any one set of data like craniofacial measurements etc aren’t sufficient to separate races or any other taxa. We need Evolutionary/genetic ( Most imp ), backed up by paleontological, morphological, anatomical, physiological and Biochemical evidence supported by anthropological, linguistic and historical facts to really trace race relationships. This is why Cavalli always backs up his data with language connections where available.
....AND how come time appears different on a meteor than on earth. Ask Einstein to explain the theory of relativity ! Answering all your questions here, involves a whole 300 level course in Genetics at the undergrad level. This is why I say those who are not familiar with science should keep out of this discussion 155
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 12 May 2006 04:31 | # Jules, For once I am pleased to see you write, “And I am not racist in the least when I say this, but I think most Hindus are very hideous, however, and even when tehy are mixed, they are still ugly, too ethnic.” Malcolm A. asked me to refer to your opinion on Indian women because of its unbiased nature, and I am glad you wrote this. Anyway, if you want me to see your pictures, here are two ways of going about it. Either you email it to us by clicking on the contact link (top of page) and getting the email address from there, or give me approval to contact you by email (I can use the email address you have used to post comments here as long as it is valid). I will need two pictures from you, a close up of your face and a picture of your physique. In both pictures you should be holding a sign that reads “Racists will burn in Hell!” In the picture that shows your physique, you should be holding this sign with one hand, pointing your finger at the camera with the other hand and have a T-shirt on that reads “Racism sucks;” just write this on a T-shirt you plan on discarding and then have yourself photographed in it. If you do all this, I can believe that the pictures are of you or a friend of yours rather than of some Nordic woman whose pictures you lifted off the internet. I won’t be posting your pictures online unless you ask me to. Indian girl, None of the pictures of Punjabis that you have linked to show fine-featured European types, but then no one is saying that NW Indians look like Europeans; they are just genetically closer to Europeans than Indians in NE or southern India. Like I said before, high caste Hindus are scattered through other part of India and are closer to Europeans than lower caste people, but a lighter, high caste people in Southern India would be too much of a minority to alter the general trend of decreasing Europeanization, sampled over all inhabitants of a region, as one moves away from NW India. Therefore, I don’t see what the problem is. The study sampled some populations from NW, NE and southern India and did use enough skulls native to the regions to get the central tendency in the regions sampled. 156
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 12 May 2006 04:36 | # Malcolm A, Goddamned, why are you continuing to debate a pimp? I am not kidding. Notice that others have not stepped in to post pictures of attractive Nordic women to counter the Indian women you point out. This is because they know that I am a pimp, and professional pimps obviously have an eye for the right women for the job. Thus, they have left it to me to come up with attractive Nordic women. Why don’t you work on writing papers instead of debating us dilettantes? Anyway, you have attempted to dismiss the separate India craniofacial cluster by pointing out that 1) the authors had the objective of showing that the term Mongoloid is inappropriate and 2) a superficial examination of whales may suggest that they are fishes but genetically it is clear that they are mammals, i.e., a separate craniofacial cluster does not necessarily imply a separate taxonomical group. This is insane. You have not critiqued the methodology and brought in tangential issues. The purpose of the paper was not to test the validity of the word Mongoloid, but to address patterns of global craniofacial variation. Thus, it was found that several populations previously classified as Mongoloid did not group into the same craniofacial cluster. Since the term Mongoloid was originally based on physical appearance, it is therefore not appropriate to classify all populations previously thought to fall into this group as Mongoloid. It should also be noted that the India cluster was one of the major clusters that appeared in the analysis, and hence there is no support for grouping Indians with Europeans in regard to neutral craniofacial measurements. Regarding the whale issue, even in the absence of genetic knowledge, one would note that these animals breath air, like land animals, and hence could not be classified as fishes. Additionally, I cited two papers, one utilizing ancestry-informative DNA markers and another utilizing neutral craniofacial measurements, and both lead to the same conclusion, namely that Indians are outside the grouping of Europeans, which in conjunction with other data, such as the known history of the peopling of India, clearly shows Indians to not be part of the same race that Europeans belong to. I am not just making my case on craniofacial evidence alone. Regarding Kate Beckinsale, you are looking at the following scenario. A white person bred with a Burmese, the resulting offspring bred with a white person, the resulting offspring again bred with a white person, and the resulting offspring was Kate Beckinsale. Now, the term Caucasoid is based on physical appearance, and Kate Beckinsale looks Caucasoid. Thus, as far as looks are concerned, it is appropriate to classify Kate Beckinsale as Caucasoid, but genetically speaking, her classification is obviously mostly European but also part East Asian. The case of South Asians is very different. You have pointed out elite, upper caste Indian women, and most of them don’t look Caucasoid, and of the rare few who do, two of them turn out to have a white father. I have posted pictures of some untouchables, none of whom look Caucasoid. Thus, in terms of looks, few Indians look Caucasoid. So, keeping in mind that the term Caucasoid was proposed to describe the facial features of Europeans, how can Indians be described as an overwhelmingly Caucasoid people when most of them don’t even look Caucasoid and belong to a separate craniofacial cluster than the craniofacial cluster that Europeans belong to? The genetic issue dovetails with the physical appearance issue. Thus, for instance, the profile of the South Asian from DNAPrint genomics above shows someone with about half European and half non-European genetic affinity, which is the equivalent of an offspring resulting from a white person breeding with a non-white. It would be inappropriate to describe this offspring as either white or European, and if the term Caucasoid was proposed to describe the facial features of Europeans, then how can this offspring be described as Caucasoid given that it doesn’t look Caucasoid? Don’t waste my time over this issue. In response to Rosenberg’s study based on 993 microsatellites, you have mentioned two absurdities. You said that “the most important thing to look for when evaluating a publication is the conclusion/s.” This is ridiculous. The most important thing is to look at how the authors arrived at the conclusions, not the conclusions themselves. Then you said that the next thing to look at is the extent to which the scientific community has accepted the publication. What kind of scientist are you? The history of science is full of instances where a correct idea/explanation was initially ridiculed or even strongly opposed by the scientific community in general, and also full of instances where nonsense was passed as science under the blessings of most scientists (e.g., denial of race differences). Thus, the issues that matter are how the conclusions have been arrived at and how well they better explain phenomena, not how well accepted the ideas are. You also said that “You can cite 10 papers against my 1, but you will still NOT prove your point depending on the quality and reputation of the people you cite.” This is coming from a scientist!!! Once again, the quality of the evidence matters, not the quality and reputation of the researchers. Even if a researcher has a solid track record of high quality research, it does not follow that a new paper by him must also be high quality; the quality of a paper depends on the evidence offered in it, not the reputation of the authors. Such statements on your part show that you are either not a scientist or one who is a disgrace to the scientific community. You have to be under some serious delusion to say that you have “already shown that Rosenberg’s clustering is neither comprehensive nor conclusive. There is NOT a single reference as to how the Negorids, Caucasoids, Mongoloids etc would fit or not fit into his scheme.” You have not critiqued the methodology, and Rosenberg’s data makes it very clear what the traditional terms correspond to: Negroid = sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasoid = European, and Mongoloid = Chinese and related people. You assert that the proof of at least 5 races reflects the uncertain nature of the papers. There is no uncertainty that the minimum number of races in humans is 5. The reason that a definitive figure cannot be arrived at is that not all human populations have been sampled in these studies. You point out holes in Rosenberg’s data by saying:
157
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 12 May 2006 04:49 | # Malcolm A, Now you have cited a bunch of sources to support your contention that South Asians are Caucasoid. Your first source is an online dictionary! Your next three sources are Oppenheimer, Bamshad and Spencer Wells, all of whom are mostly addressing Y-chromosome DNA evidence, which shows European migrations toward India. Two things should be noted about this data. Americans blacks typically have some European ancestry, but I don’t think that you will call them Caucasoid for this reason. Therefore, part-European ancestry does not necessarily make one fit into the same race as Europeans. Secondly, Y-chromosome data will show much greater European affiliation on the part of South Asians than mtDNA. Your next two sources are a 1988 paper by Cavalli-Sforza and his book again. I will address Cavalli-Sforza’s paper below. The genetic and linguistic trees in this paper are shown below.
Firstly, this dataset refutes your notion of there being only three races since you can see the NE Asians clustering with the “Caucasoids” rather than with SE Asians, i.e., there is no support for only three races on the part of this study, and this study supports at least 4 races in humans. Secondly, if you had only bothered to read this paper, you would have noted that the Lapps joined an Asiatic cluster in 32% of the bootstraps, the Berbers joined the African cluster in 20% of the bootstraps and the Dravidians joined an Asiatic cluster in 20% of the bootstraps. This is obviously because these are mixed populations. It is well known that a mixed population attaches in the tree to the branch that has contributed the greater fraction. Thus, if someone’s ancestry is 42% European, 28% East Asian, 15% African and 15% Australoid, then this person will attach to the branch containing Europeans since this branch has contributed the greatest fraction, but this certainly doesn’t mean that this person belongs to the same race that Europeans belong to. Also note that Cavalli-Sforza used the term Caucasoid, but not Negroid and Mongoloid. Cavalli-Sforza cannot use Mongoloid to refer to NE and SE Asians because NE Asians are clustering with the “Caucasoid” group rather than with SE Asians. It is obvious that Cavalli-Sforza is using Caucasoid as a convenience term only, and could very well have chosen to use Euro-Mediterranean, instead. Your next citation is Cavalli-Sforza’s book again. Note that your quote assigns green to Caucasoids, but South Asia is not shown in green, i.e., your idea that South Asians are Caucasoid is refuted right there, but you seize on to the statement about the unity of Caucasoids in Europe and South Asia. This does not mean that South Asians are Caucasoid or else they would be shown in green. The statement simply shows a genetic link between Europeans and South Asians, which nobody here is disputing, and since Caucasoid is a term originally proposed to describe physical appearance, it is clear that there are a minority of people with Caucasoid facial features in India, who can be described as Caucasoid with respect to physical appearance only, and the data show that these people can trace part of their ancestry to Europe; hence the statement of the unity of Caucasoids in Europe and in India. Additionally, don’t let the same-color assignment to Northern Scandinavia and India fool you. The same-color assignment is easily explained. Look at the following pictures of Scandinavians-proper.
Now look at some pictures of Northern Scandinavians (in traditional dresses). What do you see?
It is clear that the facial features of Northern Scandinavians vary from Caucasoid to non-Caucasoid, which results from Asian-European mixing in the region. Since the largest two racial elements in India are European and Asian, the color assigned to India and all the way up to Northern Scandinavia reflects the transition from East Asian to European, and this transition, like the region where one color band in a rainbow blends into another, is not assigned a race. Of course, simple color bands cannot capture complex genetic history, but they do give a bird’s eye view of the scenario, and it is clear that South Asians are not assigned the same color as Europeans-proper. Your last source to support your belief that Indians are Caucasian is once again the 1937 U.S. Supreme Court statement that “Indians were Caucasians and that anthropologists considered them to be of the same race as white Americans.” What in the world? Is this a scientific source? Why can you not cite recent evidence? Obviously because quantitative skeletal and molecular studies clearly show Indians to be outside the race of whites. My citation of Lewontin’s fallacy was appropriate in response to your statement that clustering does not prove anything because the traits examined have to be uniform within groups; in you own words, “[cluster analyses] are simply not acceptable statistical tools unless they do NOT show dissimilar within and between group variance ( ie are uniform ).” Thus, I cited A.W.F. Edwards’ paper to show that even if the majority of the variation is within groups (no uniformity, greater variation within groups than between groups, and considerable group overlap), it is still possible for cluster analysis to neatly separate blindly sampled individuals into separate categories. Additionally, are you serious about saying that Lewontin’s view rather than Lewontin’s fallacy was debunked? If yes, then are you insane? What was debunked was Lewontin’s fallacious view, which could be described as either Lewontin’s view or Lewontin’s fallacy, the latter being more appropriate since Lewontin has espoused plenty of viewpoints, not all of which are fallacious. 158
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 12 May 2006 04:55 | # Malcolm A, Regarding cluster analysis, you wrote:
Here is what you said:
In other words, you are saying that clustering in separate groups does not prove anything, i.e., that there are significant differences between the groups. Thus, I asked you to come up with a real life example of individuals being separated into separate clusters such that there are no significant differences between the clusters. You also said:
It is obvious that if grouping into separate clusters can either be due to significant differences between the clusters or no differences, then separate clustering does not allow one to determine whether there are significant differences between the groups, but if grouping into separate clusters can only be if there are significant differences between groups, then separate clustering is also proof of significant differences between the groups. You are implying the former scenario and this is why it is necessary for you to provide an example—in accordance with the underlined statement—of individuals being separated into separate clusters such that there are no significant differences between the clusters. Besides, you curiously said that you hope that I am not trying to mislead/confuse you. How can a lowly pimp confuse or mislead an esteemed scientist? Don’t forget that I cited three examples of statistically significant differences between Europeans and Indians in craniofacial structures—nose width, nose length and upper nose projection—which shows that there are indeed statistically significant differences between Europeans and Indians in craniofacial features, which is consistent with their assignment to separate craniofacial clusters, but you have ignored this evidence. You wrote that “[if] it is found that groups A &B are significantly correlated as compared to A & C that does not indicate that A & C are significantly different.but just that A & B show more association [cluster closely ] than A & C.” Care to cite a practical example to help a non-scientist who lacks your profound understanding? What is your point in citing the story of the puzzled Caucasian? This person found genetic evidence of ancestry from the Russian Caucasus, but then the Indo-European people who spread out from this region were a white people. So what is the puzzlement? You said that no one believes that beauty pageants are not about beauty. Someone with your poor perception has apparently not noted the large number of unattractive women participating in these contests, but others have, and if these contests were about beauty, then unattractive women would not be participating. You are right that beauty contests are also about smartness, but there are plenty of attractive and smart women around, yet you see a number of unattractive women in these contests. It is not just me who sees that Indian women have more massive cheekbones, broader noses, thicker lips, and a higher frequency of hooked noses compared to Nordic women. Anyone with reasonable perception can see this even in elite Indian women, forget about the general population. Besides, I have not included Indian women in my entry because I am threatened by them. I have previously addressed East Asians, and it would be appropriate to address South Asians at some point, which I did in this entry. Clueless whites need to know about the disastrous aesthetic consequences of absorbing non-whites into the white gene pool, and hence entries such as this are needed. Anyway, you need to quit coming up with your demented pointers or else I will be forced to use the language that I use with my hos. Regarding the women you pointed out, here is Mandira Bedi compared to a Nordic.
And, here is Mahima Chowdry compared to a Nordic. 159
Posted by anjali on Fri, 12 May 2006 06:12 | # u are all dicks…white skin is the most disgusting color i have seen…goes all ghostly pale in the winter and red and blotchy in the summer…gross…we dont need our beautiful people of color to mix with whites and contaminate our beautiful genes and blood… 160
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 12 May 2006 07:35 | # Anjali,(we hope, not a Brit), But a Darkie is what she remains, 161
Posted by anjali on Fri, 12 May 2006 09:50 | # wah wah….what wit, we have a poet in our midst!!! we should all defer cos the wanker knows how to rhyme his words… Indian brains only will suffice for me, and suck on this wanker…..... India is the world’s largest, oldest, continuous civilization.
Q. Who is the creator of Pentium chip (needs no introduction as 90% of the Q. Who is the third richest man on the world? Q. Who is the founder and creator of Hotmail (Hotmail is world’s No.1 web Q. Who is the president of AT & T-Bell Labs (AT & T-Bell Labs is the creator Q. Who is the GM of Hewlett Packard? Q. Who is the new MTD (Microsoft Testing Director) of Windows 2000, Q. Who are the Chief Executives of CitiBank, Mckensey & Stanchart? We Indians are the wealthiest among all ethnic groups in America, even There are 3.22 millions of Indians in USA (1.5% of population). ,
162
Posted by anjali on Fri, 12 May 2006 10:06 | # you brits are the big joke and your ancestors the australians are an even bigger joke…in australia, i am invited to a bbq dinner…to this dinner ive been invited to i am expected to bring my own drinks and my own meat for the barbie, shall i bring my own cutlery perhaps??...such is the hospitality and culture of the whites…why the hell wouldnt one go to a restaraunt?? and does the conncept of a family unit exist in these white cultures?? ppl dont know what the term respect means…on top of that…one of my white acquaintances recently asked her mother to knit her a scarf…her mother accepted of course as long as the scarf was paid for…wow…now let me relate my own story…recently my aunt needed to put down a deposit for a house she wanted to but…my parents gave her $20 thousand australian dollars…this was gifted to my aunt not lent…so shes not even expected to repay it…not that we are rich and can afford it, but such is our generosity, and the value we place on our relationships… 163
Posted by Malcolm A on Fri, 12 May 2006 10:08 | #
Please be nice to others. Everyone has an opinion and insulting people/races does not achieve anything. I am a white married to a indian. SO there Cheers 164
Posted by Nio Zilda on Fri, 12 May 2006 10:24 | # you brits are the big joke and your ancestors the australians are an even bigger joke…in australia, i am invited to a bbq dinner Why the f*ck are you in Australia? Go back home. You Asiatics are not wanted, liked, or needed, in our countries. And you lot are ugly in comparison with Northern Europeans, as honest Indians admit. 165
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 12 May 2006 10:55 | # Anjali, Our point is that large aggregates of Sub-Continental immigrant are not wanted in the West. You have a homeland of your own. Be madly wealthy and successful there, if you can. But leave us to live in peace as we wish. 166
Posted by anjali on Fri, 12 May 2006 11:02 | # dont flaut your indian marriage in our face like a flag..who gives a toss who ure married to…shoulda stuck with your own race…i have every right to be in australia…the land of the indigenous…its the brits and white ppl who have no claims to land in this part of the world…england is home to the brits….this includes their offsprings such as the white americans and austrlians…they should go home….ill inult ppl if i pls…they are free to say what they want to me, ill sleep easy…are race is the most attractive…northern southern eastern european…none can compare to our beauties who have been named, the most beautiful in the world…this is fun…im looking forward to your replies…so keep them rolling in… ps..what attracted you to your indian wife, apart from your children being able to make a claim to the greatest culture in the world… 168
Posted by C. M. on Fri, 12 May 2006 11:09 | # Malcolm A. About the Cavalli map: isn’t it strange that Cavalli classifies part of middle east in green, while Baltics and Russia are blue?! How weird is it that Cavalli think Iran is “european”, while he thinks the Baltics (incredible blonde and blue eyed hottties) are not “european”! The whole map is a fraud! None of the middle eastern countries should be put in green. You have not answered my question why offspring of Mongoloid/White looks more European than offspring of White/south Asian. It’s you who claim that South Asians are the same as Europeans. It’s obvious you do not accept reason. You are holding on to outdated 19th century stuff or 30 year old books. 169
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 12 May 2006 11:30 | # It is always a source of annoyance to cretins like anjali that the lowest type of European, the transported criminal and future Australian, could engender people who built a desert country into a far bigger success than India, with its innately backward people and hopeless Oriental fatalism. 170
Posted by anjali on Fri, 12 May 2006 12:01 | # if the west is successful today it is thanks to the fact that they have stolen what they never had…starting with the land they live on…brazil, a country rich in natural resources…yet most of its population lives in poverty…why?? because the west steals its resources and then sells it to others…africa…a third world continent, huge source of diamonds, which the africans themselves never see…the west give the africans loans so they can mine the diamonds but the africans have to sell the diamonds back to the west at a price set by them to repay the loans…and then the west sells it to others at exorbitant prices…same goes for the middle east and its oil…where does the west stop?? it doesnt stop on its own accord, and then they wonder why they are constantly being bombed at?? 171
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 12 May 2006 12:45 | #
Will you agree to unlimited amounts of Chinese, Mexicans, Arabs, and Negroes being allowed to go there too? (That’s unlimited amounts mind you—no upper limits, exactly the thing we’re being asked to accommodate here.) Or is India best reserved solely for Indians? 172
Posted by rustymason on Fri, 12 May 2006 14:19 | # Anjali, you’re in someone else’s home, please at least try to be courteous. Perhaps you are upset that the greatest civilizations were built by Whites and you feel inadequate. Well, we try to be as inclusive as we can, but we cannot tolerate behavior such as yours. Bye. 173
Posted by amazed on Fri, 12 May 2006 15:18 | # wow…and to think we’re all gonna rot and die despite whatever complexion we have?!!?! This is truly amazing! What really is beauty? An indian’s beauty cannot be defined by the white man and similarly, the nordic beauty cannot be defined by the indian. We all have different concepts of beauty due to socialisation, culture etc. I never thought white women or indian women had shapely figures but that’s due to my culture. When i think of a good body i think of latinas… the brazilians, the women of the caribbean. I think of curves but others may like a little butt or none etc… it’s all about culture. It doesn’t have to be such a nasty discussion but regardless, noone should be hurt by any one else’s comments because everyone is beautiful in their own way. How is beauty defined again…? Beauty for you isn’t beauty for me… and what really matters is the heart. We die and ROT ppl!!! 174
Posted by Andrew on Fri, 12 May 2006 16:09 | # Anjali; 175
Posted by Ethnocentrist on Fri, 12 May 2006 20:34 | # Why is Anjali using the Queen’s English to berate the people of this blog? Shouldn’t she be using her native tongue clicking and head bobbing to put us in our place and confirm her superiority? The twat..err…twit rattles off a bunch of Paki names from US based companies as confirmation of Paki superiority? LOL Al Ross, hilarious poem. 176
Posted by randomdude on Fri, 12 May 2006 21:08 | # I hope that I am not making an ad hominem argument here, but most of you posting in favour of the nordic look are yourselves in such a race. This favourism may arise partially through pure aesthetics (she looks better because she looks better) but mostly from racial preservation (she looks better because she is of MY type and I want to mate with her in order to perpetuate OUR race). That said, I agree with the assertation. Blondes are pretty and indians ugly, and that’s that. randomdude 177
Posted by Nio Zilda on Fri, 12 May 2006 21:59 | #
So, I take it you got the abos’ permission before immigrating? 178
Posted by anjali on Fri, 12 May 2006 22:49 | # Nio…did you get permission to be here…if u didnt then wtf?? dont even talk to me…and as an aside, i was born here…immigrate is what my parents did… 179
Posted by anjali on Fri, 12 May 2006 22:55 | # if yall could speak anything other than english i would no doubt be talking to u in arabic…but i have to come down to ure level and communicte in english so u morons can understand… 180
Posted by anjali on Fri, 12 May 2006 23:01 | # Fred Scrooby…yes, in my opinion India should be accomodating of outsiders…hell we put up with enuf of british, and dutch shit…i dont see why we couldnt handle the others…that being said…they would have to keep to themselves…interracial mixing sux…indians have to preserve their aryan (cos yes we are the true aryans) blood…and they would have to be respectful of our culture and traditions…and before u get back to me on this one…can someone tell me what the fuck ure culutre is…if it is what i think it is, then i feel sorry for you guys… 181
Posted by Malcolm A on Fri, 12 May 2006 23:11 | # Hi C.M. 1.
You shouldn’t even be talking about this unless you are a professional biologist. I am repeating for the last time Cavalli is NOT illustrating individual races with color. He is using genetics to cluster closely related groups, thats all. There is no race called European, Indian or Iranian. That is what you are missing. 2.
I have studied your previous posts and believe from your many references about Mongoloids that you may be one yourself. This maybe the reason why you believe that Mongoloid and white offspring look more European. Mongoloids are typified by unusually angled eyes, flat facial structure, shapeless figures (flat hips and breasts) and to my knowledge Mongoloids haven’t been able to win a beauty contest to save their life. So, Mongoloids + Caucasoid maybe European geographically, but they will never be considered caucosoid as they are mixing races. Indians are caucasoids just as white Europeans and their mixes, and whether Meditteranean or otherwise will remain within the Caucasoid race. Cheers. 182
Posted by anjali on Fri, 12 May 2006 23:13 | # sorry rustymason…pls remind me exactly whos home this is…are u an abo?? 183
Posted by anjali on Fri, 12 May 2006 23:15 | # did yall see the closing ceremony for the melb 2006 comm games?? us indians blew the show outta the water, and that was a pretty crappy performance by indian standards…the rest of the ceremony was just plain boring 184
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 12 May 2006 23:18 | # Anjali, I am glad to have you comment here. People like you make a strong case for minimizing the presence of the dark races in the West. You hate our culture and customs, yet live in our midst because your countries of origin are hellholes. You ascribe many inventions and innovations to your own dark kind, claim that whites have stolen these from the dark races, and blame the abysmal quality of life in your homelands on exploitation by whites. Wow, talk about serious delusion! Let me briefly address some of your nonsense. The oldest civilizations have been documented in Europe and the Levant, not India. India does not have a history of invading others because it mostly consisted of tribal units that had neither the intelligence nor the military might to invade other nations. The reason India is the largest democracy is because democracy was introduced by the British, not invented by the Indians, and European-achieved advances in medicine and agriculture notably reduced mortality in India, thereby rapidly increasing its size. In case you didn’t notice, there is plenty of documentation here—by none other than the great scientist, Malcolm A., who greatly admires the beauty of Indian women—that there have been European migrations toward India, and the genetic legacy of these migrations is most evident in high caste Hindus. Thus, some of the inventions and innovations you ascribe to the supposedly dark inhabitants of India were a product of white or close-to-white people, whereas the others are pure fiction on the part of deluded Hindu supremacists. On the other hand, you have digressed into matters not relevant to this entry. More relevant to this entry, notwithstanding Indian women winning several beauty pageants, which you have emphasized like Malcolm A., Nordic women rather than South Asian women are the stuff of men’s fantasy around the world, which is the proper yardstick of who is considered more attractive. Anyway, if you dislike the West, don’t live in it. 185
Posted by Malcolm A on Fri, 12 May 2006 23:19 | # Hi Anjali, Show some class. By using profanity and insults you are demeaning India and Indians. Try to present your point of view without losing your cool. Cheers. 186
Posted by anjali on Fri, 12 May 2006 23:26 | # Varanasi, also known as Benares, was called “the ancient city” when Lord Buddha visited it in 500 B.C.E, and is the oldest, continuously inhabited city in the world today. Although modern images of India often show poverty and lack of development, India was the richest country on earth until the time of British invasion in the early 17th Century. Christopher Columbus was attracted by India’s wealth. Once again, the british came and fucked up all they saw…including the women…so yea andrew…lets not compare our ancient civilisation..to some tribe and moreover to what you whites like to call “your” cicvilisation 187
Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 00:14 | # J Richards… would stick ure dick in a hole given half a chance…let me give you the tip… “your brightest people are typically high caste Hindus, closer to Europeans than lower caste people, and a small minority of the Indian population.” sure aryan ancestory and sanksrit was brought in…by the aryans…not by the nordics..whats is the point ure trying to make?? westerners are not the ancestors of aryans however much they wish they were… The day where any western country has a women for PM is the day we can say they are truly democratic nations…till date america, britain and australia are yet to see women leaders…and u love to call ureselves a democracy..u dont even kno the meanin of that word… “highest incidence of poor language proficiency” Grammar constitutes one of India’s greatest contributions to Western philology. Panini, the Sanskrit grammarian, who lived between 750 and 500 BC, was the first to compose formal grammar through his Astadhyai Proper ayurvedic medicines are herbs not chemicals…like the ones u use in western product…im yet to come across a face wash that doesnt contain sodium laureth sulphate…used to was garage floors…in our skin prodcuts!! yea…british would have left india eventually…once there was nothing left for them, once they had destroyed everything…and when they left they took with them…indian cooks, so they would not be reduced to eating pig food like mash potato and corn and they also took a great indian game, cricket, which they now like to claim as their own ans tea…
12% of Scientists in America are Indians. 36% of NASA employees are Indians. 34% of MICROSOFT employees are Indians 28% of IBM employees are Indians 17% of INTEL employees are Indians 13% of XEROX employees are Indians These facts were recently published in a German Magazine which deals with WORLD HISTORY There is a difference between aisian white skin and nordic white skin…the latter being the shit type i havent finished…but i have more pressing matters to attend to..such as eating 188
Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 00:28 | # when i see the northern scandanavians in traditional garb…i see red, ugly, fat women dressed in…i dunno…what do u call the crappy clothes they wear?? 189
Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 13 May 2006 01:29 | # Hi JR
JR, Relax. Posting girlie pics doesn’t make one a pimp…Just an enthusiast of beauty matters ( like me !! ) Why am I debating you ? Well, you should have figured out that a guy like me with post grad qualifications, and over 25 years of field experience can’t be very young !! I am semi-retired due to health reasons and hence a lot of spare time to debunk your myths. Hope that settles that.
You got it all wrong as usual.
I see that you are trying very hard to wriggle outa this one… Who says caucaosids are based on physical appearance ? WRONG there ( weren’t U citing genetic evidence sometime back ). Also, in citing that Kate is 3 generations Caucasian and hence classified Caucasoid, proves my point. It is the degree of admixture that counts in classification. So what if Indians are a little mixed they are still taxonomically Caucasians ! You seem to be admitting that at least some Indians are Caucasian ( ie… few Indians look Caucasoid…..most of them don’t even look Caucasoid !) Few in India may run into many many millions!!!
. How so ? What matters in the final analysis in the conclusion. Most people don’t know how Einstein arrived at his Relativity equation. But they know that E=MC^2 !! Part 2 follows 190
Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 13 May 2006 01:43 | # Hi JR ( part 2)
Well, as I said to C.M. validity and integrity are different things. Reputation is built up over time based on validity. Validity depends on acceptability by the community .Mull that one over.
..and which 5 is that ? also please show me any university prescribed / latest Zoological text that names these 5 as the current human races…How do they know in advance that the minimum number might not go down to 3 or 4 as more research is done?
Well, if I did would you accept my critique. So others ( 3rd party) have to come in ; don’t they ? Rosenberg had more problems than I let on here.
Maybe you should contemplate on why the online dictionary would give such a definition in 2005 ? Surely they have their sources ? and also proves that Caucasoid race w/ Indian is NOT just a figment of my imagination…
. Really ? Are you sure of this ? I’ll bet you never even opened Oppenheimer’s book. Thats not what he says !
European race ? never heard of that one until I came here .!
Now you are interpreting cavalli’s words to suit your theories. Did you check w/ Cavalli to see whether he agrees w/ your interpretation of what he wrote ? Please don’t put words in Cavallis mouth. The old guy wouldn’t like it ! Cavalli, the foremost authority on this matter as of now, has, in his 1995 book, which is considered an authoritative text, reconfirmed these findings as I repeated in the previous post.( ie the unity of the Caucasoids from Europe ..and South Asia ). Cannot be any clearer than that. Too bad it doesn’t agree w/ your view point. quote]11who can be described as Caucasoid with respect to physical appearance only, and the data show that these people can trace part of their ancestry to Europe; hence the statement of the unity of Caucasoids in Europe and in India. Additionally, don’t let the same-color assignment to Northern Scandinavia and India fool you. The same-color assignment is easily explained. Look at the following pictures of Scandinavians-proper Again, yet another interpretation..Does cavalli use the word ancestry anywhere in the unity of the caucasoids statement ?[like ancestry based unity of etc etc..} NO.
I would accept this interpretation of yours, only if Cavalli himself issued a letter agreeing that your interpetation of his map is the correct one, as opposed to his own interpretation !! PART 3 follows 191
Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 13 May 2006 01:59 | # PART 3
Lo !! Didn’t Einstein publish his Relativity in 1923 (?) ? Do I hear any complaints about the year ? NO. You missed the importance of this argument. None of my former nationalist friends here has ever raised any objections to this decision based on any new scientific evidence from Rosenberg et al etc !! So far no challenges from my former heritage foundation buddies here in N America and therefore it stands !!
Why beat a dead horse. Maybe what you intended to say did not come out the way it shouldda been. This is just small potatoes. Semantics. Forget it.
Now that I did say. But this is not what you said, I said in the previous post ! [ie You are saying that cluster analysis of these 20 variables will in some such cases separate individuals, randomly and blindly drawn from both groups, into separate clusters] See the difference between 1 and 2.
Again this I did NOT say. It is your own interpretation Just like your interpretations of Cavalli’s words. I said clustering does not prove significant differences among groups but rather significant association ( though there is one coeff that can be used to prove differences which is not that used often due to difficulties of interpretation ( coefficient of divergence ) SEE correlation is essentially a test for association and proves only the significance of such association and this is helpful to test whether 2 or more OTU groups are closely associated so that they can be clustered together. Aside from K clustering several other methods can be used ie rJK etc for genetic distance, resemblance, racial likeness, divergence, Euclidean (temporal/ spatial) distance etc….which are then analyzed for variance by weighted methods. The Matches Asymptote method is the commonly used method and uses the ‘proportion of characters agreeing to the total compared’ which .assumes that similarity between 2 Operational Taxonomic Units (OTU) expresses the same similarity between a parametric proportion of character matches ( Needs no defense as supported by Sampling theory ) SUMMARY Let us look at what we are trying to prove here. 1. I am saying that Indian and White caucasoids are different in many ways, but are still classified under Caucasoids. So please stop repeating arguments that try to prove they are 2 different populations, which they are [ This is why your citations proving craniofacial differencess etc are out of point ; I already agreed that they are different in many ways ] . But they both classify under the Caucasoid population as opposed to Negroid or Mongoloid. IF YOU ARE trying to prove that the Indians are a totally new classificational taxa outside of the major three, then provide the new classification, including their new race nomenclature (ie Indianoid ? ), meaning a proclamation by the Royal Zoological Society etc., that, ’ according to evidence provided by Rosenberg et al, a totally new Zoological classification of the Homo Sapiens Spps has been established: There are now 4 races ; Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and - here is the new addition - INDIANOID !!’ This is what you should try to prove ! BEAUTY MATTERS
.... JR, attractive and/or unattractive is a relative term. Even among the contestants some are more unattractive compared to the others and so on and so forth…
. Didn’t you admit to ‘Indian gurl’ that there is variability among both Nordic and Indian women in terms of individual facial features and that it is the total package that matters ? OR am I mistaken again. You said Indians have hooked noses and I just showed you one with a straight nose… So now
You missed the bus again. Please read what I said. I said you included Indian women [by comparing them w/ our women here ] because U felt that Indians were the ones posing a threat to our women in terms of beauty.
JR not nice ! Arent you a registered writer of a reputed blog ? We are both civilized and educated men right ?.Anyway, I thought you were already using bad language ( ass, etc ) But I am not at all the sensitive type ! If you like to use bad language feel free to do so by all means. I am American, remember ? ( we invented bad language here in the Wild West and aren’t very impressed by it ). But, hey, if it’s serious rationale you require w/out any humor, so be it ! Take it easy. 192
Posted by C. M. on Sat, 13 May 2006 04:41 | # “I have studied your previous posts and believe from your many references about Mongoloids that you may be one yourself. This maybe the reason why you believe that Mongoloid and white offspring look more European. Mongoloids are typified by unusually angled eyes, flat facial structure, shapeless figures (flat hips and breasts) and to my knowledge Mongoloids haven’t been able to win a beauty contest to save their life. So, Mongoloids + Caucasoid maybe European geographically, but they will never be considered caucosoid as they are mixing races. Indians are caucasoids just as white Europeans and their mixes, and whether Meditteranean or otherwise will remain within the Caucasoid race. “ As far as I know “caucasoid” is outdated because they previously classified people from South Asia with “caucasoid” while genetic evoidence provide evidences that south Asians can be called a race. So you think that a mix Mongoloid/European like the Komi or Lapp are not European with their nordic looks, while brownies from middle east and India are the so called “aryans”. About the classification of races, it needs some serious cleaning up. Genetics research is superior to the dumb language studies of the past or the phenotyping of 19th century. Ah Mongoloids is everybody in the east. We now know that south east Asians are different than the North East Asians. How rediculous it was to group them together just as rediculous it is to group hindus within Europeans. About your so called typical Mongoloid features: it’s only the extremes you are mentioning, it’s just as silly to claim if you have a few Indians with a straight nose, they all have straights noses, while in real they have hooked noses. I can understand your desire for “only 3 races” so it would be convenient for you to squeeze unrelated people into one cluster, but you cannot get anway with this now, you could get away with “3 races” in 1912. There is no such thing as “caucasoid”, it’s outdated, it’s like the APG-66 radar in early F-16 fighter blocks. It’s useless to use it now. Europeans can be distinguish from middle easterners and south asians, it’s as simple as that. 193
Posted by C. M. on Sat, 13 May 2006 04:59 | # ” am saying that Indian and White caucasoids are different in many ways, but are still classified under Caucasoids” Malcolm A: That’s what I am trying to make clear to you that they shouldn’t classify it under “Caucasoid”. Why are you holding on to old stuff? How did they know in 19th century that there are more than 3 races? They were ignorant then. While it is certainly true that everybody has some kind of admixture, the admixture in India is heavily mixed. So stop bothering with this “caucasoid” stuff, how about mulattos, are they caucasoid too?! 194
Posted by Nio Zilda on Sat, 13 May 2006 06:09 | #
I’m a New Zealander (hence the sobriquet). I assumed you were an immigrant to Australia because your English is so poor.
Ah, do carry on deary. This is all helping the Cause. 195
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 13 May 2006 06:33 | # Anjali’s hilariously persistent assaults on reality may well soon persuade Phil Peterson that she has delighted us long enough. 196
Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 10:21 | # ” I assumed you were an immigrant to Australia because your English is so poor.” u say that like all immigrants have poor english, yet westerners must obviously have A-standards. I frequently intersperse profanities with what i am trying to say becasue that is the way to communicate with dumb yobbos, who should know that i am not some 2bit that can be pushed around, and AR ur comment isnt worth the time im spending or the blog space needed to give u a reply 197
Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 10:27 | # PS…how come no one has got bak to me on the culture issue, now im feeling all revved up cos i just attended a cultural show with lots of wonderful dancing, singing and other witty performances…J Richards i think its a matter that is important to this entry…why dont u want to talk about…i understand..id be embarassed too if i had a culutre like yours…true its not really worth a mention… 198
Posted by Ethnocentrist on Sat, 13 May 2006 10:42 | # The real question is why haven’t you addressed any of the issues that J Richards pointed out in his long comment reply to your unfounded histrionics? As for the “38% of Doctors in America are Indians”, I find that highly dubious firstly and it is no bragging point considering that Indians are simply leeches and nepotistic, secondly. It is no point of contention that when you allow one Indian in, then he quickly metastasizes to a billion or so due to your highly racist favoritism for one another. Most Indian doctors in the US are abhorrently subpar. That is a fact. Most also are on the receiving end of investigations for inappropriate professional behaviour. I’m sure you do not see any hypocrisy in your views that Indians are allowed to be nepotistic and tribal, yet you behave ignorantly when whites try to do the same. Indians are not ones high on the logic list, are they? The remaining list that you posted has a recurring theme and that is ALL are US companies or in the US. Where is your equivalent in India? Where are your Microsofts etc? Hmmmm? LOL 199
Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 11:14 | # yes…they are all us companies…yet their success is thanks to the indians they have working for them…all our “microsofts” are working for bill gates… educate me as to how the whites are nepotisitc and tribal…im yet to come across of hear of modern day nordic “tribes”... Today, Asian Indians are the second largest Asian group (2,226,585) in the US, behind only the Chinese (2,762,524). Source: 2003 American Community Survey Indians own 50% of all economy lodges and 35% of all hotels in the US, which have a combined market value of almost $40 billion. Source: Little India Magazine One in every nine Indians in the US is a millionaire, comprising 10% of US millionaires. Source: 2003 Merrill Lynch SA Market Study A University of California, Berkeley, study reported that one-third of the engineers in Silicon Valley are of Indian descent, while 7% o valley hi-tech firms are led by Indian CEOs. Source: Silicon India Readership Survey NRI’s: Indians have the highest educational qualifications of all ethnic groups in the US. Almost 67% of all Indians have a bachelor’s or high degree (compared to 28% nationally). Almost 40% of all Indians have a master’s, doctorate or other professional degree, which is five times the national average. Source: The Indian American Centre for Political Awareness. Microsoft has large R&D investment in India and many products Microsoft said it would invest US$400 million (S$680 million) in India over the next three years in part to triple its staff in Hyderabad to 500 by 2005. ...now why the heck do they want to do that i wonder?? 200
Posted by Ethnocentrist on Sat, 13 May 2006 11:37 | # educate me as to how the whites are nepotisitc and tribal… They’re not, you ignor"anus”. That is part of the point, for if we were, you would not find your sorry ass in Australia and none of the braggadocious Browns would be in the US. Understand? YOU are nepotistic and tribal which is a primary reason for your “success” in the west. yes…they are all us companies…yet their success is thanks to the indians they have working for them...all our “microsofts” are working for bill gates… LOL Surely you jest. Do you honestly think that were it not for the Browns, all these companies would shrivel to oblivion? Also, your “microsofts” are simply leeches on good idea. The question is not how you can bring together a few subpar code writers from a pool of over a billion people. The question is where is the ingenuity to create a Microsoft out this same pool of Brownians? 201
Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 11:40 | # TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ THURSDAY, MAY 05, 2005 12:46:32 AM] In fact, House Resolution 22, which was passed last week, goes well beyond just the IITs and is all praise for the contributions of Indian Americans to economic innovation and society generally in the US. “I proudly co-sponsored this important legislation to offer my congratulations and support to Indian Americans throughout the US for the success they have found in all professions including engineering, education, research and technology. The Indian-American community is one of the most successful immigrant groups and has achieved success in many areas, reaching beyond just the typically expected fields of engineering and technology. Meanwhile, the governors of the state of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia have declared May 2005 as Indian American heritage month in recognition of the contribution of IITians and Indian Americans to society in every profession and discipline in the US. “The Global IIT graduates’ commitment, dedication in research, innovation and promotion of trade and international co-operation between India and the State of Maryland is greatly appreciated,” Governor Robert L Ehrlich said. 202
Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 11:50 | # haha…u make me laugh Ethnocentrist ..its 2 in the morning but im gonna keep going…cos ure a good source of entertainment… 203
Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 11:53 | # ignor"anus”. a play on words…ohhh rnt u a smart cookie…how many years of education to come up with that?? 204
Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 11:56 | # i have a good idea…why dont u add me to ure msn list…it would be much better than having to refresh my pg and wait 10mins for ure next post to come up…then we can have a lovely chat…dya have the guts?? 205
Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 11:58 | # haha…forgot to put down my email address 206
Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 12:34 | # argghh…this is shitting me…if there is anything u want me to clarify im more than happy…but still waiting to hear from fred, rustymason, guessed worker and andrew about some of the questions i have posed… 207
Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 13 May 2006 12:41 | # Hi CM
Here AS FAR AS I KNOW is the key word. Probably explains why You never answered my question as to whether you are a Biologist. WHAT YOU KNOW SO FAR doesn’t seem to amount to much (ie Science).
Yeah right. Tell that to Cavalli Sforza, Spencer and Michael who are bona fide geneticists, They will be impressed !
Proof ? I think I already know you are ignorant of scientifc facts. this confirms it.
OKay I will if you tell me to ! I am taking orders from you right ?
Really. So only 1% Mongoloids have slanty, slitty eyes, flat faces and stick bodies ? Just go to a Mongoloid country and look around you. Most Mongolid mixes also inherit the small eyes. I have been around the globe ( Worked for the FAO/UN as a scientist ) and seen for myself Any one is better than a Mongoloid or any Mongoloid mix when it comes to appearance. Just visit the google websites devoted to how uglyness is attributed to Mongoloids by their own people. Sorry I had to bring this up but it is an accepted fact and no way you can get around it by attacking Indians. Indians are proven beauties internationally and thats why JR is discussing them and not Chinese etc..beauty is in the face first and other body parts later… BTW We are not discussing the street people ( Iranians etc ) but the top 1% of global beauties. So just leave it alone w/out getting into more deep water. Ever heard of the saying ‘There is no beauty like an Indian beauty/?’ I didnt say that. 208
Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 12:43 | # one last q b4 i got to bed…what was your great granny deproeted here for andrew?? was she caught stealing food from a pig to keep herself alive?? 209
Posted by JB on Sat, 13 May 2006 17:13 | # anjali [quoting the Indian Pride page]:
I thought it was Fessenden: http://collections.ic.gc.ca/heirloom_series/volume4/42-45.htm
http://www.cgisf.org/cultural/facts.html http://www.indpride.com/didyouknow.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr;=&q=IEEE+Marconi+“Jagdeesh+Bose”+&btnG=Search only the Indian Pride FAQ shows up. I can’t find another source and when one searches only for “Jagdeesh Bose” only 13 more results appear and all the results are again the same source http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr;=&q=“Jagdeesh+Bose”+&btnG=Search Indian Pride text:
must be a mistake, it should be “38 % of motel owners in America are Indians” or “38 % of convenience store owners in America are Indians” 210
Posted by JB on Sat, 13 May 2006 17:22 | # Malcolm:
that may explain some things Malcolm:
why don’t you try to find a government funded respectable and reputable organization of scientists that has an official statement about the human races and post the results of your inquiries here ? Or better find a quote by Cavalli-Sforza in which he explains that there is only three human races. If you really want to argue by invoking the authority of researcher X or group Y you should be able to find a group that holds the same opinion if your assertions about human races are a widely scientifically accepted standard. C.M.:
the term is still used by forensic anthropologists: http://medlib.med.utah.edu/kw/osteo/forensics/race.html osteologically speaking europeans and say arabs may be similar enough to be in the same category 211
Posted by Andrew on Sat, 13 May 2006 18:12 | # That would be Granddad, but 5 generations ago (1805), and he was the first surgeon general at Parramatta hospital. Jumped ship to which he was surgeon; Commodore Bligh commanded. 212
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 13 May 2006 18:33 | # Anjali, 36% of NASA employees are Indians! Are you on crack? I find it easier to believe the Afrocentrists who claim that Mona Lisa was painted by a black man but stolen by whites and attributed to DaVinci. Don’t let the performance of the Indian community in the U.S. fool you. The first generation of Indians who mass migrated to the U.S. were highly educated professionals, and this was only a few decades ago. Therefore, it should not be surprising that Indians in America are better educated and more financially prosperous than most other groups, but their quality has gone down and is worsening due to the well known phenomenon of regression to the mean, as the lower IQ relatives of the professionals start immigrating to the U.S. For instance, Indians in the U.S. are better known now for running motels than as scientists or engineers. The Indian takeover of the motels and convenience stores business has nothing to do with business acumen. The Indians who immigrated to the West were used to low living standards, and they cut their profits to offer cheaper rates, thereby outcompeting many Americans. This does not mean that these Indians are savvy; they are more willing to live a miserly existence than whites and hence are difficult to compete with when it comes to cutting profits. More of these Indians can only mean reduced living standards for Americans in general. You have continued to harp on Indian computer programmers and ITT (Indian Institutes of Technology) graduates, failing to address the fact that Indians are completely absent in the top ranks of programming contests that test coding prowess and also that hardly any top-notch inventions, innovations and seminal research papers come from the ITTs. The reason so many Indians work in Silicon Valley is that employers save 10-15-thousand dollars a year, on average, by hiring aliens over citizens to do programming jobs, and these aliens can be burdened with extra work without complaints on their part because the employers can summarily fire any complainant, and then the complainant will have to leave the country. India is a Third World hellhole for good reason; its average IQ is below the threshold for maintaining a technological economy. I don’t think that you will understand this though. A minimum IQ is needed to understand that one has low IQ, and I don’t think you cross this threshold. For instance, you wrote that Ayurvedic medicine comprises of herbs, not chemicals! All active ingredients in herbs are chemicals; even dihydrogen monoxide, water for those without a chemistry background, is a chemical. As far as the relation between Aryans and Nordics goes, it is time for you to look up some history, especially the relatively recent discovery of European mummies in the Tarim basin of China, who were a people that spread out from the Russian Caucasus, which was the source of the Indo-European people. These mummies are tall and have light hair, and surely do not look like people from Iran or the Mediterranean. Your measure of democracy is whether a country has had a female leader! As far as Britain goes, have you not heard of Margaret Thatcher? And, don’t forget that democracy is not an Indian invention; it first appeared in classical Greece. You are deluded enough to believe that all the British did was to loot and exploit Indians. India owes its democracy, railway system, English knowledge and industrialization to the British. Had it not been for the British, too few Indians would know English for the English-speaking West to outsource call center jobs to India. You have raised the issue of culture. Well, the British were primarily responsible for abolishing the disgusting practice of Suttee, whereby a widow was expected to burn herself alive in her husband’s funeral pyre. Indians traditionally did not allow widow remarriage. Indian states are divided along linguistic lines. Since independence, India has continued to split into an increasing number of states because of ethnic conflict involving assault, rapes, murder and mob violence, and the conflicts exist along multiple lines: linguistic, caste, geographic and religious. The more important issue is the frivolous nature of what prompts violence:
And see what millions of Hindus who are Lord Shiva devotees actually worship:
And, I will be impressed with your intelligence if you can figure out the symbolism behind the regular bathing, on the part of Hindus, of the holy structure you see above in milk. As you can see, Indian culture is too exalted for us less culturally evolved Westerners to absorb or emulate, and we hope that it stays out of the West. Malcolm A, I will be back to respond to your comments. 213
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 13 May 2006 19:45 | # Any culture whose members are so stupid as to defecate where they eat, wouldnt pass on much DNA due to death by disease, but because of Western medicine’s arrival in India, too many of the populace are still extant. 214
Posted by Nio Zilda on Sat, 13 May 2006 21:56 | #
215
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 13 May 2006 22:47 | # Anjali’s “witty performances” at the Indian culturefest may well have included the temple-based Devadasi defloration ceremony, so popular among the innately primitive. 216
Posted by anjali on Sun, 14 May 2006 02:01 | # no im not on crack, but i wish i had the time and money to take up that habit….and the mona lisa…is she your idea of a nordic beauty?? hangon…is she a she??coulda fooled me… margaret thatcher ey…i bet you feel like christmas has come early…so u got me there…clearly i dont kno british history and clearly i was mistaken…at least i can admit when im wrong..but some people wouldnt see a fact as a fact even if it punched them in the face… “All active ingredients in herbs are chemicals” “India owes its democracy, railway system, English knowledge and industrialization to the British” “Since independence, India has continued to split into an increasing number of states because of ethnic conflict involving assault, rapes, murder and mob violence, and the conflicts exist along multiple lines: linguistic, caste, geographic and religious.” yes 70% of indians live in villages…have u been to india?? you probabaly think the idea of our modern day villages are little mud shacks dont u?? my family is from a village…no we dont shit in the streets… Image:Mohenjo Daro computergeneratedimage1.jpg The ancient Indus systems of sewage and drainage that were developed and used in cities throughout the Indus Empire, were far more advanced than any found in contemporary urban sites in the Middle East and even more efficient than those in some areas of modern Pakistan and India today. The advanced architecture of the Harappans is shown by their impressive dockyards, granaries, warehouses, brick platforms and protective walls. The massive citadels of Indus cities that protected the Harappans from floods and attackers were larger than most Mesopotamian ziggurats. and id like to correct myself once again…mesopotamia is the oldest civilisation…but the indus valley civilisation is the oldest continuous civilisation, and more sophisticated
and more: Ethnohistorical accounts indicate that cannibalism, including “medicinal cannibalism,” was practiced extensively by European peoples even as late as the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries.[l] Father Jerome records incidents of pre-historic cannibalism among the Angle-Saxons while Strabo and Wood-Martin highlight occurrences among the Irish Celts.[2] Incidents of cannibalism in Scandinavia, Czechoslovakia, and France are archaeologically documented.[3] Other European peoples, such as the Germanic Tribes of Gaul, Romans, Swedes, and the Mainland Celts practiced human sacrifices.[4] Today, even though the scientific community is not yet producing pills with embryonic or fetal parts for human consumption, this does not mean that such a notion is outside the realm of possibility. If such were the case, how much difference would there be in ingesting a pill withhuman ingredients and being a pre-historic cannibal? It seems paradoxical that Europe, cradle of Western civilization and world leader for many centuries, has a history scarred by such cruelty. Worse yet, modern Europe, the United States, Australia and other countries seem now to be regressing to these barbaric practices. “The reason so many Indians work in Silicon Valley is that employers save 10-15-thousand dollars a year, on average, by hiring aliens over citizens to do programming jobs, and these aliens can be burdened with extra work without complaints on their part because the employers can summarily fire any complainant, and then the complainant will have to leave the country. “ so much more i want to write…but for the moment i have heaps of assignments to do and not much time, so for now i must go..but ill be back 217
Posted by Malcolm A on Sun, 14 May 2006 13:24 | # hi JB
I agree with what you say here. The idea that Caucasoids, Mongoloids and Negroids are the major races ( I believe they are now trying to classify Australoids under Negroids ) was 1st suggested to identify the 3 varieties of human species that are clearly distinguishable from eachother. Since then scientists have adopted these terms to identify these 3 races [ any individual w/ mixed ancestry can be classified under these by a perponderance of genetice, evolutionary, morphological evidence as belonging to one otf these 3 easily ( Re Prof Phillip Rushton’s article I quoted some posts back )] Since Darwin publshed the Natural Selection theory there have been very few papers proclaiming Nat Selection, as Nat Selection is now an accepted scientific theory and there is no sense in REVALIDATING something that is already established as a fact. Thus someone would publish something about Nat Selection only IF EVIDENCE REFUTING IT existed. Similarly, I have already given the evidence that you ask for. The fact that Cavalli Sforza , Rushton, SPencer Wells , Bamshad etc ( all PhD s w/ experience/specialty in genetics etc ) use the terms caucasoids in their research papers as recently as in the 1990s is by itself the evidence you are looking for. If They had evidence that the caucasoids is NOT a bona fide scientifc term they would NOT use it and instead publish evidence refuting it!! 218
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 15 May 2006 23:30 | # Anjali, No, Mona Lisa is not my idea of Nordic beauty, and this is irrelevant like many of the issues you have raised. Don’t be under the delusion that herbs are beneficial for health. Most pharmaceutical drugs are derived from plants, yet they have side effects, but these result from their potency. The weaker potency of herbs is the reason why their side effects are also weaker and hence the false illusion about the safety of herbs. If you were in a medical emergency that needed drugs, chances are that the lifesaver will be a pharmaceutical agent, not an herb. You have to give the British credit for the railway system or else India could only have had it if it had the money to buy trains. An average IQ of 81 would prevent the Indians from developing their own railway system. The Kashmir problem was not created by Britain. A large number of Moslems = Trouble. Thus, British or no British, India would have had Moslem trouble. European nations are not currently at war with each other, except for the Balkans, where you have Moslem trouble. Anyway, the introduction of English by the British certainly helped. How else would so many call center jobs get outsourced to India and how else would a good number of Indians be able to function in English-speaking Western nations right from the moment they arrive here? Besides, English knowledge has helped a number of Indians appreciate some of the good points of Western culture, which are incorporated in India’s constitution, and which led to the demise of practices such as Suttee. Also, uniting different parts of South Asia into a single nation has helped India pool its brightest minds to work for the common good instead of having South Asia comprise of a large number of small nations that are competing with each other. I have been to India, but did not travel through its villages, and if your family doesn’t defecate in the open, then good for you. I am aware of the Indus Valley civilization, so you needn’t praise it. What I don’t believe is that the dark natives of India built it. This civilization is in the Northwest of India, where Western genetic affiliation is most evident. Where the darkest natives of India abound, namely the South, nothing like the Indus Valley civilization is seen around the time this civilization flourished. Regarding cannibalism, all human populations practiced it in the past, but of the two major primitive reasons for cannibalism, namely human flesh as part of cuisine and religion-related cannibalism, the latter is still found in India, and both these types of cannibalism have been absent from Western nations for a long time. In any case, the scientific community in the West is not going to recommend fetal tissue as a source of nutrients. At first you pointed out the heavy Indian presence in Silicon Valley as proof of the intellectual prowess of Indians, but now that it is clear that this is so because employers save a lot of money by hiring aliens over citizens, you have argued that this is an example of how the West continually exploits and gets rich from someone else’s hard work! Well, the people who are being exploited here are American workers. American employers are benefiting by having to pay less and the Indians are getting jobs that they wouldn’t otherwise be getting. So, Indians are definitely not being exploited here. The following was forwarded to me by JT:
I would personally avoid trying to address every single claim by Anjali because it is not worth it to spend time refuting abject nonsense, but thanks JT. C.M., Here is what JT sent to me in regard to a comment by you:
219
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 15 May 2006 23:38 | # I will be using some bad language in the next few comments, and I apologize to anyone who is offended by it except Malcolm A. Malcolm A, Goddamn you are obstinate and also demented. You keep rehashing your points and ignoring a lot of what I have pointed out, and I am sick of it. You have once again reiterated the whale-elephant analogy right after quoting me on Indians being placed outside the European cluster by both craniofacial and genetic markers! Why the f**k don’t you note the genetic evidence from Yang et al.? Why the f**k have you again written that “simply citing craniofacial differences don’t prove anything (vis a vis whale examples)”? I mentioned previously that even in the absence of genetics knowledge, people would note that whales breathe air and hence cannot be classified as fishes. One can also add the observations that these animals do not lay eggs and feed milk to their infants. Thus, whales are not readily classified as fishes even in the absence of DNA analysis. On the other hand, for the umpteenth time, I have cited both craniofacial and molecular data showing Indians to be outside the grouping of Europeans. Why the f**k do you ignore the molecular data from Yang et al.? Also note that in both the craniofacial and ancestry-informative marker studies, Indians were assigned a separate major cluster along the lines of other major clusters such as European, sub-Saharan African and East Asian. Thus, it is not the case that Indians were assigned a minor cluster that grouped with the European minor cluster to former a major cluster along the lines of other major clusters such as sub-Saharan African, East Asian, etc. Why the f**k do you ignore this evidence? Only a demented f**k would write the following:
You damned retard, the term Caucasian predates genetics and hence is obviously based on physical appearance. One again, this is what I said about Kate Beckinsale: “Now, the term Caucasoid is based on physical appearance, and Kate Beckinsale looks Caucasoid. Thus, as far as looks are concerned, it is appropriate to classify Kate Beckinsale as Caucasoid, but genetically speaking, her classification is obviously mostly European but also part East Asian.” In other words for a retard like you, I am distinguishing between Caucasoid looks and DNA. Of course there are some Indians who have Caucasoid facial features, and in my original entry, I have shown three such examples—Aditi Govitrikar and two men below her—but the genetic classification of these people is a different matter. Like Kate Beckinsale, the genetic classification of these Indians is only part European, but the European component is much less in the Indians. As I have previously pointed out, mixed people are not assigned a race in accordance with the phylogeographic criteria for race assignment. Regarding admixture, on the one hand, you do not accept a European-Negroid mix or a European-Mongoloid mix as Caucasoid, even though the European component is half of the DNA. Yet, I gave you an example of an Indian analyzed by DNA Print Genomics who had the following genetic affinity: European (54%), East Asian (26%), black African (11%), Native American (9%). You would classify Native Americans and East Asians as Mongoloid. Thus, about half of this person is Negroid plus Mongoloid and the other half European, yet you classified him as a Caucasoid! You have yet to answer what proportion of non-European ancestry are you willing to accept beyond which one ceases to be a Caucasoid? Based on your rejection of black Americans as Caucasoid, notwithstanding their 20% European ancestry, and your rejection of a half white-half black or half white-half Chinese person as Caucasoid, it would appear that your cut off is at least 50%, yet you classify the example of the South Asian from DNAPrint genomics as Caucasoid! Obviously, you have your own definitions and it is a waste of time to argue with you over this matter. A damned retard like you has ignored everything that I pointed out about the importance of the methodology leading to the conclusions and mentioned E=MC^2 as an example of a conclusion arrived at without proof to show that what matters in the analysis is the conclusion. What I said was in response to your assertion that the most important part of a paper is the conclusions part. Of course conclusions matter, but conclusions matter because they have explanatory power, and the typical conclusion will have been arrived at by some methodology, and methodology is what you need to focus on. E=MC^2 does not have proof, but it is accepted because it explains a lot of phenomena. On the other hand, your assertion that Indians belong to the same race as whites does not have explanatory power; it does not explain why there are many major differences between whites and Indians that are on the order of racial differences. Your assertion does not explain why Indians are assigned their own separate major cluster in studies of ancestry-informative markers and neutral craniofacial markers. Your assertion does not explain why Indians are much darker than whites, why Indians have a considerably lower average IQ than whites, why Indians have a much weaker physical build than whites, why Indians have a much higher prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes than whites in spite of higher rates of vegetarianism, and so on. In response to my statement that the quality of the evidence matters, not the quality and reputation of the researchers, you said:
I cited a bunch of papers showing proof of at least 5 races among humans and you ask which 5 are these? You demented retard; did you notice that I said Europeans, black Africans, East Asians, Melanesian/Australian and Native American? And, only some retard would ask me to cite “university prescribed / latest Zoological text” where these races are mentioned. You sick f**k, the proper standard of evidence in science is citing data from peer-reviewed journals, not textbooks. If you try to publish articles in some journals like PNAS, they will require you to cite peer-reviewed journals only. Besides, try to find out how many current textbooks divide humans into biological races. As to how one can be sure that the number many not go down to 3 or 4 with further research, 1) many studies support at least 5 races; 2) studies with an increasing number of markers have continued to support at least 5 races; 3) future studies will use more markers, and more markers allow better separation of populations rather than make population separation murkier; and 4) all 5 racial groupings are physically distinct, historically geographically separated and sufficiently genetically distant from each other for racial classification purposes. And, motherf*****g do not repeat your statement about unaccounted populations; some of these unaccounted populations have not been studied and others are mixed and hence not assigned a race in accordance with the phylogeographic criteria for race assignment. 220
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 15 May 2006 23:47 | # Malcolm A, You wrote:
Regarding Bamshad, Oppenheimer and Spencer Wells, they are obviously making their case using Y chromosome data. MtDNA evidence shows Indians to be predominantly indigenous/Australo-Asiatic, not European:
You sick f**k, when I said that Cavalli-Sforza is using the term Caucasoid as a convenience term in his 1988 paper, I cited good reasons for it, namely data from the bootstrap runs involving Lapps, Berbers and Dravidians, and also mentioned that mixed populations will attach in the tree to the branch that has contributed the greater fraction. You have f*****g ignored all of this. Why the f**k should the Lapps, the Berbers and the Dravidians leave the grouping labeled Caucasoid at all in the bootstrap runs if they are indeed Caucasoid? Answer this you sick f**k! A sick f**k like you seizes on to the statement of the unity of Caucasoids in Europe and India and fails to notice that Cavalli-Sforza notes that Caucasoid = green, and green is not the color assigned to India. F*****g retard! I will quote two of your passages again:
It is obvious that you have implied that data clustering would not prove anything and does not allow you to determine whether differences are significant or not. This is why I came up with the scenario of the 20 variables and asked you to cite a real life example of it; of course you did not come up with the 20 variables scenario, but you definitely implied that clustering will not prove significant differences between groups, and I came up with an example that you should try to find a real-life analog of. You have been unable to cite a real life example. All you did was to cite a hypothetical example of British, French and German people such that if clustering shows the British and Germans to be closer than either are to the French, then it does not prove that the British are different enough from the French to be assigned to a separate racial cluster. You retard, this is not about the degree of difference, but about whether there are any differences. According to you, and I have quoted what you have written verbatim, clustering in separate groups would not prove anything and does not allow you to determine whether differences are significant or NOT. This is why I have asked you to come up with a real-life example of two groups being assigned to separate clusters such as that there are no significant differences between the groups. You will obviously not say that your hypothetical example implies that there are no differences between the British and the French. You want me to f*****g quote the Royal Zoological Society or equivalent recognizing more than 3 races among humans or that Indians do not belong to the same race as whites in order for you to accept these notions? What kind of a retarded f**k are you? There is no official recognition of races among humans. An organization that carries a lot of weight as far as the assignment of humans to separate races goes, the American Anthropological Association, explicitly denies the existence of biological races among humans, i.e., it does not acknowledge 2 races, let alone 3 or 5. Anyway, a scientist would demand evidence, not proof of the position statement of some organization, but a retarded f**k such as you, who is most likely pretending to be a scientist, cannot be bothered to look up the recent papers that I have cited, which support a minimum of 5 races among humans, or DNA and craniofacial studies assigning Indians to a major cluster that is distinct from the European cluster. 221
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 15 May 2006 23:56 | # Malcolm A, Here is the latest and most-comprehensive-to-date Y-chromosome analysis of Indians for you, which shows that the European genetic contribution to India is minor.
Therefore, the recent European (Aryan) genetic contribution to India is minor, and you had better motherf*****g stop harping on Indians belonging to the same race as Europeans unless you have proper scientific evidence from peer-reviewed journals. Besides, you f*****g retard, the use of the word Caucasian is not at all unusual in the scientific literature, but it is typically used to refer to whites and generally not used to imply a biological race. For instance, I have previously addressed a study where the authors used the word Caucasian to refer to whites while explicitly stating that they believe races to be social groups, not biological groupings. The word Caucasian is part of colloquial usage and refers to white, and hence its appearance in journals does not at all imply that the authors, including geneticists, somehow believe that there are biological races among humans, let alone a Caucasoid race. In response to my statement that if the so-called beauty contests were about beauty, then unattractive women would not be participating, you said that attractivenes and unattractiveness are relative terms and that even among the contestants, there are varying levels of attractiveness. This is obviously true, but too many contestants in beauty contests are unattractive from the perspective of participating in a beauty contest. Yes, I have acknowledged that there is variability among both Nordic and Indian women with respect to facial features, but the fact remains that Indian women, on average, have more massive cheekbones, broader noses, more massive jaws, thicker lips, and a higher frequency of hooked noses, etc. Even Anjali has acknowledged that Nordic women have finer facial features compared to the elite Indian women that you have pointed out, though Anjali does not like fine facial features. Once again, you are wrong about me having addressed Indian women in this entry because I felt that they are posing a threat to Nordic women in terms of beauty. Indian women are no match for Nordic women in beauty, and any beauty contest that ranks an attractive Indian woman as better looking than an attractive Nordic woman will be seen for the farce that it is. The point of including Indians in this entry was to help clueless whites better understand the disastrous aesthetic consequences for whites if non-whites are absorbed into the white gene pool. I have previously addressed East Asians, and it would be only a matter of time before I addressed South Asians. 222
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 16 May 2006 00:23 | # Malcolm A, You sick f**k, you said that the 1937 U.S. Supreme Court statement that “Indians were Caucasians and that anthropologists considered them to be of the same race as white Americans” still stands because none of your nationalist friends has disputed this. What the f**k is this? Is a scientific issue decided by the U.S. Supreme court? Quit citing old ideas that are no longer supported by quantitative genetic and craniofacial studies. Anyway, you are mistaken about the issue, and here is what JT forwarded to me regarding the Supreme Court decision.
In other words, the Supreme Court was well aware of the ambiguity of the term Caucasian even in the early 20th century, and modern genetic or craniofacial analyses have not managed to classify people ranging from Europe to India as members of the same race. The Supreme Court clearly stated that Asian Indians were outside the race of whites. Thanks JT. 223
Posted by anjali on Tue, 16 May 2006 10:12 | # J Richards u funny fuck, clearly you have far too much time on his hands, for you spew your rubbish with regrettable regularity “I am aware of the Indus Valley civilization, so you needn’t praise it. What I don’t believe is that the dark natives of India built it. This civilization is in the Northwest of India” “You have to give the British credit for the railway system or else India could only have had it if it had the money to buy trains” Cannabalism: According to the PakTribune, cannibalism is still being practiced in India by members Hindu Aghora sect. Even more amazing is the implication that this sect may be responsible for the deaths of Western tourists who go missing (better not stray into these people, this can best be achieved if u stay outta India) - sacrifices for Indian religion. It is also indicated more than once that babies and children are prized sacrifices for cannibalistic consumption. Ritual murder of babies? Cannibalism for spiritual power? The PakTribune is a Pakistani news outlet and it seems much more likely that the story is designed to inflame passions against India than to inform about a weird and possibly dangerous religious sect. “An average IQ of 81 would prevent the Indians from developing their own railway system.” “Well, the people who are being exploited here are American workers.” Im sorry JR who can Aditi Govitrikar, Hritik Roshan and Arun Nair attribute their looks to? As far as I know they are not mixed parentage. At the end of the day…at least my names not J Richards here… As for a nordic beauty. once I figure how to upload images we’ll fawn over how beautiful nordic people actually are. Till then, seriously, just stay in your dark corner and have a good wank. 224
Posted by anjali on Tue, 16 May 2006 10:21 | # Ragnhild Marie Alvær, ermm where to start. she has no curves that could be considered voluptuous. somewhat of just a stcik figure. and about her face. yes very FINE CAUCASOID nose, which turns upwards at the end, much like the snout of a pig. moreover has that wonderful pink colouring, much like that of a pig 225
Posted by anjali on Tue, 16 May 2006 10:48 | # “You mention the accolades received by Aishwarya Rai and completely fail to address her pictures that I have posted. How many white people would regard Aishwarya as a very attractive woman? Let me see you cite evidence that a large number of whites have labeled her the most beautiful woman in the world. She has a part-Mongoloid face, broad shoulders and a wide waist compared to so many attractive white women that I know of; also compare her physique to that of the white woman shown below her.” Daily Variety’s (06/12/02) Derek Elley describes ‘Devdas’ as “?some of the most sumptuous production values in Bollywood history?” Elley describes Ash as “almost Audrey Hepburn-like”, Moulin Rouge director Baz Luhrmann says “I loved her in Devdas” and Julia Roberts calls her “the world’s most beautiful woman”. In the interview, which was over ten minutes long, the American viewer was privy to Aishwarya Rai being commented as ?the most beautiful woman in the world I don’t see any reason to have a permanent shift of residence to Hollywood.” Attired in a brown leather jacket with a black skirt and boots, Aishwarya, who was seated next to Letterman on stage at the Ed Sullivan Theatre in New York City, looked well rehearsed and confident. Letterman introduced her as “often called one of the most beautiful women in the world and most famous actress. She is known by billions of people but is still unknown in America.” 226
Posted by anjali on Tue, 16 May 2006 10:50 | # ash is considered to be beautiful, but ive seen more beautiful women walking around the dirty streets of india 227
Posted by Anon on Tue, 16 May 2006 12:51 | # Ditto that Anjali. JR sounds like a bitter, however “wannabe intellectual” trailer trash who fucks his mum every night before bed…get a life GW, JR and the rest of you monkey bunch! 228
Posted by Malcolm A on Tue, 16 May 2006 23:37 | # Hi JR, Don’t waste your time on the tough talk (F… word etc.). Doesn’t impress me, and moreover you are beginning to sound more and more like a Billingsgate butcher than the respectable science writer that you claim to be. If it feels like you are fast running out of “scientific facts” and are left with only bad language to prove your theories let me know and I’ll call off the debate. I knew that sooner or later you will lose your cool and show your true colors ( ie. an unqualified fraud pretending to be a science writer). You seem to be just copy-pasting advanced scientific papers that you know nothing about. And from your so called “scientific interpretations” alone, I see that you understand nothing about science or scientific philosophy. 1. As for the worthless “scientific” points you have raised in great detail let me say this : filling up a whole lot of pages or copy-pasting publications prove nothing; a meaningless process when they don’t prove your point. Don’t try to mask your ignorance of science by posting a lot of gobbeldygook that you probably don’t understand yourself, hoping it would mislead me or the others here. We can see through you. So relax, will ya? 2.
I already told you that there is no point in citing so-called genetic and morpho’ evidence. This voluminous evidence of yours doesn’t prove that Indians are outside Caucasians. WHY ? Because I already admitted that Nordics and Indians are different. THAT’S WHY! But, those differences are NOT significant enough for them to be classified seperately. Please try to get that fact through that booze-ridden skull of yours.
As they say, ” retard is as retard does.”
Sure. In your distorted view they don’t look Caucasoid! Don’t you already know that you are biased and that your personal point of view doesn’t count ?
So what is your point in writing all this gobbledygook ? What are you trying to prove about Nordics and Indians here? That they are different and that Indians stand outside Nordics. Hey, we already know that! So, for the last time, stop repeating this. And Aryans did not mix with aboriginals, but with Dravidians who are also primitive Caucasians with dark skin. So their features are all Caucasian any way. Aboriginals are the untouchables. 229
Posted by anjali on Tue, 16 May 2006 23:54 | # A quote from JR…“So you find pink skin unhealthy looking? Like I said, this comparison should ignore pigmentation because we are addressing facial features, but as far as I am concerned, pink skin is preferable to yellow or yellow-brown skin. Besides, pink skin can usually be changed with a little help from the sun, and in Nordics this produces a beautiful bronze tone that is devoid of the yellowish tinge in Asiatics, and one can always resort to a spray-on tan to avoid unnecessary skin damage and/or if the Nordic cannot tan. “
seems like someone is contradicting themselves 230
Posted by anjali on Wed, 17 May 2006 00:07 | # “JR sounds like a bitter, however “wannabe intellectual” trailer trash who fucks his mum every night before bed…get a life GW, JR and the rest of you monkey bunch” my sentiments exactly Anon 231
Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 17 May 2006 00:09 | # 6.
Thanks. You proved my point here. Conclusion is what matters in any scientific article. And if you don’t know that what kind of science writer are you? Einstein’s paper had no experimental methodology in it, and yet the conclusion was accepted based simply on the rational of the theory. Comprehende?
And how many scientific papers have you published in peer-reviewed, accredited journals? None, is a safe bet based on what you write here; community= scientific community. If your work is reviewed and accepted by peers in the same field of expertise, then your validity based reputation builds up.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. Scientific texts derive their facts from journals and any university text would include your major finding of 5 races in their latest editions, IF those were indeed accepted by the scientific community at large. So show me. Your moronic classification of 5 races - Europeans, Black Africans, East Asians, Melanesian/Australian and Native American - does not even include Indians. Talk about comprehensive!
(i) As if you would know what is valid in science. You already admitted that you are no scientist, remember? And that itself should indicate the validty of your statements ON VALIDITY to all here. (ii) And why should I demean Rosenberg in a discussion with a scientific non-entity like you? (iii) The online dictionary was to prove that I am not the only one who believes that Indians classify under Caucasoids (ie. that it is not a figment of my imagination only).
(i) A real scientist like Cavalli ( and me ) would find your supposedly “good” reasons laughable. WHY? Because you are no biologist/geneticist ( by your own admission ), And are obviously rattling off some gobbledygook without even knowing what it means!
Again, do you have that letter from Cavalli that I asked for ( agreeing w/ your “good” reasons)?
Your bad. Your obviously to ignorant to understand what I said. I said, cluster analysis ALONE is not enough to prove that Nordics are Caucasoid but Indians are NOT. You need a whole lot more, showing significant morphological and genetic differences etc. The differences you have provided, are not enough to tip the scale of scientific judgement. Get that through your thick skull at least now. 232
Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 17 May 2006 00:37 | # 13.
The preceding statement of yours is self-debunked by your very last sentence. There is no WHITE RACE. You are totally ignorant and display it by making ridiculous statements like WHITE RACE etc., which would cause you to be laughed out of any gathering of scientists. You don’t even understand the concept of clusters and until I informed you of Cavalli’s usage of cluster studies, you weren’t even aware of it.
A very moronic statement that contradicts everything you have said so far. This means that even your European/white race is not recognized, but you sure keep on using it. Same for Caucasoids. I can cite Cavalli etc., who admit the existence of Caucasoid race, but then what’s the point.
So what? Who said all Caucasoids are European or European-based? Cavalli has already talked about extra-European Caucasoids (Re : my posts above ). It is the other way around, ignoramus! Both Europeans and Indians are Caucasoid based. Wow you sure seem to like those maps and charts. Impressive huh? But they don’t prove anything that I already don’t know.
Same goes for yourself!—If you don’t have evidence from peer-reviewed journals showing that they don’t belong to the same race, that is!
Says who? A fraud like you, who wouldn’t know biology if it hit you upside your head! You should be ashamed to call yourself a bonafide science writer ( copy-pasting articles won’t fool anyone here or make you a real writer ).
18.
So where is that challenge you and JT would like to mount against the Supreme Court decision? I already said that this was a decision given during the Jim Crow era. You left out the part that says ” based on anthropological evidence and that includes morpho’ evidence that was the only available evidence at the time. The ruling itself was intended to keep Indians out, BUT yet the Supreme Court was forced to admit that Indians and the whites were connected as Caucasoids despite their differences. They sure didn’t make a similar ruling about Negroids or Mongoloids. Did they now?
Sounds like another one of your silly ” hooked nose/ massive jaw” theories which I debunked in my last post.
20.
Speak for yourself! Beauty stats say otherwise. So only a beauty pageant that shows Nordics are better looking than Indians is not a farce? But, then that is only in the eyes of a fraud like you. For me pageants in which Nordics win as well as ones in which Indians win are legitimate. How is that for fair?
As for the cussing keep it coming. I find it very entertaining. PS : Don’t insult our fine Nordic women. You obviously have bad taste in women. Those pictures you posted were horrible ( fat ugly viking mammas in national dress ). No wonder some guys here said ” old Richard has bad taste in women”. Couldn’t you even find a Marilyn Monroe, Bridgette Bardot, Cathy Denevue look alike? You BIG BABY, YOU…
233
Posted by anjali on Wed, 17 May 2006 02:04 | # “Even Anjali has acknowledged that Nordic women have finer facial features compared to the elite Indian women that you have pointed out, though Anjali does not like fine facial” features. Please JR refrain from using me as your defence 234
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 17 May 2006 10:10 | # Anjali, The Indus Valley civilization was an ancient Indian civilization, but why should any reasonable person believe that the dark masses of India—many of whom still worship penises and defecate in the open, close to where they live—built it? India was the richest country before the British occupied it? How so? Judging by the fact that even in the present, a large number of people in India continue to worship penises (Shiva Lingam), cows, monkey-man and elephant-man gods, defecate in the open and in the neighborhood of where they live, and display other bizarre behaviors that I have mentioned previously, and I surely could cite more, an average IQ of India in the low 80s sounds reasonable. Once again, most Indians working in Silicon Valley have gotten jobs that they wouldn’t have gotten had it not been for American employers trying to save money. Therefore, how are the Indians being exploited? The Indians are benefiting. The American workers are being exploited. As for Aditi Govitrikar and the others, they certainly have not gotten their looks from the dark masses of India, and regarding their parentage, they may not have recent mixed parentage, but their mixed ancestry goes far back, and they can thank the Eastward bound people from the West of South Asia for their looks. I did not cite Ragnhild Marie Alvær as an example of a shapely Nordic woman. Someone wanted a picture of her and I posted it. 235
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 17 May 2006 10:23 | # Malcolm A, It is time for you to stop commenting in this thread unless you have any newer data to cite. I have not claimed to be a respectable science writer. I have said that I am a pimp who dropped out of high school. It is far from the case that I have resorted to foul language because I have run out of scientific facts; I have done so because I am dealing with a retarded, demented individual who refuses to accept scientific evidence that Indians are outside the race of whites. You have glossed over the fact that in the midst of foul language, I cited two additional papers, one showing that the mtDNA of Indians is overwhelmingly indigenous/Australo-Asiatic and the other showing that the Aryans left little genetic impact on Indians. All of this is in addition to plenty of previously cited data from peer-reviewed journals.
Nothing called genetic classification? You ignoramus, all evidence does not necessarily point to the same taxonomical unit. For instance, the children shown below appear to be a type of Negroid people according to their looks, and given your 3-race classification scheme, they have to be classified as Negroids.
However, these children are the Aeta of Philippines. They do not genetically cluster with black Africans but fit in the SE Asiatic group, i.e., they are clearly outside the race of black Africans. This example shows the importance of genetics in taxonomy. There are plenty of related examples from non-human species. Thus, genetic classification is important, and notwithstanding your delusion, Nordics and Indians belong to separate major clusters based on both genetics and craniofacial evidence; they are not members of the same race.
As per my citing the Sahoo et al. paper above, the Aryans left little genetic impact on the Indians, and since you have not described the aboriginals as Caucasoid, the Fst values between these aboriginals and the North and South Caste groups were a mere 0.06 and 0.05, respectively. However, the Fst values between the North and South Caste groups and Western Europeans were 0.26 and 0.29, respectively, which are similar to the distances between the caste groups and NE Asians or SE Asians. Thus, if you are going to classify the North and South caste groups as part of the same race as Western Europeans, you obviously cannot say that they are outside the race of the aboriginals, whom you have not described as Caucasoid. In the event that you argue that these aboriginals are also Caucasoid, how pray, did primitive man who moved from Africa to India and toward Australia, where they are found in the form of aborigines, turn Caucasoid in India but not in SE Asia? And, why should we believe that the Dravidians were Caucasoid before the Aryan migrations?
Your assertion simply cannot be accepted based on the fact that it does not explain why there are many major differences between whites and Indians that are on the order of racial differences. 236
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 17 May 2006 10:30 | # Malcolm A,
To say that there are at least 5 races is not to be comprehensive because not all populations have been studied, and I have repeatedly pointed out that people resulting from the mixing of many races—such as South Asians—are not assigned a race in accordance with the phylogeographic criteria for race assignment. Besides, what is there to laugh about my mentioning bootstrap runs?
Cluster analysis based on craniofacial measures and genetics will assign Nordics and Indians to separate major clusters in the world only if there are significant genetic and craniofacial differences between these groups, and if it is clear that Nordics are Caucasoid and Caucasoids are a race, then Indians cannot be Caucasoid if they are assigned a separate major cluster that is on the order of a racial cluster, or if Indians are Caucasoid according to you, then the word Caucasoid surely does not describe a race. And, there are so many other differences not addressed by these studies, including physical build, prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, skin color, intelligence, etc.
There is no white race? This is news to me and also to others associated with this blog. All recent studies that I have cited, which show at least 5 races in humans, reveal a European racial cluster, which is best described as the European or white race, and South Asians are not part of it by virtue of both genetic and craniofacial evidence.
I am well aware of the concept of cluster analysis. I didn’t know that Cavalli-Sforza had carried out such analyses specifically for his book.
I am not contradicting anything. Official recognition is on the part of individuals in esteemed scientific organizations, but scientific data is a different matter. Thus, whereas the American Anthropological Association denies biological races in humans, there is plenty of data to support it, and I have cited the data. You have said that Cavalli-Sforza accepts a Caucasoid race. Just because someone uses the term Caucasoid does not mean that he believes that there is a Caucasoid race. Here is a statement by Cavalli-Sforza in 1997, a few years after his book was published:
So where is the proof that Cavalli-Sforza believes in a biological race known as Caucasoid?
I have also pointed out that there are non-Europeans with Caucasoid facial features. Look at the pictures of Aditi Govitrikar and the two men below her. Thus, I am aware of non-whites with Caucasoid facial features. This, however, does not mean that the majority of South Asians have Caucasoid facial features; most don’t. 237
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 17 May 2006 10:35 | # Malcolm A,
The person who makes the assertion needs to provide proof for it rather than ask his opponent to provide proof against his assertion. You are the person who asserted that Europeans and Indians belong to the same race. You need to provide evidence from peer-reviewed journals that they indeed do. I have already done my part by citing Yang et al. and Li et al. Why don’t you find comparable studies that classify Europeans and South Asians into the same major cluster, i.e., a cluster along the lines of an East Asian cluster, a black African cluster, and so on?
Read carefully. SCOTUS said that only some scientific authorities classified Indians as part of the Caucasoid or Aryan race; it then dismissed the term Aryan, describing it as a linguistic term, and said that the term Caucasoid was scarcely in better repute, calling it at best a conventional term. And, SCOTUS did not say that Indians and whites were connected as Caucasoids, it said that “It may be true that the blond Scandinavian and the brown Hindu have a common ancestor in the dim reaches of antiquity, but…” Note the emphasis on may, and SCOTUS went on to say that if this possible common ancestor were materialized in the flesh, then chances are that it could not be assigned to the race of either group.
You have debunked nothing. Here is Anjali in her own words:
You said:
Stats from beauty contests don’t count if the beauty contests have little to do with beauty, which is indeed the case.
Our Nordic women? Quit pretending that you are a white man. What fat ugly Viking mammas in national dress are you talking about? I posted a picture of older Northern Scandinavian women to show that parts of Northern Scandinavia comprise of white-Asian mixes. These are not Viking women, and I have not shown them in the context of attractive women. The photo of the younger women below this photo shows more attractive women. Speaking of taste, now you have recommended women who look like Marilyn Monroe, Bridgette Bardot and Cathy Deneuve as good choices. A retard like you recommended the likes of Catherine Zeta Jones and Angelina Jolie as good examples of Nordic women that I should have used, and can’t tell that most Hindus do not have Caucasoid features. So why should I be surprised that you have recommended non-Nordic-featured women such as Bridgette Bardot or masculinized women such as Cathy Deneuve as good choices when it comes to posting pictures of Nordic women? Anyway, you have repeatedly tried to dismiss criticism of your notions and poor citations by sneering at the assumed lack of scientific credentials and alleged poor understanding of science on the part of those, including myself, who have responded to your comments. You have ignored or dismissed—without proper justification—state of the art and current research, cited old stuff, made arguments by authority, and displayed dual standards whereby someone who is half white-half black or half white-half Chinese is not a Caucasoid but a half Negroid plus Mongoloid person by your own classification standards is nevertheless a Caucasoid if he is a South Asian. If you consider it beneath your dignity to respond to non-scientists, why even bother commenting here? I have decided that you need to do either of two things to continue commenting in this thread: 1. Prove that you are/were a scientist by posting/linking to a list of all the 40-plus papers that you have published, and I will look up your citations in scientific databases. Don’t bother asking me to cite my own publications. I am a pimp who is a high school dropout. You also must agree to citing current peer-reviewed journal articles to support your arguments. 2. Admit that you are Indian and not a scientist, and agree to debate within the confines of science, i.e., 1) no sneering at the assumed lack of scientific understanding on the part of your opponents and 2) citing current peer-reviewed journal articles to support your arguments. 238
Posted by Anon on Wed, 17 May 2006 13:39 | # JR, Please dont bore readers who momentarily saw something interesting on this blog with your copy-paste antiques. Accept what Malcom A has repeatedly proven and shut your trap for once. You should be honoured to have a true science writer in your midst, although I am sure, he too is probably bored of your childish, ignorant posts harping on what Malcom A has debunked time, and time again.
maybe its time that you stop wasting your breath in shedding knowledge upon these ignorant fools and engage in something more challenging to occupy your time.. trailer trash morons like JR dont match up to you… (JR, you and your “white race” trailer trash folk would be lucky if your IQ reached anywhere close to 80). Again, thanks Malcom A. from an avid reader for the knowledge you have imparted upon us over the last few days… However, it is almost worth the pain refreshing this page everyday, just to see JR grow more and more desperate and cite the same rubbish and harp on the same baseless invention of his “5 races” Lets see how this one ends…. Im loving it. 239
Posted by anjali on Thu, 18 May 2006 02:20 | # The Indus Valley civilization was an ancient Indian civilization, but why should any reasonable person believe that the dark masses of India—many of whom still worship penises and defecate in the open, close to where they live—built it? Hahahahahahahah…Cos u stupid git, it’s a FACT…do ya know what a fact is Jrichards??? Nah didn’t think so…what, do u think the ancient nordic tribes built it?? U wish mate…u wish… “I didn’t cite the Paki Tribune on cannibalism in India. India itself made a documentary about the cannibals, and it was reported around the World.” Yeah cos ur source is soo credible…could it perhaps have been that the elusive Aghora tribe made a documentary about themselves…or maybe it was a travelers who escaped the jaws of these cannibals just in time to go off and make this documentary!!! “Thus, the typical black African with an IQ of 65 would be a healthy person, but the typical white person with an IQ of 65 would have health and behavior problems because this IQ is much lower than the white norm (100), and something abnormal would have happened to make his IQ equal 65.” Your suggesting that the IQ-80 retardation level could be suitably applied only to Whites. Indians/Blacks at that level will be able to function normally (Hahaha. shit man, ure soo funny. ud do well in stand up comedy!). Brilliant. doesn’t this kind of undermine the claim that IQ tests measure something intrinsic to you and/or the claim that IQ tests can be generalised across races? If an Indian can have an IQ of 70 and still function normally while a White with an IQ of 70 is retarded, isn’t it possible that an Indian who will be a genius by white standards has an IQ of just 100? IQ numbers aren’t sacred by themselves. They are good only to the extent that they actually measure an attribute that is actually present in you. For example, if you have an IQ of 140 and still cannot understand the logic I presented in the previous paragraph, it means that you are an idiot, regardless of what your IQ test told you. It simply means that your IQ test was flawed. Got it? “a large number of people in India continue to worship penises (Shiva Lingam), cows, monkey-man and elephant-man gods” Hahahaha…there is no way your getting away with this one. Lets not discuss a religion about which your feeble mind could not begin to comprehend the complexity of. “Once again, most Indians working in Silicon Valley have gotten jobs that they wouldn’t have gotten had it not been for American employers trying to save money. Therefore, how are the Indians being exploited? The Indians are benefiting. The American workers are being exploited.” Once again. have a cry! “As for Aditi Govitrikar and the others, they certainly have not gotten their looks from the dark masses of India, and regarding their parentage, they may not have recent mixed parentage, but their mixed ancestry goes far back, and they can thank the Eastward bound people from the West of South Asia for their looks.” As for Aditi Govitrikar and the others, like most Indians, they can thank their ancestors, the Aryans for their looks…once again u must think it was the ancient nordic tribes who we can attribute our good looks to…and once again (becoming once too often) u r wrong. “I did not cite Ragnhild Marie Alvær as an example of a shapely Nordic woman. Someone wanted a picture of her and I posted it.” No u didnt. “She was a participant in the 2003 Miss Norway beauty pageant”…shite man…if this is what the beautiful Norwegians look like id hate to see the average ones… “Regarding a tan, the skin of a tanned Northern European generally looks different from that of a naturally darker person having the same level of melanin, and this difference is because of the finer skin of Northern Europeans, which corresponds to the normal lack of yellowish skin tone in them. Thus, I am not contradicting myself.” Hahaha,..my sides are aching from lauging so much…once again let me repeat what I said earlier… according to the dictionary bronze is seems like someone is contradicting themselves In conclusion Jrichards, in your next life, u would serve well as a toilet bowl considering the amount of shit u seem to exude. Hell, forget next life, ud do just as well in this one… However J Richards don’t let the aforementioned fact detract from the insurmountable fact that u would stick ure dick in a hole…if the hole gave you a second glance… NB: “I will delete all new comments posted by you within this thread. I am serious.” “It is almost worth the pain refreshing this page everyday” “I am a pimp who is a high school dropout” “I would personally avoid trying to address every single claim by JRichards because it is not worth it to spend time refuting abject nonsense” and the fact that hes a high school drop out (trailer trash) aint helping his cause… Hahahahaha….fat ugly Viking mammas = older Northern Scandinavian women =Viking women= butches 240
Posted by anjali on Thu, 18 May 2006 02:23 | # also could someone please let me know how to post pictures on this page? 241
Posted by anjali on Thu, 18 May 2006 03:35 | # dear JR apart from Charlize Theron and the other ugly viking mammas and various pictures of some unkown white women, we’re curious to know who you think are the most atractive nordic women?? name at least 5 (mind u, these should be the ones you would say are beautiful, not average, so we can do a comparison)...you constantly name white celebrities and then go on to say that although the are decent they are not attractive… 243
Posted by anjali on Thu, 18 May 2006 07:11 | # Malcolm will “Admit that you are Indian and not a scientist”, when you admit to being white trailer trash, who fantasises about his mother. PS. for some reason i dont think it will break Malcolms little heart by deleting his comments, he unlike you has a woman and has a life… 244
Posted by Malcolm A on Fri, 19 May 2006 02:31 | # Edited by J Richards: This comment was posted by Malcolm A, but he did not comply with either of the requirements that I asked him to choose between. Therefore, I have deleted this comment and the next two comments that he posted. On the other hand, I copied his comments and pasted them onto a text document, and interested readers can download it by clicking here. In the event that Malcolm A posts here again without satisfying either of the requirements, I will do the same thing once or twice but thereafter delete his comments for good. Malcolm A has continued to insist on the existence of 3 races without citing a single peer-reviewed journal article that has offered evidence for this belief, repeated his earlier arguments, and not cited any newer information. It is just not possible to have a reasonable debate with him. Malcolm A has ignored the fact that his much-beloved researcher, Cavalli-Sforza, has cited a thorough documentation of attempts to classify humans into races, with the number of races ranging from 3 to 200, obviously with no consensus among anthropologists or other biologists, not to mention some of these professionals believing that there are no races among humans, and Malcolm A picked 3 over the other choices. On the other hand, even if one accepts three races only, i.e., Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid, such that white = unambiguous Caucasoid, African black = unambiguous Negroid, Chinese = unambiguous Mongoloid, and insist that all populations be forced-fit into this classification scheme, it is clear that the central tendency in the Hindu is overall closer to the Negro than to white or Chinese by virtue of his very dark skin, facial features, average IQ below the threshold of mental retardation among whites and Chinese, shorter life span, disease-ridden constitution and borderline capability of being civilized. Thus, the Hindu is readily classified as Negroid in this scheme without any problems. Indeed, a number of African populations such as the Wodaabe and a bunch of Eastern Africans do not have classically Negroid facial features, and if they can be classified as Negroid, then what population outside of Africa would be more deserving of being classified as Negroid than the Hindu? 245
Posted by Ridiculous on Fri, 19 May 2006 10:06 | # The point is Nordic women are better-looking and most evolved? This is soooooo ridiculous!! 246
Posted by anti-white on Fri, 19 May 2006 11:02 | # this is the rally of white supremacy and modern Operation Wetback. 247
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 19 May 2006 13:44 | # Ridiculous, Don’t be ridiculous. Who has implied that Nordic women are more evolved? As far as the definition of attractiveness goes, good looks speak for themselves. What I wrote about IQ does not undermine the generalizability of IQ tests across populations. IQ tests are about intelligence, not mental and physical health. Thus, the typical Hindu with an IQ of 70 will be mentally retarded by European standards but be physically and mentally healthy. His mental retardation will be obvious if he were made to live in a Western society, but given that all this Hindu will do in his life is to eat, drink, sleep, urinate and defecate in the open, and have the job of a goat herder, his IQ would be sufficient to do the job, and he will live a decent life. An IQ of 70 would be too low for the typical white, and this white would be mentally retarded by European standards and also have mental and physical problems resulting from the adverse events that drastically lowered his IQ from the white norm. I simply have to quote the following:
So my feeble mind would not understand the complexity of worshipping penises and cows? I don’t understand why you South Asians hold beauty pageants as some yardstick of beauty. Beauty pageants have very low popularity in the West, and the major reason is that that few attractive women are seen in these pageants. Most of us have friends, family or acquaintances who look better than most participants in these so-called beauty contests. Thus, it is a lame conclusion that because Ragnhild Marie Alvær participated in the Miss Norway pageant, then it implies that she is among the best looking Norwegians. Anyway, my threatening Malcolm A that I would delete his comments if he does not comply with some requirements is not something that pertains to democracy, but something that pertains to freedom of speech. Before, you accuse me of not respecting freedom of speech, you will note that your very first statement here was profanity-laden and devoid of substance, and this has been the case ever since, but I have not bothered to edit or delete your comments. I don’t care if I have profanity directed toward me every now and then, but if you were to continue with substance-less and profanity-laden comments, then at some point I will have to warn you about being civil and on-topic or else face deletion of your comments, in order to maintain minimum standards for a reasonable discussion. The problem with Malcolm A was not profanity, but other things that I have elaborated on previously, and I had to warn him to comply with the minimum standards for a scientific discussion, and I did this only after a weeks-long debate with him, but he did not comply with them, and I removed his newer comments, but this is not genuine deletion because I have recorded his comments and offered them as a download. There is something curious about the profanity you use. Motherf****r is a universal slur, and in the West, some people use it with almost no thought if they are pissed, but you and the other South Asian have talked about me fantasizing about or actually having sex with my mother or me fantasizing about sex between my mother and little brother, and so on. What is up with such elaborate slurs? I have heard that because of the limited dating opportunities in India, incestuous fantasies are quite common in India, and perhaps this is the reason why you are coming up with such elaborate slurs instead of just saying motherf****r. Some of your statements are simply parroting what I wrote to Malcolm A. Maybe you should worship Lord Shiva’s penis and ask it to grant you a triple-digit IQ in your next life so that you can come up with original statements, and in case you have not yet appreciated the usefulness of having a triple-digit IQ, look at it this way. You managed to upload a picture at imageshack, but even though imageshack provides you with the code to post images, you have not been able to do so. What is your point in trying to post a picture of Bridgette Bardot? Is it to argue against my assertion that she does not have Nordic features? I suppose so. After all, why should I expect Hindus like you and Malcolm A to understand what is meant by Nordic features? Earlier you mentioned Jennifer Aniston as an ugly woman, apparently as an example of an ugly Nordic woman, but this woman is not at all Nordic. She is Greek, has fake blonde hair and even though she had a nose job to make her nose look less Greek, it hasn’t helped much. Similarly, Bridgette Bardot dyed her hair blonde, is French, and if you got to see her facial features where hair was not obscuring the outline of her face, you wouldn’t see anything Nordic.
248
Posted by Anon on Fri, 19 May 2006 16:28 | # JR, With whose permission have you deleted my earlier comments? I repeat what I said earlier. REALLY white people are NOT good looking as J Richards so desperately trying to prove. Furthermore, nordics are neither superior nor more evolved. Ridiculous claims with no backups. Whites are good looking ONLY and ONLY when they are dark (tanned) skinned and maintain caucasian facial features. Nordics are disgusting. Just as blacks are. Too black or too white, its all ugly. Malcom A has convincingly proven his point, something that JR cannot digest and therefore threatened by his apparant defeat, has proceeded to delete Malcom’s and my post in which I told JR to accept what Malcom had proven and to shut his trap. Do us all a favour JR and shut your trap. People like you are an insult to whites, you trailer trash. You dont have a clue about Hinduism and your IQ is as low as it gets. Im a white American from New York and I am ashamed to have people like you as fellow countrymen. Your insults to the great Hindu philosophy have no basis either. Hindus and Indians in general are a beautiful people. Saying the contrary would be like saying “all blondes are whores” ... which can be believed because many are.. however, it isn’t the whole truth (as many aren’t), but a subjective opinion, just like yours is. So stop your copy-paste antiques (utter rubbish copy pasted from all over the web) and go post somewhere else, because on this post, clearly, you have no more to contribute. Thanks (JR: get a life… and an education) 249
Posted by Raanne on Fri, 19 May 2006 17:22 | # Oddly enough, in all the side-by-side pictures, i always thought the person who was listed as “less attractive” was actually more attractive… As a white person myself, i have never been attracted to blonde hair and blue eyes, and actually find it a turn off… What this site seems to be mistaken on is that blonde hair / blue eyes are attractive to everyone, when in reality they are only attractive to those who have been brought up to see that as the height of attractiveness. Essentially each culture, when isolated, will move to an extreme of what they see as beauty, but as we have reached a global society, where all ethnicitys interact, more people view a moderate look as attractive. this moderate look would be more of a combined look - that would appeal to more people also. Most of the pictures above that are listed as the more beautiful would only be so to someone who is white - and i belive most other societies would consider them not that beautiful at all. I’m not pretending to be an anthropologist or sociologist or something - this is just from my own personal experiences and observations. It is a very ethnocentric viewpoint to believe that because white people find white people more attractive that the rest of the world does also. 250
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 19 May 2006 23:25 | # Anon, I have not deleted any of your comments, and if I needed to, I wouldn’t need anyone’s permission to do it. You show remarkable arrogance in asking me to post elsewhere; this is not your site or entry. Anyway, don’t be deluded enough to believe that I removed Malcolm A’s 3 recent comments because I am threatened by my imminent defeat. If so, why would I bother to copy all three of Malcolm’s comments verbatim and archive them in the form of a text document so that you can see exactly what he wrote? Besides, if you and Raanne are white, then I’ll be your friendly neighborhood Nigerian Negro! Raanne, This entry is not about the attractiveness of blonde hair and blue eyes, and the part of it that deals with attractiveness addresses the attractiveness of people with a high frequency of blonde hair and blue eyes (Nordics) vs. people among whom these traits are absent (e.g., South Asians). And no, it is not ethnocentric to believe that if whites find whites more attractive, then something along these lines is also true of many non-whites. Non-whites undergoing cosmetic surgery do not attempt to make themselves look more ethnic; they try to make themselves look less ethnic. Skin lightening creams are big business in India and other dark nations. Nordic rather than non-Nordic women are the global objects of men’s fantasy, and so on. 251
Posted by anjali on Sat, 20 May 2006 00:49 | # “What I wrote about IQ does not undermine the generalizability of IQ tests across populations. IQ tests are about intelligence, not mental and physical health “ Intelligence and health are not mutually exclusive…most would agree that physical and mental health effect intelligence “So my feeble mind would not understand the complexity of worshipping penises and cows?” Your feeble mind cannot understand that it is not penises and cows are worship but Gods…and no these Gods are not penises and cows… “Most of us have friends, family or acquaintances who look better than most participants in these so-called beauty contests.” Yeah. So same goes for us…but u keep having to point out how ugly Indian celebs are anyway…the celebrities are by no means the best looking Indians…ive seen way better from the bustling streets of Bombay to the rural villages of Rajasthan. “Anyway, my threatening Malcolm A that I would delete his comments if he does not comply with some requirements is not something that pertains to democracy, but something that pertains to freedom of speech.” Actually it pertains to both…obviously Malcolm can say what he wants, that is freedom of speech…but when u get angry you delete his posts, just because u can…this is called dictatorship “Before, you accuse me of not respecting freedom of speech, you will note that your very first statement here was profanity-laden and devoid of substance, and this has been the case ever since, but I have not bothered to edit or delete your comments. I don’t care if I have profanity directed toward me every now and then, but if you were to continue with substance-less and profanity-laden comments, then at some point I will have to warn you about being civil and on-topic or else face deletion of your comments” Shit man im quivering in my boots!! “in order to maintain minimum standards for a reasonable discussion. The problem with Malcolm A was not profanity, but other things that I have elaborated on previously, and I had to warn him to comply with the minimum standards for a scientific discussion” yea with u being a scientist and all, youd know all about that wouldn’t ya…im sorry but I fail to understand the point your trying to make here…how are Malcolms posts non compliant…and futhermore non compliant to what…this is a stupid internet forum, what sort of respect are u trying to demand?? “and I did this only after a weeks-long debate with him, but he did not comply with them, and I removed his newer comments, but this is not genuine deletion because I have recorded his comments and offered them as a download.” Don’t make piss weak excuses to justify your actions… “There is something curious about the profanity you use. Motherf****r is a universal slur, and in the West, some people use it with almost no thought if they are pissed, but you and the other South Asian have talked about me fantasizing about or actually having sex with my mother or me fantasizing about sex between my mother and little brother, and so on. What is up with such elaborate slurs?” For me JR motherfucker is not a word I simply use…when I ‘slur’ I like to be creative…its called wit…something u don’t possess “I have heard that because of the limited dating opportunities in India, incestuous fantasies are quite common in India, and perhaps this is the reason why you are coming up with such elaborate slurs instead of just saying motherf****r.” From which oh so credible source have u heard this?? Even if there were limited opportunities, why would we fantasize about our mothers?? Surely out of the billion or so Indians there are u could find someone who is not related to you to fantasize about “Some of your statements are simply parroting what I wrote to Malcolm A.” Its called sarcasm dumbass!!! U just don’t get it do u!!! “Maybe you should worship Lord Shiva’s penis” “You managed to upload a picture at imageshack, but even though imageshack provides you with the code to post images, you have not been able to do so.” One word…huh?!? Im sorry but do u not see the pic up there?? Earlier you mentioned Jennifer Aniston as an ugly woman, Shes Greek huh…well that must make her ugly then…yea that’s a real great argument u put up just there…did ya know JR that there are actually Greeks and Italians who are born with blonde hair…sorry my bad, of course u didn’t… “What is your point in trying to post a picture of Bridgette Bardot? Is it to argue against my assertion that she does not have Nordic features? I suppose so. After all, why should I expect Hindus like you and Malcolm A to understand what is meant by Nordic features? Similarly, Bridgette Bardot died her hair blonde, is French, and if you got to see her facial features where hair was not obscuring the outline of her face, you wouldn’t see anything Nordic.” That’s the most crock n bull statement I have heard…she is a fine example of a nordic woman…and most ppl would agree with me here… In conclusion JR it looks to me like your post is a personal attack. I just got one thing I wanna say to you, don’t hate me cos u aint me… 252
Posted by Anon on Sat, 20 May 2006 00:58 | # Correction: Nordic rather than non-nordic women WERE the object of men’s fantasies. Lets not forget that we dont live in the Middle Ages anymore when white was seen as the color that set one apart as royal or upper class (and therefore more desirable), rather than a tanned white. White skin with no color is OUT and anyone who continues to believe that it defines beauty is demonstrating his stupidity. We live in the 21st century. As Raane said, moderation is the key word. Not too black and not too white. It has to fall in between. That, and not the pale whitewashed skintone is in. Halle Berry beats any nordic woman in beauty for instance. Similarly, Angelina Jolie who is white (although with Native blood), beats any nordic woman in beauty as she makes up for her pale-ness with her dark hair and non nordic features. Many Indian women have the moderate skintone and moderate facial features that make them (and not nordics) the yardstick in the measurement of what defines beauty. Women like Saira Mohan with a white mix are Asian women white enough to suit Western sensibilities. The fact that Newsweek has named her the Perfect Face and the global standard for beauty, and not any “gorgeous” nordic woman, goes to show that THESE are the women that set beauty standards in the 21st century and not nordics. You MR people would have lived happier if you had been born a few hundred years ago. However, it is not so, and instead of fighting what is inevitably lost, you would be happier of you learned to accept the times that you live in. For your viewing pleasure:
253
Posted by vipin mohan on Sat, 20 May 2006 01:47 | #
254
Posted by C. M. on Sat, 20 May 2006 04:40 | # “Women like Saira Mohan with a white mix are Asian women white enough to suit Western sensibilities. The fact that Newsweek has named her the Perfect Face and the global standard for beauty, and not any “gorgeous” nordic woman, goes to show that THESE are the women that set beauty standards in the 21st century and not nordics. “ I don’t agree with this at all, first I think it has more to do with political correctness than beauty. If I walk on the street here, I am in Holland, I see tons of more beautiful women than Saira Mohan, but they are not so called “supermodels”. I do think that marketing agencies are pushing this issue of mix people. I don’t think any white/black mix is pretty, I think they are ugly. But for some reason the media here in the west are pushing this so called ethnic issues whether you like it or not. They are brainwashing people to like types of Saira Mohan or the likes of James Blake, a good tennis player no doubt but overrated in beauty. These newsweek and other american magazines are really pushing it. I think James Blake looks like a Hindu. As I see it, it’s simply a matter of political correctness due to the large number of blacks in west. 255
Posted by C. M. on Sat, 20 May 2006 04:58 | # The reason why India has done well in beauty pageants can be explained easily. Something else: I notice that people here are very scared to be accused of being “racists”. Now I have seen in a electronics shop a DVD player from a Korean manufacturer, I believe it was Daewoo, now there was something interesting about it: on the box you had a picture of a pretty blond woman and a mix black/white male along the lines of James Blake with Afro haircut. Now Daewoo is Korean I don’t think the management of Daewoo are pushers of white/black mixers so the people who are responsible for this are the marketing and advertisement agencies in west who are doing this. Daewoo wants to earn money but I don’t think the target group for DVD players are blacks so there are too many of these political correct people in marketing and advertisement who actually wants to see more white/black mixing. But of course it’s always somebody else daughter who must date a black, not their own daughter. I mean why do see all this “blacks on blondes” porn. I think blacks are ugly. 256
Posted by EC on Sat, 20 May 2006 09:51 | #
Let me see here, what is “not too black and not too white”? Hmmm, what can that Holy Grail of beauty be? Oh yes, a Paki. A Paki falls in between black and white, right? My oh my, now we all know what is the epitomy of beauty and moderation, at that. LOL No thanks! 257
Posted by Howitzer McLean on Sat, 20 May 2006 10:58 | # Indian women are like cows ... to be purchased and bred. It comes as no shock that they look like cows as well. 258
Posted by you guys are on crack on Sat, 20 May 2006 14:45 | # James Blake is one of the best looking guys out there! You “all white” men dont stand a chance!!! YOU ALBINO FREAKS - uuugggggghhhhh, get the hell out of my way!!! YUUUCKKKKKKKKK 259
Posted by venecan on Sat, 20 May 2006 21:36 | # There are indeed only three races: Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid. Australian aboriginals are an archaic form of Caucasoid that has been gentically isolated. South East Asians are a mix of Mongoloids and Australian aboriginals and thus cluster on the same branch as Aboriginals in genetic studies. The Caucasoid race can be subdivided into European Caucasoids and non-European Caucasoids (i.e. Indians) just as the Mongoloid race can be subdivided into North East Asians and Native Americans. Indians look very much like Europeans, especially Southern Europeans. Many Indians are mistaken for Italians and are simply a dark variety on a continuous spectrum. Genetic studies hsow Indians on the same branch of the human family tree as Europeans. The weak builds and low IQ scores obtained by some Indian samples are simply because much of India lives in rural understimulated and malnurished poverty, and thus has not yet had a Flynn Effect. Note that the Flynn Effect among the Dutch saw their IQ scores rise 21 points in 3 decades and their height rise substantially aswell. Second generation South Asians in developed countries score as well or better than white Caucasions and do about as well or better in school. 260
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 21 May 2006 02:42 | # Anjali, You are right that intelligence and health are not mutually exclusive, but IQ tests measure intelligence and some correlation between these variables does not undermine the generalizability of IQ tests across populations. So gods rather than penises and cows are being worshipped, but why are the gods represented in the form of penises and cows? It may be that most Indians have friends, family or acquaintances who look better than most participants in the Miss India beauty contest, but I seriously doubt this for several reasons. Miss India contestants look much better to me than most Indian women that I have seen. It is unlikely that India has to deal with the kind of political correctness seen in American beauty contests, and hence is in a better position to select the best looking Indian women. Additionally, Malcolm was under no requirement to post links to pictures of some specific kinds of Indians only. He had his choice of women to point out, and his best choices are seen to be far from impressive, and you have not linked to pictures of better looking Indian women. My removing Malcolm’s latest posts is not an example of dictatorship, and once again, I have archived his posts in a text file, which you can download. The act was necessary because of his failure to satisfy some requirements, including his repeated insistence that several of his assertions are true without citing supporting data from peer-reviewed journal articles, his dismissal of my citations without proper justification, and eventually his resorting to saying that I am just copying and pasting and do not understand what I am pasting. How can it be possible to have a reasonable discussion with someone like him? If somethings that I have said about Indians appear demeaning and rude, then it because of the nature of the facts, not because of profanity-laden and fact-less utterings as in some of the comments that you have graced us with. I was forced to use censored profanity against Malcolm, but this censored profanity was directed only against him, and I apologized in advance to everyone other than Malcolm. My mentioning Lord Shiva’s penis is not part of a scientific discussion, but it was in response to your non-scientific entries. You may have tried to be sarcastic by parroting what I wrote, but it came across as lame, and triple-digit IQ would surely result in better sarcasm. Regarding the imageshack picture, you linked to the thumbnail rather than the image, and messed it up (see the http address around it). Thus, you did a lame job at posting the picture and can hardly be said to have been successful. Yes, I am aware that there are blondes in Greece, but Jennifer Aniston isn’t one and there is nothing Nordic about her face. Besides, Jennifer Aniston is not unattractive because she is Greek, but because she is bad looking. And, Bridgette Bardot is not Nordic; look at her picture that I posted and tell me what is Nordic about her? ———————————- Anon, Boy, are you deluded! Halle Berry will beat any Nordic woman???!!!!! There is a greater possibility that I am a recent descendent of a mentally retarded Negro. Here is a picture of Halle Berry before she had her second nose job.
Here is a picture of Halle Berry presumably from before her foray into the world of cosmetic surgery; see any trace of her white biological mother?
Once again, I am surprised at why you South Asians regard a woman as good looking if she has been praised in some prominent quarters for her looks. Looks speak for themselves. Like Malcolm repeatedly did, you have brought up Saira Mohan. I have addressed Saira Mohan previously. She is unattractive and manly, and I am reproducing some of her pictures that I have previously used.
Saira Mohan’s nostrils, approaching the Negroid, and apparently less Negrified by part-white ancestry.
——————————————————— To the person who thinks James Blake looks better than most men, especially whites, Here is a guy, 7 inches taller and a 100 pounds heavier than James Blake, and he easily beats Blake in the looks department and everything else.
In the following picture, the same guy is demonstrating how to deal with non-white males seeking the favors of white women—show them the business end of a sword.
261
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 21 May 2006 02:46 | # Venecan, See if you can cite proof from peer-reviewed journals that there are only three races among humans and also proof that whites and Indians belong to the same race. A number of the Indian women that Malcolm has cited could pass as Middle Eastern, and if they look like Italians, it is because some Italians also look Middle Eastern, but Indians don’t look like Northern Italians. On the other hand, the masses in India lean toward Negroids and aboriginals in looks, and I don’t see how anyone could classify their looks as Caucasoid. You are mistaken about the weak build in Indians resulting from malnutrition. Even Indians living in the West, including those born in the West on the part of well-to-do Indians have a much weaker physical build than whites:
Since you mentioned the Dutch, there was a severe famine in the Netherlands in 1944-45, and people born during this period to pregnant mothers who did not have enough to eat were found to develop later in life 1) a higher incidence of coronary heart disease, raised lipids, altered clotting and more obesity after exposure to famine in early gestation; 2) a higher incidence of obstructive airways disease and microalbuminuria if exposure to famine occurred in mid-gestation; 3) decreased glucose tolerance in people exposed to famine in late gestation; and 4) diminished fertility among women. However, IQ was hardly diminished. Some citations:
In other words, eliminating malnutrition in India would add only a few points to the average Indian IQ, like raising it from 81 to 85, which is the American Negro average. Regarding the performance of second generation Indians in Western nations, 1) these are not representative of Indians, and are biased toward middle and upper class Indians; 2) school performance is of little relevance since Indian parents are known to push their children toward studying hard to a much greater extent than white parents; and 3) IQ tests in Britain, reported by Lynn, have shown the best Indian average, 96, to be 4 points less than that of the white British. Rushton studied the IQ of the brightest Engineering students in South Africa and found the IQs to be black (103), Indian (108) and white (118); thus, the Indians were closer to Negroes than whites, which is what all the other IQ data shows:
Rushton had previously studied bright South African engineering students; reported the IQs to be black (103), Indian (106) and white (117); and he showed that the IQ differences were Jensen effects, i.e., related to the general intelligence factor, race differences on which are almost entirely genetic:
I have also heard about a comparison of IQ between people from India in the Netherlands and native Dutch, and the Indians had lower scores, but I have forgotten where I came across this study. In a study, the predominant skin color of countries was rated on a 1-8 scale. Northern and Central Europeans scored 1, Greeks scored 2, India scored 6.33. The correlation between the predominant skin color of a country and its IQ was -0.92, which is close to a perfect correlation of -1.0, i.e., the darker the population, the dumber it is. Therefore, there is excellent consistency between the average skin color of the Hindu being closer to that of the Negro than white just as his IQ is closer to that of the Negro. I have seen many Indians who are darker than the average American Negro. In short, there are many reasons for classifying Indians into the Negroid group in the hypothetical 3-race scheme that you have mentioned. 262
Posted by Anon on Sun, 21 May 2006 05:32 | # The highly retarded JR wrote:
Why dont you cite your cut paste jobs? And:
And by the way, by your opinion your hulk hogan pasted above looks better than the one and only James Blake. Your hulk hogan is nothing more than a monkey. James Blake’s arse would give him a run for his money. 263
Posted by anjali on Sun, 21 May 2006 05:39 | # JR “why are the gods represented in the form of penises and cows?” “Miss India contestants look much better to me than most Indian women that I have seen.” you obviously havent seen many Indian women then…if it were not to protect their privacy i would post pictures of my own good looking friends and family who are just your everyday Indians “I was forced to use censored profanity against Malcolm, but this censored profanity was directed only against him, and I apologized in advance to everyone other than Malcolm.” Forced?? was someone holding a gun to your head making you do it?? we’re not forced to do anything…and ‘censored profanity’...what the?? prafanity is prafanity “in response to your non-scientific entries.” who are you to decide whats scientific and whats not?? “You may have tried to be sarcastic by parroting what I wrote, but it came across as lame” no im sorry but lame is what you are…have u read white thorn by bryce courtnay?? you remind my of a particular Dominee “Thus, you did a lame job at posting the picture and can hardly be said to have been successful.” well firstly i must say that no im no good at using a computer and putting in links and what not…who cares…there are plenty of ppl who cant…the fact is the picture is up there…thats what my aim was…and that to me is a success “Bridgette Bardot is not Nordic; look at her picture that I posted and tell me what is Nordic about her?” so enlighten me…what is she mongoloid, negroid??? 264
Posted by anjali on Sun, 21 May 2006 05:41 | # on the other hand, she has full lips which i dont think seems to be lacking in a lot of nordic women… sorry…i meant seems to be lacking in a lot of nordic women 265
Posted by anjali on Sun, 21 May 2006 08:15 | # by the way, you really shouldn’t have posted the pic of that guy cos now we really kno what sorta terrible taste u have…if u wanted to point out some attractive nordic men you would have been better off mentioning matthew mcconaughey
JR u still haven’t said which women you find attractive, so im just guessing that Charlize Theron might be somewhere on the list?? Earlier on you posted some pictures of Aishwarya Rai commenting on her brown hair, colored contacts and amount of makeup on her face. For starters Aishwarya Rai doesn’t wear contacts…her eyes are naturally that color and secondly the amount of makeup she has on is not any more than any white celebrity would use… Charlize Theron without and with makeup Cameron Diaz Renne Zellweger Pamela Anderson Do you recogise this beast?? I didn’t…its Christina Aguilera
Now on to the Indians Aishwarya Rai with and without makeup Rani Mukherjee Priyanka Chopra Sushmita Sen even without makeup the Indians manage to look good but the white women…some of them are downright ugly without makeup 266
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 21 May 2006 09:17 | # Anjali, Wow! I am impressed…you learned how to post pictures! On the other hand, what is your point in posting pictures of ugly women? This thread is about attractiveness. I could find pictures of ugly Hindu women, and then where would we be? You need to come up with Hindu women that are a match for Nordic beauty. Anyway, look at what you have posted. You posted a picture of Charlize Theron when she got a sunburn. It was not a permanent condition. Besides, it is pointless for you to pick on complexion; you should focus on facial features. I have said it before: I do not like yellow, yellow-brown or black skin, probably no less than you dislike pale skin, but I am not picking on it. For instance, I could say that at least the skin of white women doesn’t remind me of bowel movements or doesn’t look like a woman has spread a lotion made out of bowel movements on her skin. You posted a picture of Cameron Diaz, who is Hispanic and dyes her hair blonde. She is not white, let alone a Nordic, and an ugly woman. Your next picture is that of Renee Zellweger, another ugly woman who dyes her hair blonde, and Zellweger is half Central European, i.e., she is not Nordic; look at her face. You need to tell Nordic from non-Nordic features. Then you posted a picture of yet another ugly woman—Pamela Anderson—who is fake from head to toe; she also dyes her hair blonde. And, your last picture was of Christina Aguilera, who is Hispanic, not white, unattractive, and usually dyes her hair blonde. Your comment has focused on pigmentation. However, the fact is that two of the women that you have chosen are non-white, and three of them—Cameron Diaz, Renee Zellweger and Pamela Anderson—are ugly with or without make-up. Don’t bother posting pictures of ugly women and goddamn don’t post pictures of non-Nordic women as if they are Nordic women. Only two of the non-Hindu women you have posted are Nordic—Charlize Theron and Pamela Anderson—and of these, you posted a picture of Charlize with a non-permanent sunburn, and a picture of the ugly, masculinized Pamela Anderson. Don’t make me post pictures of ugly Hindu women, including Hindu women with zits. This thread should focus on attractiveness of facial features. And, in this regard, the facial features of the Hindu women that you have chosen are seen for what they are. 267
Posted by Anon on Sun, 21 May 2006 11:41 | #
EC said:
As a matter of fact, EC, that is the case. Apart from Pakistani and Indian women, other regions harboring the world’s most beautiful women are 1. the entire Southern European belt (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal), 2. the Mediterrenean belt (Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan etc), 3. Latin America. Apart from these, there are countless gorgeous women in every tropical country of the world. Ask any sensible man (with emphasis on “sensible”) if he fantasizes of pale, freakled, blonde nordic women or the likes of Aishwarya Rai, Monica Belluci, Christy Turlington (Latin - white mix) and Angelina Jolie. You will get the answer yourself. PS: Hi Anjali, could you tell me how to post pics?? PPS: JR, the women of the Indian slums you have shown in the thread could only be compared to your white trailer trash women. Why dont you have a fair comparison and post pictures of white women living in slums (and please dont argue that “white slums” do not exist because we all know how many white Americans live below the poverty level) 268
Posted by EC on Sun, 21 May 2006 12:36 | #
I think your premise is faulty. You aren’t comparing apples to apples. In the above you mention “pale, freakled, blonde nordic women” and compare them to the top 1% of beautiful women that are not Nordic. All races and sub-races have their share of ugly women. Comparing the most beautiful of all races is what you need to do and, in my opinion, European women are the most beautiful. From the north all the way down to the south. The women of other races that are beautiful have a large portion of European genes in them. I find blacks unattractive, even octoroons. 269
Posted by venecan on Sun, 21 May 2006 17:31 | # J Richards, Proof for the three race divsision of humanity has been known for decades by anthropologists and forensic workers by the fact that that there are three main types of skulls found among the world’s people: Negroid, Caucasoid & Mongoloid. Now it’s easy to point out superficial characteristics lke skin color, and group people in other ways, but such differences are literally only skin-deap, and will not be preserved in the fossil record the way the much deeper and more ancient divisions in skull type are. Support for the elegant three race divsion has further been confirmed by the state of the art ground breaking DNA research done by Cavalli-Sforza which shows most of the 42 international populations he studied fitting neatly on either the Negroid, Caucasoid, or Mongoloid branch of the human tree. The only exceptions were a Austrailans/New Guineans and South East Asians, however it has long been suspected that Austalian aboriginals are an archaic form of Caucasian that became isolated, and South East Asians are mix between ancient Caucasians and Mongoloids. Now East Indians fall very clearly on the Caucasoid branch of the human tree and share common ancestors with Europeans that are even more recent than the common ancestor shared by the very similar North East Asians and Artic Asians. In addition, East Indians and Europeans have identical skulls. As much as you seem to wish to define Europeans as their own distinct race, the genetic evidence clearly contradicts you. Indeed European Greeks and West Asian Iranians (who look Indian) are almost genetically identical and are much closer to each other than either group is to the Danish and English. Now it’s possible to divide the Caucasoid race into various subraces (aka ethnic groups) but there’s no getting around the fact that Indians and Northern Europeans belong to the same major racial classification. Classifying East Indians as Negroid just because their skin is dark makes about as much sense as classifying British people as Polar Bears because both are white. On the vast majority of physical and genetic traits, Indians resemble white people.
Now you can argue that the South Asians in developed countries are the best of the brightest, however they often score just as bad as South Asians back home when they first arrive. It’s only after they’ve been exposed to Western culture do their scores rapidly catch up as they acquire Western modes of cognition. Some IQ tests don’t seem to suffer from these cultural biases however they’re seldom used. Lastly, Indians who raise their kids in developed countries often see their children grow up to be a good foot taller than they are. If Western nutrition can raise their height by as much as 4 SD, it can raise their IQ’s by as much as 60 points. 270
Posted by anjali on Sun, 21 May 2006 22:26 | # Anon to post pictures u can go to http://www.imageshack.us if the pictures are saved on your computer then browse and upload it and then click the ‘host it button’. i used the hotlink for forums (1) link. just copy the link and paste it here… just make sure u delete the URL part at the start and end of the link…it should start with [IMG] and end with it as well…click on the preview button to make sure you have done it properly hope ive expalined it properly 271
Posted by anjali on Sun, 21 May 2006 22:56 | # jr if u find these women unnatractive…let me kno which nordic women are attractive and i will post pictures of them…by the way…about the picuture of charlize, just ignore her skin for a minute and look at her features…without makeup she is very bland and very average looking, you wouldnt give her a second look if u saw her walking down the street “This thread should focus on attractiveness of facial features. And, in this regard, the facial features of the Hindu women that you have chosen are seen for what they are.” What they are is nothing short of beautiful PS if u r going to post pictures of ugly hindu women with skin problems just make sure they are celebrities like i have done… 272
Posted by C. M. on Mon, 22 May 2006 08:58 | # “As a matter of fact, EC, that is the case. Apart from Pakistani and Indian women, other regions harboring the world’s most beautiful women are 1. the entire Southern European belt (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal), 2. the Mediterrenean belt (Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan etc), 3. Latin America. Apart from these, there are countless gorgeous women in every tropical country of the world.” You are a retarded liar. “however it has long been suspected that Austalian aboriginals are an archaic form of Caucasian that became isolated, and South East Asians are mix between ancient Caucasians and Mongoloids.” You hindus are worse than retarded, abos are a kind of caucasian?! These australoids are a kind of caucasians in the words of the dumb hindu. No comment is needed here. It’s not sane. 273
Posted by C. M. on Mon, 22 May 2006 09:12 | # For the hindus here: why are you having problems with accepting new realities like at least 5 races? Even Australian abos are now in the “Caucasoid” group according to the hindus. Of course they are caucasoid too. I have bad news for you: both hindus and abos can be assigned a seperate cluster from Europeans. Clearly hindus with average 81 IQ cannot comprehend common data so clearly presented. 274
Posted by C. M. on Mon, 22 May 2006 09:22 | # “Lastly, Indians who raise their kids in developed countries often see their children grow up to be a good foot taller than they are. If Western nutrition can raise their height by as much as 4 SD, it can raise their IQ’s by as much as 60 points.” Are you kidding? The kids look about the same as their parents because you still eat the same indian food. 275
Posted by C. M. on Mon, 22 May 2006 10:37 | # Australoids were in first wave out of Africa, the coastal route in which India played a major role of colonizing south east Asia and Australia and the pacific islands. They reached Australia already in 60000 BC. The people who are to become Europeans, Meditereneans and North East Asians were in the second wave out of Africa, the landroute. Modern Humans entered Europe in 35000 BC and the Americas 12000 BC. Clearly Europeans and North East Asians are more bright because the envirionment they migrated to was more harsh, colder. It needs problem solving abilities to survive in a harsh and cold environment as Northern Eurasia. Hence it does not surprise me that there is significant difference in IQ between people living in cold climate and tropical climate. 276
Posted by Dan on Mon, 22 May 2006 10:52 | # Anjali, GO BACK TO INDIA!! No matter how good you think your race is, no matter how much better off you think your precence has made the West, no matter how many doctors are here, etc, etc, if you left you would not be missed. Trust me. You live here and continue to live here because it is a better country than India, which in turn is because it was founded by the very North Western Europeans you clearly depise. If the countries and inhabitants of the West are so undesirable, why, oh why do we have to beat back throngs of immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees? Why is it, that your own parents choose your new country in the West over India as a better place to raise their snide, ungrateful, little brown twit? Go home. And take your arrogant, unwelcome extended family with you. Ingrate!! To think, were it not for the benevolence (stupidity?) of your host country, you would still be living in the shithole you call your native land. I am incredulous. 277
Posted by anjali on Mon, 22 May 2006 10:54 | # “Go grab western fastfood and see if you can be smarter 60 points.” yeah eat as much fast food as you can, so in CM’s ideal world everyone can look like this…
278
Posted by C. M. on Mon, 22 May 2006 11:04 | # You take my comment out of context: I was just merely commenting to venegan and his stupid comment that western food “could improve indian height and IQ points”. I think western fastfood is typical for blacks and other retarded elements. 279
Posted by C. M. on Mon, 22 May 2006 11:05 | # Besides the kids in the pic look like a bunch of arabs, I think they are from iran. 280
Posted by venecan on Mon, 22 May 2006 14:45 | # C.M., Read the Geography of Human Genes by Cavalli-Sforza. Check out the genetic linkage tree he provides that shows Europeans, North Africans, West Aisans, and South Asians all occupying the same branch of the human tree. Indeed European Greeks are much closer genetically to the West Asian population of Iran than they are to other Europeans, so it makes no sense at all to define Europeans as their own race, or even subrace. Now it’s been well documented that IQ scores have been rising by about 3 IQ points per decade in the U.S. since perhaps the earliest days of intelligence testing. A parallel trend has occured with height and education level so it’s not clear whether 20th century nutrition is making people smarter as well as taller, or whether increased levels of schooling are just making people more test savvy. The point is that any country that makes the transition from rural poverty to urban industrialization sees IQ scores rise by 20-40 points, height rise by several inches, and brain weight increase to boot. This phenomenon known as the Flynn Effect has been demonstrated time and time again in many different corners of the globe. While the Flynn Effect seems to be leveling off in Europe and North America, it has not even begun in India, so if economic conditions continue to advance there, IQ’s can be expected to skyrocket as the people reach their genetic potential. India has produced an early civilization, some of the greatest mathematicians, freakishly prodigous calculating prodigees, a high frequency of engineers, and more billionaires per capita than many European countries. Indeed, despite the high cognitive and economic performance of many Mongoloid countries, the richest person in all of Asia is Indian. Further India has one of the world’s largest populations, and because of the historic gene mixing in India, India enjoys the genetic benefits of heterosis which is known to enhance all dominant polygenetic traits. As for australian aboriginals, many white anthropologist have concluded that they are indeed a form of archaic Caucasoid because despite their black skin, their features, body hair, and hair type resembles that of many European populations. While Australian aboriginals are genetically very distant from Europeans and Indians, on a seperate branch of the human tree, if you measure the length of the lines on Cavalli-Sforza’s genetic linkage tree, they are in fact closer to Caucasoids than they are to either Negroids or Mongoloids, so since they’re too tiny a population to form a major race, it seems reasonable to lump them in with Caucasoids. 281
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 22 May 2006 21:27 | # Anon, I have not shown the slum-dwelling women in order to compare their attractiveness with Nordic women. I used Indian beauty pageant contestants and actresses for the comparison. I mentioned the following reason for showing the slum-dwelling people:
Anjali, Your choices of Matthew McConaughey and Jude Law are good choices, but the bodybuilder was posted for other reasons. Regarding Bridgette Bardot, her face width, large cheekbones and jaw structure should give you a clue that she is not Nordic. I will get back to you on the Nordic women that I like. I have no wish to post pictures of ugly Indian women. This thread has digressed into topics that it shouldn’t have been discussing, and the last thing I’d like to see is a who-has-the-ugliest-women contest. You are grossly mistaken about Charlize Theron having very bland and average-looking features. See her pictures from different angles below. She is far from plain-featured. How many Indian women above could be shown from multiple angles such that they manage to look good at all angles, let alone look as good as Charlize?
282
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 22 May 2006 21:35 | # Venecan, Boy, you are Malcolm A. II, or perhaps Malcolm posting under a different name. Why don’t you cite references from peer-reviewed journals to back up your contentions that I am disputing? If there is proof of three races only, then why are you not able to cite evidence for it in peer-reviewed journals? I cited a paper previously by Li et al. that shows that there are 8 major types of skulls among humans, including an India type and a European type. Thus, Indian skulls are different from European skulls to such an extent as to be assigned their own major cluster. Why have you ignored this evidence? If you consider the 2005 Rosenberg et al. study that I cited previously, the study design is ideally suited for determining the minimum number of races in humans. Let us consider two possible scenarios: 1) there is a European race, or 2) there is a Caucasoid race stretching from Northern Europe to India. If the latter is true, you will observe that a number of people from Northern Europe to India have exclusive membership in a single cluster, say cluster A, and that of all people in this region that have membership in multiple clusters, most have the vast majority of their membership in cluster A. Thus, cluster A is appropriately called something other that a European cluster or white cluster, and the term would obviously be a Caucasoid cluster or Caucasoid race. But no such thing is observed. What is observed by Rosenberg et al. and other current studies is that you obtain a cluster, say cluster B, such that a number of Europeans have exclusive membership in cluster B only; of all native Europeans that have membership in multiple clusters, most have the vast majority of their membership in cluster B; and outside of Europe, only a miniscule proportion of people have the vast majority of their membership in cluster B. Thus, what should cluster B be called? Cluster B is obviously the European race or white race, and if you chose to call cluster B the Caucasoid race, then Caucasoid is synonymous with European. You have mentioned Greeks being closer to people in Iran than in Northern Europe, and that this should undermine the notion of a European race. This is an incorrect idea. Greeks are bound to be genetically closer to geographically adjacent Middle Eastern populations than geographically distant Northern Europeans on several, though not all traits. Indeed, Rosenberg et al.’s 2005 study shows that there is clear evidence of clinal variation, i.e., generally you will be genetically closer to your neighbors than to more distant populations, with some exceptions if natural barriers that separate people, like mountains or deserts, are present, but notwithstanding clinal variation, there are still clusters, and Rosenberg et al. (2005), whose study is the most comprehensive, rigorous, and methodologically sound so far, have not found any evidence for a cluster that characterizes the majority of the population ranging from Europe to the Northwestern part of South Asia, but they have found clear evidence of a European racial cluster. Europeans are not the only people who have membership in this cluster. Thus, someone with 20% European ancestry has a fifth of his membership in the European cluster, but he will obviously not be called a European or be part of the European race. Similarly, the South Asian whose profile from DNAPrint genomics I have shown previously has about half of his membership in the European cluster and the other half in non-European clusters (African, East Asian, Native American). Since of all 4 groups that this South Asian has membership in, the contribution of the European cluster is the greatest, in a genetic tree, this person will attach to the branch that has contributed the greatest fraction, which will be European, but to infer from this tree that this person is part of the same race that Europeans belong to is absurd. This person is no more a part of the race to which Europeans belong than someone who is half white and half black is a member of the race to which Europeans belong. Look again at the Sahoo et al. paper for evidence that the Aryans left little genetic impact in India. You have called Australian aboriginals a type of archaic Caucasoid! Are you deranged? Do you have any evidence to cite? You need to look at the following.
Now look at the picture of the following untouchable from India, taken from National Geographic. Do you see a primitive Caucasoid? I see something closer to a Negroid than a Caucasoid in your 3-race scheme, and the Veddah, aboriginal, Dravidian and untouchable people are much closer to this untouchable in looks than they are to Europeans. Untouchables are a sizeable minority of the Indian population, about a fourth of Indians according to this site, but I don’t know the true figure. If you look at the Sahoo et al. citation mentioned previously, you will note that the genetic distance between the caste groups in India and the tribals/aboriginals is a small fraction of the genetic distance between the caste groups and Western Europeans. Thus, there is no way Indian caste groups can be classified in the race of whites but not these untouchables and aboriginals, and anyone who thinks that these Australoid/Negroid-looking aboriginals can be classified as Caucasoid has to be insane. Clearly, if there were only 3 races, then Indians would best be classified as a type of Negroids. In the picture below, the men can easily pass as East Indian.
However, the men above are the Wodaabe of West Africa, and if they are Negroids, then too many East Indians look Negroid enough, and some look much more Negroid, to be easily classified as Negroids in a 3-race-only scheme. How can you say that “None of the citations you provided prove much about the physical build about Indians”? Did you even bother to look at the studies? The studies clearly show that if you match Indians and whites on BMI (body mass index, which is the weight divided by the square of height), then Indians have more body fat, i.e., less muscle and less skeletal mass. Alternatively, if you match Indians and whites with respect to percentage body fat, then Indians have a lower BMI. Indians are born with less muscle and skeletal mass, even in Western nations, as shown by the studies cited. Also, this is consistent with common observation and the fact that Indians almost never win Olympic medals, thanks to their poor physical builds. Similarly, Indian bodybuilders have never made their mark in international professional bodybuilding because of their poor physical builds. Black Africa has a worse problem with malnutrition, yet it produces people with better physical builds than India does. 283
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 22 May 2006 21:37 | # Venecan, Richard Lynn adjusted Indian IQ scores for the Flynn effect; see his calculations. Your idea about adding 20-40 points is absurd. Spectacular gains in IQ have mostly been demonstrated in Northern Europe and are larger for culture-free IQ tests; the IQ increase is not related to the g factor (crystallized g; see second citation below). More importantly, it has been shown that this gain was mostly in the lower half of the bell curve, thereby relating the Flynn effect to improved nutrition. There was little gain in the right of the bell curve. Citation:
Therefore, the top intellectual brass has not benefited from the Flynn effect, but you can see that India, in spite of its population size, has only had a miniscule number of Nobel Prizes in science, and as I have mentioned previously, Indians are not found among the top performers in the most advanced tests of software coding prowess (ACM competitions, topcoder data, etc.). Thus, there is a big gap between the top intellectual brass of India and the top intellectual brass of Europe and NE Asia, which is in excellent agreement with the average IQ of India being [genetically] much lower than in Europe and NE Asia. Don’t tell me that better nutrition will translate to more Indians winning Nobel Prizes. Indians on the right side of the bell curve mostly have the resources to eat enough, and as pointed by others, American blacks have plenty to eat, but their average IQ remains abysmal. Also, I cited a paper showing a very strong negative correlation between predominant skin color of a population and its average IQ (r = -0.92), i.e., the darker the population, the dumber it is. Even in Europe this correlation is -0.63, and in East Asia this correlation is -0.55. Cranial capacity increases with distance from the equator (r = 0.62). Why Should India be an exception to this global pattern? Also, in my previous response to you, I cited evidence that the black-East Indian-white IQ gap, where the East Indians were much closer to blacks, was a Jensen effect, i.e., related to the general intelligence factor, i.e., genetics. However, the Flynn effect is not related to the g factor:
Think again, do you really believe that the average person in Northern Europe was mentally retarded in the early twentieth century? Your interpretation of the Flynn effect is flawed. Once again, the Flynn effect is not related to the g factor. Thus, the black-white IQ gap has remained unchanged, notwithstanding the Flynn effect, and Indians remain closer to blacks in IQ than whites. Besides, I’d be impressed if you cite evidence that the children of Indian immigrants to the West grow a foot taller than their parents. If you come to a thread late, it is your responsibility to read what has transpired before firing off comments or else you will frustrate people who have already dealt with the issues you bring up. For instance, you have mentioned:
Why should one believe that the Indus Valley Civilization was a product of the dark people of India? Why is there no early civilization anywhere in the South, where the darkest Indians are found? A handful of calculating prodigies doesn’t mean anything. The important ability in science and math is mathematical modeling, not the ability to perform calculations, which are easily achieved by a computer. India’s engineers are not renowned for engineering prowess. India has a large population because Western medicine and food cut its child mortality sharply. You have mentioned heterosis, which supposedly occurred in India as a result of race mixing, failed to cite any supporting evidence for hybrid vigor, and ignored my citation of the negative health consequences of race mixing in humans, which is confirmed by some loss of morphological integration in the skull resulting from race mixing, both apparently related to the disruption of co-adapted gene complexes. Anyway, you need to cite peer-reviewed journal articles (not books) to support your major points, or else don’t bother commenting here. 284
Posted by dan mohan on Tue, 23 May 2006 00:20 | # HELLO J. RICHARDS, Oh you is it essential every women to look NOrdic to be beautiful.If so why dont these nordic women come in the list of the most beautiful womens in the world.LOOk at aishwarya rai is so so beautiful and her figure is not that good you have compared her figure to a nordic women but hey GUys look at the face ot that nordic women in BIKni beside RAi i felt like vomiting she has only good figure but in looks she falls no where. Hello the PHOTO OF WOMEN NEXT TO SONALI BENDRE SEE THOSE WHITE PATCHES ON HER FACE AND DOWN ONE WITH THAT BLACK DOTS THESE ARE HOW MOST OF THE WHITE WOMEN LOOK LIKE WITH THAT UNGLY PATCES ON SKIN. NOW LOOK AT THE WOMEN NEXT TO URMILA, AGAIN THAT SO CALLED NORDIC BEAUTY HAS THAT DARK DIRTY PATCHES AND IN LOOKS SHE IS NOT EVEN GOOD TO LICK THE FOOT OF URMILA . THIS IS NOT DONE YOU TAKE THE PHOTOS OF THE BEST NORDICS WOMEN IN THIER BEST MAKE UP POSSIBLE(EVEN THAT DOES NOT WORK) AND COMPARE TO OTHERS AND MANY OF THE PHOTOS OF INDIAN WOMEN ARE BURRED AND DO NOT SHOW THERE REAL BEAUTY. CAN I ASK YOU SOMETHING IS ALL NORDIC WOMEN BEAUTIFUL AND ALL LOOK LIKE THE ONES IN THAT PHOTO WITH THE FEATURES YOU HAVE SAID ,IT IS IMPOSSIBLE . 285
Posted by anjali on Tue, 23 May 2006 00:51 | # if because of the angle of the photo you could not see how plain charlize is then here is another shot front on
in your earlier post you critisise aishwaryas physique…now have a good look at that top pic…charlizes body which has no feminine curves whatsoever…in the pic below she has either put weight on, on her stomach or has no chest…either way it is unproportional and unnattractive…
even i an admit that charlize is in fact quite attractive with makeup, the pictures you have posted above all show charlize with makeup and additionally have been airbrushed…she looks much different without it as u can see in the top photos…i can show you pics of aish rai from diff angles as well…
286
Posted by TJ on Tue, 23 May 2006 00:53 | # Why do the aboriginies people of Australia have natural blonde hair? 287
Posted by Mr Gonzo on Tue, 23 May 2006 02:30 | # Have anybody heard of Nancy Etcoff’s “Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty”. How does her theory on natural selection factor in on how certain groups of people have certain characteristics? 288
Posted by venecan on Tue, 23 May 2006 02:50 | # J Richards, As I’ve already explained to you multiple times, proof for the three-race model was comprehensively demonstrated by the authoritative and exstensively peer reviewed analysis of Cavalli-Sforza which very clearly showed a Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid branch of the human tree. You of all people should know this since you posted a copy of that very tree in this thread and you should also know that Indians fall clearly and unambiguously on the Caucasoid Branch. You can argue that this is an artifact of European admixture but many people question whether the lighter skin tones in Northern India reflect Eruopean genes or simply climatic adaptations to cooler climate up North. Moreoever, the unmixed black skinned Dravidians of South India also fall clearly on the Caucasoid branch. In addition to Indians, there are many other non-white populations of Arab ancestry, that also fall neatly on the Caucasoid branch and you see a very clear and continuous gradient from the black-skinned Dravidians at one extreme to the fair skinned Danish and British at the other (with the brown skinned Southern Europeans and Arabs intermediate). The genetic tree shows no abrupt split between whites and non-white Caucasoids, but rather a series of tiny divisions between populations settling in warmer and warmer climates. Of course some of the differences are going to be more than skin deep and it’s always possible to differentiate the skulls of the darkest caucasoids from the lightest, but the tree implies that Dravidians, Arabs, and Europeans all split off of the same very recent ancestral population. Nordics simply became a lot lighter so that their skin could absorb vitamin D, while light skinned genes were weeded out as Caucasians traveled South within India. The Cavalli-Sforza tree you posted clearly shows that humans emerged in Africa about 200,000 years ago, with an African non-African split about 110,000 years ago. Shortly after that Australian aboriginals split off the non-Africans but it wasn’t until 41,000 years ago that non-Africans split between Mongoloids and Caucasoids. The split between European Caucasoids and non-European Caucasoids happened only about 15,000 years ago, and among white caucasoids, Nordics emerged only several thousand years ago. The untouchable women you posted look Negroid in color but have classic Southern European features and hair type. In fact if you painted them white they would blend right in within Europe. I think you’re far too obsessed with color when assessing racial variation. Any race will turn black when migrating South, and a Negroid tribe in a dim-lit environment would turn white within a few thousand years to absorb vitamin D. Does that mean they have suddenly become Caucasoid? Of course not. And yes I’m well aware that there are some Negroid populations that also have Caucasoid features, however their tight curly hair is unlike Caucasoid hair and more importantly, unlike Dravidians, they sit on the Negroid branch of the genetic linkage tree you posted (again please study it!) and not the Cuacasoid branch with the Dravidians, Arabs, and Europeans.
Also the Flynn Effect is far too large to only be explained by the left end of the curve. To see IQ’s rise by 20-40 points without the right side rising too would require an absurdly high fraction of the left end having once been in the severely retarded range. And who cares how many Nobel Prize winners India has. India has produced the wealthiest man in all of Asia, one of the greatest mathematicians in all of history, and U.S. citizens of Indian descent are overrepresented among well-to-do Americans (see the Forbes 400) which indicates they have the resourcefulness to solve the most important problems of everyday life and adapt in a competetive world. If the Raven IQ scores of the British and the Dutch can sky-rocket by well over 20 points, than the severly malnourished and understimulated rural Indian villaigers can do the same, especially since unlike the British and Dutch, they approach these Western tests from a completely different culture. The negative correlation between national skin color and national IQ score is not very interesting since it doesn’t control fro the massive Flynn Effect which white countries are known to be ahead on. But you asked how Indians could be an exception to this global trend. Didn’t you also claim Indians were physically inferior. Well than perhaps I should point to the well known global trend of dark skinned people dominating physical competetions in everything from boxing, to sprinting, to basketball, and ask why you consider Indians an exception to this global trend? 289
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 23 May 2006 09:21 | # Anjali, Damn! I told you that I did not want this thread to digress into a who-has-the ugliest-women contest. Malcolm specifically asked me to compare Aishwarya Rai’s physique with any Nordic woman of my choice, and I used pictures of her physique that were taken in her twenties. However, I did not ask you to use the physique of Charlize Theron for any purpose. Just look at the Nordic physiques that I have shown previously and ask yourself if I would recommend Charlize Theron for a physique comparison. Charlize never had a good physique. On top of this, you find paparazzi pictures of her at the beach in her 30s! All her multi-angle face pics show her in her 20s. Women become more masculine and less attractive as they age. So what is the bright idea behind using pictures of her past her prime? The following pictures of her physique are from her 20s, and her body looked a lot better then, though it is wasn’t much of a sexy physique, but her physique was overall a little better than Aishwarya’s in her early twenties.
I am sick of having to deal with Aishwarya Rai. I don’t know what is up with you Hindus; what do you see in her? Anyway, I will compare her face with Charlize Theron’s. The following collage shows, on the left, an older Charlize and an older Aishwarya, both with makeup. Notice that their faces are masculinized compared to their early twenties; this happens with aging, but Aishwarya looks a lot more masculine. The rightmost picture is that of an older (30s), fatter Charlize without makeup, and with corrugated brows and lighting that makes her upper nose look pinched. How do you think Aishwarya would look in a similar position? I’d wager that she would look a lot worse; even with makeup, she looks worse than Charlize on the right.
The following picture contrasts the hooked nose of Aishwarya with the straight nose of Charlize, and the difference is because of anatomy, not makeup or airbrushing. Also note the roundish skull of Aishwarya, which is flattened at the backside. I dislike these skulls and prefer the elongated Nordic skull as in Charlize, but those who are into East Asian skulls will have a different opinion.
The following picture compares a young Charlize with a young Aishwarya, both with makeup, and it is clear that Aishwarya has a broader face, more massive cheekbones and more massive jaws.
The following picture compares an older Charlize with an older Aishwarya, both with makeup, and it is clear that Aishwarya has a broader and uglier nose than Charlize, and also looks more masculine than Charlize.
The following picture compares an older Charlize with Aishwarya, both with makeup, and it is clear that Aishwarya has a broader and flatter face, and I suppose those who are into East Asians would better appreciate Aishwarya.
Besides, if Aishwarya were walking at the beach in a bikini with the flabby physique she presented at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival, I’d bet her physique would look a lot worse than the physique of Charlize in the paparazzi pictures. In other words, if you match Charlize and Aishwarya with respect to age and presence/absence of makeup, Charlize will beat Aishwarya hands down. Once again, don’t make this thread degenerate toward a who-has-the ugliest-women contest. I will reply to the others soon. 290
Posted by Anon on Tue, 23 May 2006 16:18 | # EC said:
I am comparing Ash Rai, Monica Belluci, Christy Turlington and Angelina Jolie to the most beautiful nordic women that JR has posted here. Thats all. Since he hasnt been specific as to who exactly is the most beautiful, lets assume that they are all his idea of a good looking woman. Therefore, I am comparing apples to apples. And dont be mistaken here. Northern European (Scandinavean) and Southern European (Greek, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian) women have about as much in common as Northern European women have in common with Arab or Indian women. he discussion was never about European or not European. We are discussing nordic women and whether they are any challenge to dark featured women. Going by all of the Nordics posted on this thread, it is clear that none of these women are a match to the women I have mentioned. They are so far off that even comparing them would be absurd. 291
Posted by Anon on Tue, 23 May 2006 16:33 | # Furthermore, pale, frekled, blonde just about describes the nordics. No more and no less. More coming soon. 292
Posted by dan mohan on Tue, 23 May 2006 23:21 | # DEAR ANON OH god look at that nose of Charlize DOES IT NOT LOOK LIKE A PIG NOSE . AISHWARYA RAI SHE IS VOTED THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN IN THE WORLD BY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD. AND YOUR Charlize DOES SHE EXIST IN ANY OF THESE LIST.SHE HAS 17,000 WEB SITES DEDICATED TO HER NAME AROUND THE WORLD.ALL THESE PEOPLE DOES NOT FIND ANY PROBLEM IN HER FEATURES. THE MISS WORLD ORGANISATION HAS DECLARED THAT SHE IS THE PERFECT AND THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN EVER TO HOLD THE CROWM TILL DATE.I THINK SO MANY WHITES HAS WON THE MISS WORLD CROWN INCLUDING NORDIC WOMEN WHERE ARE THEY ?A SIMLPE ANSWER AISHWARYA RAI IS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN EVER. THE DUTCH PEOPLE HAS NAMED A NEW VARIETY OT A TULIP FLOWER IN AISHWARYA’S NAME NOT ANY NORDIC WOMEN. DEAR ANON WAKE UP YOU ARE LIVING IN THE 21’T CENTURY NOW THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN COMES FROM ACROSS THE WORLD NOT JUST WHITE 293
Posted by dan mohan on Tue, 23 May 2006 23:28 | # DEAR J RICHARDS OH god look at that nose of Charlize DOES IT NOT LOOK LIKE A PIG NOSE . AISHWARYA RAI SHE IS VOTED THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN IN THE WORLD BY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD. AND YOUR Charlize DOES SHE EXIST IN ANY OF THESE LIST.SHE HAS 17,000 WEB SITES DEDICATED TO HER NAME AROUND THE WORLD.ALL THESE PEOPLE DOES NOT FIND ANY PROBLEM IN HER FEATURES. THE MISS WORLD ORGANISATION HAS DECLARED THAT SHE IS THE PERFECT AND THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN EVER TO HOLD THE CROWM TILL DATE.I THINK SO MANY WHITES HAS WON THE MISS WORLD CROWN INCLUDING NORDIC WOMEN WHERE ARE THEY ?A SIMLPE ANSWER AISHWARYA RAI IS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN EVER. THE DUTCH PEOPLE HAS NAMED A NEW VARIETY OT A TULIP FLOWER IN AISHWARYA’S NAME NOT ANY NORDIC WOMEN. DEAR ANON WAKE UP YOU ARE LIVING IN THE 21’T CENTURY NOW THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN COMES FROM ACROSS THE WORLD NOT JUST WHITE 294
Posted by Arvind Kelkar on Wed, 24 May 2006 03:39 | # Firstly, as one has already pointed out, beauty is very subjective. It’s not true that all Indians prefer Nordics. I, for one, think Afghanis have the best features in the world, in terms of their ruggedness and Iranis, in terms of their complexion (Heard the phrase “Persian beauty”). It’s just that being Muslim, they do not suit Western sensibilities, but with a good shave and western clothes, most Afghan males and females could easily beat your so-called good looking people. (Now, please don’t post the ugliest pic of an Afghani man or woman.) You remember the best National Geographic cover image? That girl is Aghani by ethnicity. Some men prefer Mongoloid features, some prefer Indian, some prefer Nordic. How can you be so sure that everybody prefers Nordics? That’s a gross generalization. In terms of figure and sex appeal, Brazilians and latinos beat almost everybody, but again, that’s MY opinion, and as you have clearly shown, you prefer Nordic women over others. Again, that’s YOUR taste. Indians do use a lot of face-whitening creams, but that’s because they want to look fairer, and NOT WHITE or European. The same way, so many whites use darkening creams, definitely not because they want to look Indian. Secondly, your so-called advanced civilization has its roots in the Greek civilization, do you agree? And greeks are closer to Indians and Iranians, as someone already pointed out before. I don’t want to get into this which-race-is-superior rubbish, nor do I want to get into a diatribe like Anjali and insult other races, but the facts are clear. Most Nobel prize winners are Jewish. Most Ivy League colleges in the US were dominated by Jewish students, but are slowly being replaced by SURPRISE Hindus, Jains, and Sikhs (Your usage of the word Hindu to describe most Indians is most erroneous. Hinduism is a religion, it does not describe ethnicity, the same way Christian does not mean a White European). The national IQ average in the US is high primarily because immigrants like the Chinese and the Indians excel in school. Look at the results of any spelling bee contest in the US. It’s true that Silicon Valley hires a lot of Indians to reduce costs. But even the upper end in technology is still dominated by Indians. You may still choose to ignore all these facts. I don’t blame you. After all, someone who has wasted so much energy trying to prove that “Nordic women are the most beautiful”, needs to find a hobby. Race is a complicated issue. You may call yourself white, but you may have mongoloid blood in you, courtesy Genghiz Khan and his hordes who spread their semen across Europe. By calling Indians Negroid, and that too based on photographs (!!!!!), you’ve shown how flawed your research methodology is. 295
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 25 May 2006 13:07 | # Dan Mohan, A woman does not have to look Nordic to be beautiful. As to why the Nordic women that I have shown are generally not among the list of the most beautiful women in the world, you should take a look at the women in these lists. When you see the likes of Gisele Bundchen, Halle Berry and Cindy Crawford in these lists, it is obvious that these lists have little to do with beauty, just as contemporary beauty contests have little to do with beauty. On the other hand, it is obvious what kind of women are most desired internationally: Nordic women. For instance, in the U.S., blonde hair dye outsells all other hair dyes by a huge margin among young women, and people around the globe seeking cosmetic surgery to improve their faces try to make their faces shift closer to the Euro-Nordic average. Like a number of Hindus, you seize on to freckles, ignoring the fact that most of the Nordic women shown do not have freckles. You will note that since your co-ethnic signing as Malcolm A challenged me to compare the looks of Hindu women he pointed out with Nordic women, I have made an attempt to use clear pictures showing women roughly posed at similar angles. Thus, your objection about picking Nordic women in their best makeup and Indian women at their worst is not applicable. Makeup generally hides blemishes such as scars, acne, freckles, etc., does not alter gross face shape, and does little to alter minor shape variation by using optical illusions. Since we are not comparing pigmentation, though a number of Hindus keep bringing it up, the extent of makeup is irrelevant to assessing gross face shape variables such as face width, nose width, nostril shape, cheekbone prominence, nose profile, etc. Extensive makeup and excessive lighting use are quite common in the photos of Hindu celebrities. Hindus appear to have a preference for light skin and thereby use excessive lighting to make the skin look lighter, making facial features more difficult to discern. Thus, if I seek a picture where the lighting is not excessive, the ethnic features of the Hindu women will be clearer, and the very fact that you Hindus consider such photographs to be less attractive shows a bias among you toward less ethnic features, i.e., more European facial features. On the other hand, I am not surprised that you Hindus cannot see the difference between make-up enhanced skin features and gross face shape variables that are not altered by makeup, which is what the comparisons should focus on. There are comments here by Hindus/Indians along the lines of Australian aborigines being a type of primitive Caucasian, the untouchables of India shown within this thread looking like darker-skinned versions of Southern Europeans, the likes of Bridgette Bardot and Jennifer Aniston supposedly being Nordic, Hispanics such as Cameron Diaz and Christina Aguilera being Nordic, and so on. A Northern European can only be at a loss for words. You have repeated Malcolm’s argument regarding the huge number of websites devoted to Aishwarya and the accolades she has received. Given the huge number of East Indians, it should not be surprising that thousands of sites are devoted to her. Additionally, one does not judge how beautiful a woman is by considering the praise her looks have received, but by looking at the woman, and Aishwarya’s degree of attractiveness is obvious in the pictures above. I do not know why you call the facial features of the Nordic woman whom I have used to compare Aishwarya Rai’s physique with repulsive—you can hardly make out her facial features, and if after all the pictures of Aishwarya Rai shown within this thread, you still believe she has a really good looking face, then whereas I can understand where you are coming from, i.e., the normative looks of Hindu women, I hope that Lord Shiva grants you a better aesthetic sense. To answer your last question in the first comment left by you, not all Nordic women look the same or like the women shown within this thread. ———————————————— TJ, Only some Australian aborigine tribes have blonde hair, and when they do, it is rare in adults and usually found in children. I am not familiar with the genetics involved. ———————————————— Mr. Gonzo, Nancy Etcoff has presented a lot of data in her book, but not much of an analysis. She does not address racial variation to the best of my recollection. Racial variation in physical features are not solely a function of natural selection. Random genetic drift and sexual selection are also involved, and this entry specifically addresses more intense sexual selection among Northern Europeans compared to other populations. ————————————————
This statement is coming from a person who also wrote the following:
How deluded can Hindus be? You should not be mistaken. Southern European women are closer to Northern European women in facial features than Indian women, on average, including upper caste Indian women. Anyway, the facial features of Aishwarya Rai and Angelina Jolie, shown above, are seen for what they are. Christy Turlington is attractive, but then my argument certainly isn’t that only Nordic women can be attractive. As far as Monica Belluci goes, she is a little too masculine for my tastes, but some men are into somewhat masculine women and a young Monica would qualify as a good looking woman. The original statement is again coming from a person who wrote the following:
Most Nordic women shown here are not freckled, and those who tan themselves are not pale. Additionally, not all Nordics are blond; usually only a minority of Northern European adults are blond except for some parts of Scandinavia; some even have black hair. 296
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 25 May 2006 13:39 | # Venecan,
I am sorry but you have not explained anything in this regard. All you have done is repeat your assertion without citing evidence from peer-reviewed journals. Cavalli-Sforza has not shown that all humans are classifiable into three racial groups. The cover picture of his book belies your claim as you can see more than three color bands. Once again, note that Caucasoid = green and green is not the color assigned to India. I have cited molecular evidence published from 1993 onwards, and it shows at least 5 races among humans. You have just ignored this evidence.
This is a gross misunderstanding for several reasons: 1) Cavalli-Sforza used too few markers to answer the race question. Besides, the gold standard in showing the existence of race is to use neutral markers since loci involved in gene expression can both be very different or hardly different between populations, depending on selection pressures. The 1988 study whose genetic tree I posted did not focus on neutral markers. 2) You can see the NE Asian group clustering with the group labeled Caucasoid rather than SE Asians. How is this compatible with a 3-race classification scheme? 3) Regardless of whether variation between populations is clinal only, racial only or both clinal and racial, one will obtain genetic trees. Thus, genetic trees by themselves do not prove the existence of race, let alone classify all populations within the same branch into the same race. The proper statistical tools that prove the existence of categories within a dataset are discriminant analysis, cluster analysis and taxonometrics, and none of these analyses appeared in the paper. 4) Mixed race groups will attach in the tree to the branch that has contributed the greater fraction, but this cannot be said to imply that they are thus part of the same race as the branch which they join. Thus, the Berbers, Lapps and Dravidians left the cluster labeled Caucasoid in 20%, 32% and 20% of the bootstrap runs, respectively. Why should this be he case if they belong to same race as whites do?
There is no abrupt split between races. Clinal variation is a reality and races tend to blend into each other at the boundary of contact.
This is an absurdity. A child born of a white European and a black American (say, 80% black African, 15% European, 5% Native American) will be approximately 57.5% European, 40% black African and 2.5% Native American). In the genetic tree, this person will be grouped with the branch that has contributed the greatest fraction, i.e., European. Will you then conclude that this person belongs to the same race that whites belong to? Alternatively, let there be a population where the typical DNA profile is that of this child. Will you conclude that this population and Europeans split off of the same very recent ancestral population? Don’t be absurd.
The tree shown shows no such thing. No dating work was involved in the study.
Wow! I am at a loss for words, but if Australian aborigines look like primitive Caucasoids to you, then why should I be surprised that the untouchable women shown within this thread look like darker versions of Southern Europeans to you? Toward the beginning of my debate with Malcolm, he asked for proof that there are statistically significant differences between the facial features of Northern Europeans and South Asians!!! Some great perception you guys have.
Who has said that IQ tests were culturally biased against Europeans in the early 20th century?
Why don’t you make an effort to read the references that I cite? Firstly, the rise has been, on average, 15 points in 50 years. Secondly, I said that the rise was mostly in the lower half of the bell curve. I did not say that there was no rise in the right half of the bell curve. I will address the main data table from the Colom et al. study that I referenced, which found a rise of 9.7 IQ points over a period of 30 years in Spain, which is in excellent agreement with the international average. In the following table, the increase in raw IQ scores of the lowest IQ group (1st percentile) is 30%! To call this amazing is an understatement. However, the increase in raw IQ scores of the highest IQ group (99th percentile) is 1.5%, and the actual raw score increase for this group is one-ninth of the lowest IQ group. You can see that the bulk of the change is in the left half of the bell curve.
Thus, if malnutrition is eliminated in India, Indians having an IQ in the neighborhood of 50 will see a spectacular increase in IQ and quickly reach their genetic potential, but even after reaching their genetic potential, their IQ will still be in the retarded range. A rise in IQ will be much less for an average Indian and hardly any for the brightest Indians. Now, low-end scientific work requires an IQ of 110-plus, high-end scientific work requires an IQ of 120-plus and Nobel prize-caliber scientific work requires an average IQ of 145. Indians having an IQ of 125-plus will be in the 3 SD-plus group (99.998th percentile). What would be the Flynn effect IQ gain in this group? Virtually nothing! 297
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 25 May 2006 13:48 | # Venecan,
Nobel prizes and equivalent accolades do matter because they reveal how capable Indians are of contributing to top-notch scientific and engineering work, and the Indian representation here has been miniscule, and this is how it will remain for a long time to come. It is clear that the top intellectual brass of Indians is no match for the top intellectual brass of Europe and NE Asia, and this is in excellent agreement with all the evidence pointing to a genetically determined considerably lower average IQ among Indians compared to Europeans and NE Asians.
You need to read the papers before criticizing them. The IQ scores used to arrive at the “darker the population, the dumber it is” rule were adjusted for the Flynn effect, i.e., whether the IQ score of a nation increased or not between the time of the IQ test and the time of the calculations, all IQ scores were adjusted at the international average rate of a 3-point rise per decade, and a correlation of -0.92 simply cannot be dismissed. A useless assessment will not reveal such an amazingly high correlation. What global trend is there of dark-skinned people dominating sports? Most sports are dominated by whites. Even if you consider running where West Africans are the best sprinters and Kenyans the best competitors in some long-distance events, West Africans are not present among long-distance runners and Kenyans are not present among the top sprinters, but whites are second to only West Africans in sprinting, second to only Kenyans in the long-distance running events dominated by Kenyans, and top performers in other long-distance running events. Thus, overall, whites are the best athletes. The impression of black athletic superiority results from a very superficial examination of sporting events. For instance blacks dominate prominent team sports such as American football and basketball, which are observed by many, but individual sports where whites dominate have a lesser fan following, and these white athletes are not as well known. In addition, the mainstream media lavish more praise upon top black athletes than top white athletes, and are less critical of black athletes for fear of racism. If you go through the massive documentation at castefootball.us, you will encounter plenty of evidence showing that some of the overrepresentation of blacks in American football and basketball is a result of anti-white discrimination…I am not kidding. 298
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 25 May 2006 13:58 | # Arvind Kelkar, If your idea of an attractive Afghan woman is the woman shown in the famous National Geographic cover, Sharbat Gula, then you apparently have weird taste. She looks really masculine as an adult.
I have never made this generalization. The point is that if you were to ask people around the world to name other-race populations that they find attractive, as in producing plenty of attractive people, then Northern Europeans will emerge on top. This is not the same as saying that everyone prefers Nordics.
Look at it this way, the whites who tan do not desire the facial features of Indians and hence are not trying to look Indian, but the Indians who attempt to make themselves fairer also have a preference for more European facial features, which suggests that these people are trying to look more European. Regarding the notion that the roots of European civilization lie in ancient Greece, this is an oversimplification. Anyway, Classical Greece was among the prominent early European civilizations, but modern civilization is a product of Northern Europeans. You have described the Greeks as closer to Indians and Iranians than Nordics. The Indian part is a mistaken notion, but it is true that modern Greeks are quite similar to adjacent Middle Eastern populations. For instance, in a study of 24 neutral craniofacial markers, modern Southern Europeans clustered with Middle Eastern populations before they clustered with Central and Northern Europeans. However, can we assume that these Middle Eastern-type people were responsible for the classical Greek civilization? In a study cited below, ancient and modern skulls were analyzed from around the world. Guess what was found? 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. The facial features of the sculptures left behind by the ancient Greeks are closer to modern Northern Europeans than to modern Greeks, and 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. The study referenced:
So don’t delude yourself about Middle Eastern-type people being responsible for the Greek civilization. Most Nobel Prize winners are non-Jewish, though Jews are considerably overrepresented in proportion to their numbers, and these Jews are the Ashkenazim, i.e., fair-skinned European-looking people, not the dark Middle Eastern types. I am interested in seeing data showing the Jewish domination of the Ivy Leagues being significantly reduced, primarily by East Indians. My using Hindu as a proxy for Indian is not too far off. There is a huge amount of diversity in the religious beliefs of Hindus, making it difficult to talk about a basic set of beliefs that define all Hindu denominations, and it is also the case that someone is designated a Hindu by virtue of birth rather than by virtue of professing a specific set of beliefs. Thus, it is appropriate to use the word Hindu as if it describes an ethnic group. The high average IQ of the U.S. has hardly anything to do with the Chinese and Indians. The average IQ of the U.S. is 98, the average IQ of white Americans is 103 and the average IQ of Asian-Americans is 106, and Asians are a small minority in the U.S. Regarding the spelling bee, this reminds me of Venecan referring to computing prodigies in India. I have heard of a Hindu, Sakuntla Devy (not sure how to spell her name), who can multiply and divide freakishly huge numbers in her head within a matter of seconds. This ability is very impressive, but Sakuntla Devy couldn’t solve basic problems in science and engineering, and her contribution to these disciplines has been nil. Thus, Indians winning the spelling and geography bees are displaying the useless endeavors they spend their effort in rather than doing something useful. If my children wanted to learn bizarre words in order to participate in a spelling bee competition, I would strongly discourage it; there are far better and constructive things they can do with their time. Most whites, unlike many Indians, know better than to push their children toward becoming bookworms and wasting their time acquiring useless knowledge as in correctly spelling bizarre and highly uncommon words. Regarding the heavy Indian presence in Silicon Valley, which is thanks to American employers attempting to save money, much of what I have mentioned in my reply to Venecan applies to you, too. For all the seemingly spectacular cognitive achievements of East Indians in the U.S., the facts remains that 1) India has won only 3 Nobel Prizes in science, notwithstanding its huge population size; 2) Indians have never won a Field Medal, the highest honor in Math, most of which have gone to whites and a few to NE Asians; 3) Indians were unranked in the 2006 ACM software engineering competition, which was dominated by whites; 4) Long-term data from topcoder.com concerning software coding prowess shows that whites dominate the top ranks but Indians are not even close to the top ranks, forget about having any presence in the top ranks; and 5) it has been well-documented that the darker the population, the dumber it is. 299
Posted by shankho on Thu, 25 May 2006 19:58 | # oh my god there are so many things wrong with his page 1) the comparisons between race about which is more attractive, is as said before, entirely subjective, at a genetic level we wish to breed with some one with a genetic makeup more different than ours to increase variation and resistance to diseases etc. 2)why argue a point that will throw up so many racist slurs in the air, and arguing such a point that will yield no posistive results whatsoever, i understand free speech bla bla bla, but if you ask me, you put this up just to make people angry, or you were dumped by and asian person (oh and Hindus can be and many are white incedentally, so err reffering to ‘you Hindus’ is only higlighting your ignorance) 3) And you contradict yourself, IQ of Asian-Americans is 106 and average IQ of white Americans is 103, yet you back the theory that the darker the population the dumber it is? 300
Posted by dan mohan on Fri, 26 May 2006 00:02 | # DEAR J.RICHARDS IT IS SAID THAT BEAUTY LIES IN THE EYES OF THE BEHOLDER . I HAVE SEEN WOMEN WITH THESE NORDIC FEATURES THEY ARE BEAUTIFUL BUT YOU CANNOT SAY THEY ARE THE MOST BEAUTIFUL IN THE WORLD.EVEN IN INDIA THERE IS A MIX OF RACES FROM FAIR TO BROWM TO DARK IN COLOUR.AND THEN IN PHYSICAL FEATURES I HAVE SEEN IN INDIA WOMEN WITH THESE NORDIC FEATURES AND THE OTHER FEATURES . NOW YOU LOOK AT THE INDIAN WOMENS POSTED BY INDIANGIRL WHO HAS FEATURES CLOSE TO NORDICS.LOOK AT THE NORDIC WOMEN’S PHOTO NEAR TO MALLIKA SHERAWAT LOOK AT HER NOSE IT IS A SMALL HOOKED NOSE AND THERE IS NO BRIDGE IN THE NOSE IT IS ALMOSI FLAT BETWEEN THE EYES. NOW YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE OF NORDIC WOMEN NEXT TO MANISHA KOIRALA LOOK AT HER TEETH ARE THEY BEAUTIFUL .SHE HAS THIS BIG UGLY TEETH INFRONT.YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT TEETH ALSO IS A PART OF FACIAL FEATURE AND BEAUTY I THINK HER UPPER LIPS WILL NOT COVER HER TEETH IN NON LAUGHING POSE. NOW YOU LOOK AT THE NOSE OF THE WOMEN NEXT TO ASIN(CLOSE UP PHOTO) YOU SEE THE NOSE OF THE NORDIC WOMEN SHE IS BEAUTIFUL BUT HER NOSE EVEN THOUGH NORDIC, LOOKS LIKE A PIECE OF WOODEN LOG CHOPPED TO FIT AS A NOSE THE NOSE LOOKS UNATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL. THEN COMING TO AISHWARYA RAI IT IS NOT ONLY INDIANS THAT SAY AISHWARYA RAI IS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN IN THE WORLD .THE HELLO MAGAZINE VOTED HER AS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL TAKE A NOTE THAT THIS MAGAZINE IS MOSTLY READ BY WHITES THAN INDIANS IN ABROAD AND INDIAS IN INDIA IS NOT THAT AWARE OF THIS MAGAZINE. I THINK THE MISS WORLD ORGANIZATION COMMTIY OR THE MEMBERS OR ITS JUDGES ARE MOSTLY WHITE BUT THEY HAVE SAID THAT AISHWARYA RAI IS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN EVER TO HOLD THE TITLE OF MISS WORLD PUTTING BACK ALL THAT WHITE AND NORDIC BEAUTIES. NOW LOOKING AT YOUR WORDS IF A WOMEN IS PRAISED FOR HER LOOKS AROUND THE WORLD IT MEANS THAT SHE IS THAT STUNNINGLY BEAUTIFUL AND PEOPLE HAS PRAISED HER BY LOOKING AT HER FACE BECAUSE NO ONE IS GOING TO PRAISE THE LOOKS OF AN UGLY WOMEN . EVEN A RUSSIAN MAGAZINE HAS PUT HER AS NUMBER ONE ACCORING TO A SURVEY IN RUSSIA IN BEAUTY.AND THE NEWYORK TIMES HAS REAPTEDLY SAID HER TO BE THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN IN THE WORLD AND I THINK ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT HINDUS AS YOU SAY THAT HINDUS ONLY CONSIDER HER BEAUTIFUL.AND FOR YOUR KNOWLEDGE THERE ARE ALSO HINDUS IN INDIA MANY OF THEM WHO CONSIDER HER NOT BEAUTIFUL.BUT SHE HAS FANS ACROSS THE WORLD SO MANY AMONG WHITES ACCORDING TO BBC ,CBS,CNN WANT ANYTHING MORE 301
Posted by dan mohan on Fri, 26 May 2006 10:10 | # DEAR J.RICHARDS, REFERRING TO YOUR PASSAGE COME ON WAKE UP MY DEAR ARE NORDIC WOMEN THE MOST SOUGHT OUT INTERNATIONALLY I HAVE NEVER READ THAT ANYWHERE I AM A CONSTANT NET USER I HAVE NEVER COME ACROSS SUCH NEWS.SEEING TO THE ASIAN AND MUSLIM COUNTRIES PEOPLE IN THESE PLACES HAVE BLACK HAIR AND THEY ACTUALLY HATE BLONDE HAIR AS IT WONT LOOK GOOD WITH THIER COMPLEXION.BUT THESE PEOPLE COLOUR THEIR HAIR BLONDE AND WITH OTHER COLOURS AS IT IS A STYLE PATTERN AND NOT TO LOOK NORDIC.IT IS FACT IN THESE ABOVE COUNTRIES THAT ONLY OLDER PEOPLE ABOVE 60’S AGE HAS WHITE OR BLONDE HAIR DUE TO AGING. AND IN USA PEOPLE MAY USE BLONDE DYES THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY WANT TO LOOK NORDIC. THEN ANOTHER ABSURD THING ABOUT PLASTIC SURGERY PEOPLE IN ASIAN COUNTRIES AND MUSLIM COUNTRIES WHICH HAS THE LARGEST POPULATION IN THE WORLD IF WANT TO GO FOR A PLASTIC SURGERY THEY WILL NEVER OPT FOR NORDIC FEATURES BECAUSE TO THESE PEOPLE NORDIC AND WHITES FROM USA OR ANY OTHER WHITE COUNTRY IS THE SAME.AND FOR MANY OF THESE ABOVE COUNTRIES THE PEOPLE THINK THE BOLLYWOOD STARS AS THE ULTIMATE PARAMETERS FOR BEAUTY SO SAYINS THAT AROUND THE GLOBE PEOPLE OPT FOR NORDIC FEATURES FOR PLASTIC SURGERY IS ABSURD AND BASELESS. AND IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL NORDIC WOMEN ARE NOT THE ULTIMATE FIGURES OF BEAUTY MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN COMES FROM AROUND THE GLOBE AND VOTED BY MEN ARE LIKE ASHWARYA RAI,AGELINA JOLIE,QUEEN OF JORDAN. DONT MISTAKE THAT EVERY MAN AROUND THE WORLD LOOKK FOR NORDIC FEATURES IN WOMEN 302
Posted by dan mohan on Sat, 27 May 2006 04:26 | # dear j.richards i feel that you are frustrated that the nordic women never come on the list of most beautiful women in the world and that they are not recognized in the international stage as the main focus is always on the women who are nonnordics and non-white.Come on accept the truth that with all that nordic facial features of ur womens they are still not that beautiful or any way near to ashwarya rai or angelina jolie or queen of jordan when it comes to beauty 303
Posted by Daqnie on Sat, 27 May 2006 04:38 | # Comparing Third-world women to European women is bit like comparing a mud hut to a palace 304
Posted by Jim Kale on Sat, 27 May 2006 05:29 | # Your comparison of “pretty” women to that of the untouchable women is flawed. As someone who is familiar with the world of modeling, I can tell you those “pretty” women don’t get out of bed looking that good. They are wearing tons of makeup which is applied almost scientifically to highlight their best features and hide their worst. But it doesn’t end there. When the makeup artist is done with them the photography gets a go at them. manipulating the lighting so it’s just right. Some of the photos are furher “enhanced” via photoshoping. There is no doubt these women aren’t ugly in general, however, without makeup they are certainly not vastly prettier than some of those untouchable women, who would fix up very nicely or even more so than the “pretty” women. It is something to note that the “pretty” Indian women are of vastly lighter skin tone than the untouchables. This isn’t by chance. India, as most of the world, is partial to light skinned women. As far as physical environment is concerned, light skin has very little benefits in most of the world, as it damages very easily. However, light skin has social advantage. In areas where medium dark skin is the norm (populations that are dark but not so dark that they don’t tan), a person who spent all day out in the fields tanned, and thus grew darker. A person of higher social class, who did not have to work outside, and thus did not tan, remained lighter and so light skin was associated with a higher social class, making it more desirable. 305
Posted by Tyen on Sat, 27 May 2006 15:34 | # Dear J. Richards You misunderstood Venican’s post. You can’t claim that the only reason why Indians cluster with Europeans is because they’re mixed race, because even the pure blood Dravidians of Southern India are on the Caucasoid branch and they have zero European ancestry. Also it’s absurd to adjust Indian IQ’s by only 5 points when their environments and exposure to Western culture is far inferior to that of whites circa 1900 who saw their IQ’s rise 20-40 points as urbanization and industrialization became widespread. Thus you MUST add 20-40 points to India’s IQ’s if you wish to make a genetic comparison regardless of what part of the curve you feel is responsible for the rise. If you don’t believe IQ gains among whites were really so great than read the extensive documentation James Flynn has compiled in THE RISING CURVE about the Flynn Effect which makes clear it was at least 20 points (and perhaps double that, especially since it’s STILL CONTINUING) NOw your argument that whites are the best at sports is really desperate. Even racialists like JP Rushton say that Blacks are the best physically (jump higher, stronger, faster, larger penises) but claims Orientals are the best mentally (highest IQ’s, fastest complex reaction times, largest brains for body size, early civilization). According to Rushton’s theory, Whites are in the middle on all traits, however this might give them the optimum balance of intellect, athleticism, and personality, that has made them so influential for the past few centuries. 306
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 28 May 2006 00:43 | # Shankho, Comparisons of attractiveness are not entirely subjective. People have their own preferences, but this does not mean that one cannot compare, for instance, who has finer facial features.
Hence, one should avoid breeding with blood relatives. However, race mixing increases the odds of producing children with a higher incidence of health problems (also see supporting evidence). The reason that I put up this entry is because Peter Frost’s paper is of interest to Northern Europeans, and this entry also illustrates the disastrous aesthetic consequences of race mixing for whites. Some people are bound to find it offensive, but I did not put it up to offend people, and I do not date Asians. Many Hindus are white? I have never seen one unless you are talking about white Hare Krishnas, but Hindus from India generally don’t regard them as Hindus. I have not contradicted myself by pointing out the 106 average IQ of Asian-Americans in reference to the 103 average IQ of white Americans. Among Asian-Americans, the South Asians are highly unrepresentative of South Asia. The NE Asians and whites in America are more representative of NE Asia and Europe, respectively, but then NE Asians are known to slightly outscore whites on IQ tests. The latter is not a contradiction. The correlation between predominant skin color of a population and its average IQ is -0.92, not -1.0, which means that there will be some examples of somewhat darker indigenous populations with slightly higher IQs than a lighter indigenous population. In any case, a number of NE Asians produce as much melanin as whites do, but look darker because their skin is thicker (hence the yellow color). Besides, the study that I cited used IQ values from indigenous populations, not diaspora populations to avoid problems of selective migration and also to relate the correlation to variables such as distance from the equator and climate. Asian-Americans and whites in the U.S. are not indigenous to the Americas. ——————————————————— Dan Mohan, I cited a paper by Rhodes in a previous comment regarding what makes faces attractive. This paper shows that beauty is not entirely subjective, i.e., you cannot say that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder and pretend that there is no broad agreement. If you believe that the pictures of the East Indians posted by Indian girl show Nordic-featured women, then this is another example of your poor perception since not one of these women have Nordic facial features. The woman next to Mallika Sherawat has a small, hooked nose with a flat bridge? Are you visually impaired? Not one of these things is true! I would never post a woman with this kind of nose. The woman has a narrower nose than Mallika. Besides, you have glossed over the large number of hook-nosed East Indian women, including your beloved Aishwarya Rai, posted within this thread and some data that I previously cited showing that the frequency of hooked noses is higher in India than in Northern Europe. So you think that Manisha Koirala has beautiful teeth but the woman next to her has big, ugly teeth? The picture that shows Manisha Koirala’s teeth also shows a flattened face and a hooked nose, things that you have not commented on. The Nordic woman next to her is smiling and hence her teeth are showing, and they don’t appear to be ugly. Besides, East and South Asians have larger teeth, on average, than Nordics. You have critiqued the woman compared to Asin as having a nose that looks unnatural, artificial, and like a wooden log chopped to fit as a nose! Wow! You have ignored Asin’s broader and hooked nose with a flatter nose bridge (see second posted picture of her). Straight, narrow and fine noses are bound to look unnatural to Hindus like you. As I said before, I am tired of having to deal with Aishwarya Rai. You have, like many others, pointed out the accolades she has received, failing to see that these accolades have been on the part of many East Indians, and a few magazine editors or prominent organizations such as Miss World Org., and they do not reflect the views of the general Western public. Lists of the most beautiful/sexy women in the world are typically based on the decisions of a handful of magazine editors who choose among famous women. Thus, it should not be surprising if a former Miss World and prominent Indian actress makes it in some such lists, but this does not mean that most people around the world find her attractive. Some of these top lists feature the likes of manly women such as Gisele Bundchen, showing that they have little to do with beauty. Aishwarya’s pictures speak for her looks; there is no need to refer to what kind of praise she has received or how many fans she has among whites, which are surely few. You said that just because a large number of women dye their hair blonde in the U.S. it does not mean that they are trying to look Nordic. Then why are these women dying their hair blonde? Obviously to attract men; the majority of white men prefer blondes. You said that black-haired people in Asian and Muslim countries actually hate blonde hair because it wouldn’t go with their complexion, but some of them color their hair blonde for style? This is insane. Your English skills could surely need some improvement. I have not implied that people seeking cosmetic surgery around the world are trying to look Nordic. What I said was that they are trying to shift their facial features closer to the Euro-Nordic norm. I don’t see why you should have a problem with this statement. How many people try to make their noses narrower compared to broader? How many people try to make their noses straighter compared to more hooked? How many East Asians try to make their eyes more slanted compared to less slanted? How many non-whites seek smaller cheekbones compared to larger cheekbones? I have also not said that every man is looking for Nordic features in women. However, you can yourself see that the elite Indian women regarded as better looking than average by Indians are closer to Europeans in looks than the average Indian woman. Thus, the looks preference among your co-ethnics is shifted toward the European. Once again, notwithstanding your delusion about the higher desirability of the darker Mediterraneo-Afghan-East Indian women, non-white men with money (Japanese businessmen, Arab Sheiks) generally seek blonde prostitutes, not South Asian or other dark prostitutes. You wrote the following:
Talk about insanity! There are plenty of Nordic women who make the list of the most beautiful/attractive women in the world. It is just the case that I will not bother using these women as good examples of Nordic beauty unless they have good looking faces. Thus, I have used Charlize Theron’s face, but there have been other well-ranked Nordic women that I have not bothered to use pictures of because I am not fond of their looks: Kim Basinger, Cate Blanchett, Nicole Kidman, Kirsten Dunst, etc. Unlike some clueless people, I judge for myself and don’t believe that a woman is good looking because some high profile magazine says that she is good looking. 307
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 28 May 2006 00:46 | # Jim Kale, I have not compared “pretty” women to untouchable women. The untouchable women have been shown to clarify some of the major racial elements present in India and also convey the point that the other Hindu women shown are among the better looking women in India, based on gross face shape variables. You, too, have the brought up the issue of makeup. The Hindu women shown in the comparisons within this thread are high profile celebrities and hence have been photographed with makeup and may also have had their pictures airbrushed. However, a number of the Nordic women that I have shown are either ordinary or close, and their pictures do not feature any tricky airbrushing. For instance, some of the Nordic women shown have freckles. If I had gotten these pictures from fashion magazines, then all these freckles would have been digitally removed. Additionally, as I have said it previously, makeup does not change gross face shape variables. For instance, makeup does not make 1) a hooked nose straight in profile view, 2) thick lips look thin, 3) flared nostrils look narrow, 4) a broad nose look fine, 5) large cheekbones look small, 6) large jaws look small, etc. Thus, differences in gross face shape variables are seen between both untouchable and high caste women and either of these groups and Nordic women, though, on average, the differences between the untouchable and caste women is smaller than the difference between the caste women and Nordic women. On the other hand, some untouchable women probably look good, though it appears that good looking Indian women are more likely to come from the higher castes. —————————————- Tyen, I have not misunderstood Venecan’s post. Pure-blood Dravidians? What is this supposed to mean? The reason that Dravidians are shown as part of the cluster labeled Caucasoid is that they were part of this cluster in 80% of the bootstraps but joined an Asiatic cluster in 20% of the bootstraps. Thus, for the alleles tested, the European contribution was greater in the sample than the East Asian contribution. If you read the Sahoo et al. paper above, you will note a great deal of overlap between the Y chromosomes of the caste groups and the tribals/aboriginals. Thus, imagining the Dravidians to be some kind of pure-blooded people is absurd. India as a general rule is heavily racially mixed, with aboriginal elements found in the highest castes and vice versa. Your understanding of the Flynn effect is flawed, too. The international average rate of IQ rise in the mid-late 20th century has been 5 points per decade. And you cannot assume that none of this IQ rise has taken place in India. Black Africa has had a much worse problem with malnutrition than India, but its IQ has also increased in the 20th century. For instance the IQ of 7.5-year-old children in rural Kenya increased by 11.22 IQ points between 1984 and 1998, which works out to about an 8-point rise per decade, which is higher than the 5-point per decade international average:
How can you assume that no Flynn effect has been taking place in India? In the mid-20th century, India’s population increased by hundreds of millions. This increase would not have been possible without a corresponding increase in food supply, and belies any claim of large scale starvation in the country over the few decades that this large population increase has taken place. Do not forget that the Indian IQ studies likely never included the street children and tribals, and few to no untouchables. Richard Lynn adjusted data from all studies based on year of study publication, and at a standard rate, and you cannot critique him on this count. Regarding the magnitude of the increase, as the Colom et al. study shows, the spectacular increases are in the lowest IQ range. Thus, if you add 30 points to someone with an IQ of 40, you still have a mental retard. Similarly, considerable improvement in the education and nutrition of American blacks in the 20th century has done nothing to reduce the 18-point black-white IQ gap in the U.S. Once again, given the staggering gap between the brightest Indians and the brightest whites, the groups virtually unaffected by the Flynn effect, by all means this corresponds to a large, genetically determined difference between the averages of these groups. My argument that whites are the best overall at sports is not desperate. You have chosen to focus on a handful of traits: “jump higher, stronger, faster,” and still you are wrong. If you look at “Strong man” competitions, the winners are typically white men. The top weight lifters, wrestlers, fighters (martial arts, fencing), race car drivers and fighter pilots are mostly white. If you look at the faster variable, there are two components to speed: reaction time and response time. The reaction time is slowest in blacks. Thus, in sports requiring a fast reaction time, such as table tennis, blacks do not stand a chance to compete with East Asians. Where the likes of West Africans are fast, as in sprinting, they cannot participate in endurance events and vice versa for the Kenyans, and once again, whites are second to only blacks in sprinting, second to only Kenyans/East Africans when it comes to endurance events dominated by Kenyans, and champions in other endurance events. I could go on, but here are some statistics. In the 2004 Summer Olympic, of the 929 medals awarded, approximately 70 percent, or 650, were won by white athletes. Asian athletes won 154 medals, or 16.6 percent, while Negro athletes won 89 medals, or just 9.6 percent of the total. The rest were won by athletes from other groups. In the 2006 Winter Olympics, of the 252 medals awarded, 228, or almost 91 percent, were won by white athletes. Asian athletes won just over 9 percent of the medals, with 23 total, and only one medal was won by a Negro. You could try to dismiss the Winter Olympics by saying that blacks either have no interest or lack opportunity, but the Summer Olympics stats speak for themselves. There are many sports that require no special equipment or expenses, but blacks just don’t have the build to emerge as top champions in these sports, e.g., cycling, bench pressing, karate, etc. Blacks dominate only a few sports, and it is clear that whites are overall much better athletes than blacks. 308
Posted by Sophia on Sun, 28 May 2006 12:36 | # My husband and I were crawling the web searching for relevant information about his home-country: Denmark,Copenhagen when he came across this post. He assumed it was an out-of-date post considering the topic, but was shocked when he realized it wasn’t. He insisted I read it and thus I was inspired to write: I am an American woman, a psychiatrist, and my husband is a Dane—all 6’3, blonde blue-eyed inches of him, and our children are all grey-blue-eyed, blonde curly haired angels. My husband has always been attracted to darker (black) women—which is why he married me, and I have always beena attracted to fairer white men. My husband and I both agree that there is only ONE race (the human race obviously) and that naturally there are variations in this gene pool. However, for humans to expend this amount of time, resources, and energy to argue the fact that we ARE humans who happen to be different—thank goodness—is an embarassment. Our intellect is higher than this. Unquestionably, beauty IS and always will be in the eyes of the one(s) beholding it. There are more important issues occurring on this planet of OURS that need to be addressed, and cranial size and eyes displacement are not they. Fact is: the HUMAN race WILL continue on as it has, without your ideal-ethnologies and ethnic slurs. And a note to the creator of this post from Mr. Nielsen, 100% Nordic Dane Viking (whichever label suits your liking): I am not a seperatist. I am a man who loves a woman regardless of her ethno-genetic predominance. YOU will speak for YOURSELF and not the rest of us Nords when you make hate-filled comments and write uselessness such as this. You shame us all when you pressume to speak for a human unit on behalf of yourself! You are a coward! Stand alone if your argument has merit. It does not, which is why you post on a public forum such as this—join us in the scientific community on OUR stage! As for Malcolm A: May your marital union be blessed and write on! 309
Posted by DAN MOHAN on Sun, 28 May 2006 12:45 | # DEAR RICHAREDS, I THINK NOW YOU ARE GOING VISUALLY IMPAIRED DOES ASIN HAS A FLAT NOSE BRIDGE LOOK AT HER SIDE VIEW NEAR TO A MIRROR IN THE THREAD AND SAYING ABOUT THE NORDIC LADY NEXT TO MALLIKA YOU SAY SHE HAS FINE FEATURES COME ON MAN FINE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE NOSE IS ALMOST VANISHING FROM THE FACE ,SHE HAS NO NOSE BRIDGE IT IS FLAT COMPARED TO OTHER NORDIC WOMEN OR ELSE SEND ME A SIDE POSE OF HER. NOW LOOK AT THE NORDIC GIRL NEXT TO SIMRAN WITH ALL THAT NORDIC FEATURES SHE IS VERY DULL IN LOOKS COMPARED TO SIMRAN.OH GOD HOW CAN YOU SELECT SUCH PHOTOS OF WOMEN ONLY TO THE REASON THAT THEY HAVE NORDIC FEATURES SHE LOOKS LIKE A PUPPET. NOW LOOK AT THE GIRL NEXT TO SONALI BENDRE DOES THIS NORDIC WOMEN HAS A FINE NOSE COMPARED TO THE NORDIC ONE BELOW HER OR NEXT TO ASIN. DOES THAT GIRL LOOK BETTER THAN SONALI, NO WAY, THEN ONE MORE THING DO YOU SAY THAT ALL WOMEN WITH NORDIC FEATURES LOOK BEAUTIFUL WELL IF YOU THINK LIKE THAT I THINK YOU NEED TO DEVELOP YOUR SENSES. THEN ABOUT ASIANS AND MUSLIM COUNTRIES DYING HAIR IT ACTUALLY LIKE ,THESE PEOPLE LIKE A LITTLE BLONE HAIR BETWEEN THE WHOLE LOT OF BLACK HAIR And IT IS NOT ONLY BLONDE HAIR DYE THESE PEOPLE USE , OTHER COLOURS ARE ALSO USED IN THE SAME RATE MAY BE MORE THAN BLONDE DYE.AS THE PEOPLE OF THESE COUNTRIES ARE NOT AWARE OF NORDIC WOMEN BECAUSE TO THESE PEOPLE , PEOPLE WHO ARE WHITE ARE THE SAME ,WHETHER NORDIC OR NOT THEY ALL ARE WHITE AND YHESE PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT MOSTLY ALL WHITE PEOPLE HAS BLONDE HAIR.SO NO QUESTION OF WANTING TO BE A NORDIC BY COLOURING BLONDE. AS YOU WOULD KNOW THAT IN ASIAN COUNTRIES THE BLONDE HAIR IS COMMONLY SEEN IN OLD PEOPLE AS A PART OF AGEING ,I AM SURE THAT NONE OF THESE PEOPLE WOULD LIKE THEIR HAIR TO BE FULLY BLONDE THEN ABOUT PLASTIC SURGERY WHEN AISHWARYA WON THE MISS WORLD AND SHE BECAME FAMOUS IN INDIAN CINEMA THE WOMEN FROM ASIAN COUNTRIES AND MUSLIM COUNTRIES CONSIDERED HER FEATURES AS THE PERFECTION OF BEAUTY AND ANY PLASTIC SURGEON KEEP HER FEATURES AS A CHOICE WITH MANY OTHER INDAIN STARS FOR A SURGERY TO CHANGE FEATURES. SO IN PLATIC SURGERY IN THESE COUNTRIES THE NORDIC WOMEN FEATURES ARE NOT AT ALL CONSIDERED AS INIDAIN FILM STARS ARE IN MORE DEMAND. 310
Posted by EC on Sun, 28 May 2006 15:01 | # To Mr. and Mrs. Nielsen, Your “we are all one human race” assertion is a red herring. It in no way cancels out the variations of all the different races. You two have clearly made this point indirectly by stating that Mr N loves black women and Mrs N loves fairer white men. You two have clearly set discriminating parameters in your choice of opposite sex partners and thusly have indirectly rejected the “we are all the same” liberal maxim. For if you two actually DID believe that tripe, then the likelihood that Mr N would have “settled” for a white woman and Mrs N would have settled for a black man would have been quite high. You, Mrs N being a psychiatrist, should know better than repeating that liberal sewage considering you MUST have taken at least one or two science/biology/genetics courses prior to entering medical school, correct? Repeating lies in order to assuage public opinion in your choice of mate is disingenous at best. Tell me, why did you always favour white men over black men in mate selection? I have my suspicions on this. And finally to Mr N, my dear man, not all of us have imbibed in the indoctrination set forth by the MTV generation and this includes many of your countrymen in Denmark. If one becomes infected with “jungle fever”, then it his choice and it is highly unfair and uncivilized to help “infect” everyone else solely for selfish reasons. You’ve made your bed my friend. Now lie in it. No need to kick and scream and show moral indignation because everyone else is not as “enlightened” as you are. 311
Posted by Tyen on Sun, 28 May 2006 15:27 | # J. Richards Blacks are clearly physically superior to whites. Look at all the highest paid athletes in America. Virtually all are black and this is despite the fact that blacks are only 12% of the U.S. population, grow up with fewer opportunities, less money to buy sports equipment, worse nutrition and environment etc. Even black Africans in starving countries outperform white countries with every advantage in many sports competetion. Even people as politically incorrect as JP Rushton claims blacks are physically superior & claims it’s party because they have narrower hips, more fast twitching muscles, more muscle, and more testosterone. Of course whites with a billion times more money, nutrition, and opportunity have the resources to succeed in a few sports that no one cares about, but the fact that they are absent from the most competetive and lucrative sports of all, despite all their social advantages shows that all non-Africans are genetically disadvanted physically. And sports like race car driving and ping pong require MENTAL SPEED as much as PHYSICAL SPEED. Now the reason why I feel Indian IQ’s should be upgraded by AT LEAST 20 points is very simple. James Flynn has documented over and over again that when countries move from rural poverty to urbanized industrialization, IQ’s especially on the Raven test, start rising by several points per decade for perhaps an entire century or more. Flynn even claims that British born in the 19th century were scoring in the 60s (much lower than Indians) on the Raven. Now even I find those numbers a little low to believe (perhaps the Raven test is not as valid a Lynn cliams) but the point is that India is at least 100 years behind most white countries in terms of urbanization and industrialization, so comparing today’s India with today’s Britain is not a fair comparison. It makes far more sense to compare today’s Indians with Brits in the 19th century since both were afflicted by rural poverty, malnutrition, and poor schooling. Have you ever been to India and seen the masses of people? They’re mostly very short and weight less than 90 lbs. It’s completely obvious that they’re suffering from EXTREME malnutrion and are nowhere near their genetic potential. Indians raised in the west TOWER over their counterparts back home, just as whites living today TOWER over their counterparts in the 19th century, both physically and mentally. And apart from a few trivial adjustments, Lynn himself admits that IQ’s were NOT controlled for the Flynn Effect. He clearly states that the correlation between IQ and national GDP works BOTH WAYS. That is high IQ CAUSES high GDP, but also high GDP creates better schools, better nutrition, better health care-all of which causes IQ to go up (i.e the Flynn Effect). And I don’t care what part of the curve the Flynn Effect increase (different studies make different claims). The point is that every time mass urbanized industrialization occurs, the AVERAGE IQ score SKY ROCKETS. Why should only India be an exception to this worldwide trend? I don’t doubt that the Flynn Effect has occured in a few scattered pockets here and there across the third world, but the VAST MAJORITY of Indians are still stunted, wasted, undereducated, unstimulated, raised by undereducated malnourished parents. 312
Posted by Anon on Mon, 29 May 2006 16:37 | # J Richards, With all the evidence of there clearly being only 3 races (Mongloid, Negroid and Caucasoid) having hit you in the face, you are still arguing with your faulty claims and continue to cite your nonsense. As is evident, you are not here to understand logic. Besides, who has ever used skin color and photographs to in the studies of race determination? Craniofacial measurements are used for these studies. But then again, I don’t think morons like you can get it. As I said earlier and you deleted, you should consider yourself honored that Malcom A decided to post on this thread and share his knowledge with you. If his explanations have not been able to bring you into the light, then nothing will. Now, as for the rest of your false claims, I will crush each one of your misconceptions below. 1. Let me clear your delusions as to who is smarter between the Asians and Whites. [Note: I am citing reliable sources like Wikipedia and not unreliable ones (majority rights and other white supremist websites) like you do for your faulty claims.] Whites are smart and there is no doubt that modern civilization can be attributed to the white race, but when it comes to intelligence, whites are certainly not smarter than Asians.
Asian Americans on average have higher IQs than White Americans whether they live in the US or Asia. 2. As far as beauty is concerned, beauty is a subjective topic. I have already stated above that none of the “beautiful” nordics on this thread posted by you can compare to the beauty of the Indian, Southern European, Arab and Latin women. Maybe you and your friends have a preference for the pale, plain looking nordic women, but then again, you lot would have lived happier had you been born a few centuries ago. Besides, when most men think of beautiful, sensual women, most do not think of nordic women. Instead their imaginations take them to the sun-kissed beaches of Brazil, to the mystic deserts of Arabia, to the ancient cities of India…. sorry to burst your bubble. You and your redneck friends might consider blondes beautiful… but as I mentioned earlier, we dont live in the Middle Ages anymore. Yes, majority of American women dye their hair blonde, but then again, this country is filled with dumb guys like JR who have their preferences clear. I do agree that certain blondes can be beautiful (Claudia Schiffer), but they remain few and spread far out (most are dyed blonde anyway). Dusky beauty is what defines beauty in the 21st century. The white skinned (myself and all the women known to me included) tan ourselves to achieve that dusky brown skin tone in order to be attractive. Sweden has the highest rates of skin cancer per capita and don’t tell me that they just like to sit in the sun. They are trying to become bronzed (sadly for the Swedes, all they can get is a roasted crab look). Although you fail to acknowledge it, Nordic women and men are a sub-race of the Caucasoids, just as the (North and South) Indians are and just as Southern Europeans are and just as most Arabs are (read Malcom’s posts and citations above using Cavalli Sforza’s studies). Therefore, my statement that the Nordics have as much in common physically with the southern Europeans as with Indians holds true. 3. With reference to your comment about race mixing, it is clearly evident that in the case of Saira, having an Indian father has given her an edge above the rest of the white women. She is the “Global Face of Beauty” because of her ethnic blood. If her mother had mated with a regular white guy, do you think Saira would be recognized for her beauty like she is presently? She’d have been another “plain jane.” Besides, Saira is an intelligent woman, not like the typical blonde bimbos. So think again before you say things like race mixing is detrimental for the white race. Our race is clearly benefiting from race mixing. On the other hand, it is the Indians who don’t want to mix their race. Indians are known to be adamant about marrying into their own castes and backgrounds. They are least interested in mixing their blood with whites. 4. Your ignorant and vulgar comments about Lord Shiva’s representation demonstrate your appallingly low IQ which I doubt could scrape beyond 70 (so far your cut-paste “performances” have been at par with a far below-average IQ). I have been studying Hindu Religion and Philosophy for over 8 years and I can tell you that no interbred trailer trash moron like you would EVER begin to comprehend the depth and complexity of Hinduism. It is clearly beyond you. Any explanation here would be useless as your IQ level would fall short. 5. You claimed the following:
And what great reliable reference have you cited? Ah, the one and only greatly reliable MR.com. HAH! JR, you freak, don’t cite if you cant back your claims up with reliable data. Again you claimed:
In response to this, I will refer to my comment number 4 above. You also claimed:
You moron, the link you have cited has the names of universities in order of ranking. The site does not give any names, genetic data or racial factors as to who constituted the winning teams. Keep in mind that the smartest kids at American universities are often Indian, Chinese, and Koreans. Having pulled out of your ass your claim that the competition was dominated by white males, you are not only citing something that doesn’t exist, but also lying about the information cited. Top US universities owe their status to the fact that most Asians attend their programs while paying five to six times as much than regular Americans. Besides, American universities beg Indian students to chose them for further education by staging “educational fairs” in every Indian city to attract these bright student to their universities. They do it for three reasons: 1.Indians are the smartest students they have and form majority of the research teams at the grad level. 2.Indians have the purchasing power to send their kids to ridiculously priced educational institutions to obtain the tag of having an American degree. There are few Americans who send their kids to university paying out of state tuition. For many Indians on the other hand, it is not a big deal to pay $75,000 out of state tuition per year. 3.Finally, top US schools such as Columbia, MIT, U Penn (Wharton), U Cal Berkley etc have the rankings that they do as they have the highest number of international students, especially Asians as they are the smartest. 6. As for your example of a “good looking man,” it is nothing short of ridiculous. By posting images of “chunky monkeys” and referring to them as good looking, you are only trashing any credibility that you may have established earlier on in this post. I will be back to continue. In the mean time, look at the following Indian women posted. The nordic women posted by you look lame in comparison. The Indians shown here have olive skin and dark features, and stand in a class of their own. And frankly, if you can pull out some good looking pictures of a nordic woman that matches up to them, then please go ahead. But if your “good looking” women resemble the clowns posted by you earlier, then its not even worth your time posting as pictures speak for themselves.
313
Posted by vipin thomas dan on Mon, 29 May 2006 22:35 | # dearest anon, WOW WOW WOW UR ANSWER TO THAT OLD MINDED J.RICHARDS IS MINDBLOWING.KEEP GOING MAN YOU ROCK. DEAR J.RICHARDS, YOU HAVE SAID THAT OH GOD NOW YOU ARE TRYING TO ESCAPE BY SAYING ALL THESE BASELESS POINTS THAT MAGAZINES LIKE HELLO FROM BRITISH AND TIME ARE FAKE.THE WORLD WIDE INTERNET POLLINGS Are fake.YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY OUT OF MIND.YOU HAVE TO EDUCATE YOUR SENSES LET YOUR GOD SHOW SOME MERCY UPON YOU 314
Posted by nirmal on Mon, 29 May 2006 22:42 | # dear J.RICHARDS, I HAVE SEEN THIS LOT OF WHITE MONKEYS LAYING NUDE ON THE BEACHES OF ASIAN COUNTRIES LIKE INDIA AND SO MANY OTHER COUNTRIES TO TAN THEIR DIRTY PALE WHITE SKIN.THAY WANT TO LOOK DARK THAT THIER PALE DIRTY WHITE SO J.RICHARDS IF UR ARE ALIVE GIVE AN ANSWER TO THIS 315
Posted by DAN MOHAN on Mon, 29 May 2006 22:48 | # dear j.richards,
http://www.bastardly.com/archives/2006/05/24/aishwarya-rai-bastardly-sexiest-women-2006-23/ 316
Posted by Anon on Mon, 29 May 2006 23:35 | # Dear Dan,
Cheers 318
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 31 May 2006 15:40 | # Sophia, You may believe that humans are not racially differentiated, but scientific evidence—cited within this thread—reveals what is obvious to the common man: the existence of races among humans. Your husband is no more a representative of Northern Europeans than I am, and I am not a self-appointed spokesperson for Northern Europeans. This entry focuses on a recently published article in a peer-reviewed journal and is of interest to some people. Read the paper by Rhodes as to what makes faces attractive (cited previously) and see for yourself whether beauty completely lies in the eye of the beholder. There are all kinds of issues that are worthy of discussion, and regardless of the importance of some of the issues discussed here, they need to be addressed. It is not like this entry occupies the center-stage of this site. I don’t see how I am displaying cowardice by posting this entry in a public forum. The evidence cited within this thread by me is state-of-the-art science, but the politically sensitive issues addressed here are things that the scientific community shies away from. On the other hand, if this entry is indeed rubbish, then perhaps you and your husband could enlighten us about the misconceptions you have come across. The reason why the public is allowed to comment here is for enlightened people to correct us; so help us. ————————————- Dan Mohan aka Vipin aka Nirmal, Why are you posting under different names? You need to improve your English skills and stop writing in all caps. I have not said that Asin has a flat nose bridge; I have said that she has a flatter nose bridge than the white woman she is compared to. And, where have I implied that all women with Nordic features look attractive? I have been wasting time responding to your atrocious lack of understanding of what I have written, thanks to your poor English comprehension. Godamnit, improve your English proficiency. Anyway, your poor comments are useless to this thread. Your preferences are certainly not those of the typical white person. If you believe that the masculine Simran, the coarse-featured Sonali Bendre and the hooked-nose Aishwarya Rai are better than the Nordic women they are compared to respectively, then all I can say is that I am not surprised. The typical Hindu has simply not evolved a better aesthetic sense, which goes with his abysmally low average IQ and also explains why Hindus look the way they do. Old people in Asia have white hair, not blond hair! And, if people in Asia think highly of the looks of Aishwarya, it is because she is much better looking than the typical South Asian. My comment regarding the magazines naming top sexy/beautiful women does not pertain to their fakeness, but the fact is that many of these women are not attractive and some downright repulsive (e.g., Giselle Bundchen), and these lists are based on a good deal of considerations unrelated to sexiness or beauty. So referring to these lists to infer what women are considered the most attractive by the majority of people is foolish. So you have seen a lot of white monkeys lying nude on beaches to tan their dirty pale white skin? Well, rest assured, this is not to acquire the fecal-colored skin that you and other South Asians possess. Since most jobs moved indoors, pale skin among whites has become a sign of low social status since whites who have to spend most of their time working for money will usually not get enough sun—unless they resort to tanning salons or spray-on tans—and thus be pale. Thus, tanning is popular among whites. The large number of white women tanning themselves are also disproportionately dying their hair blonde and prefer Euro-Nordic facial features. Don’t be mistaken that tanning has anything to do with a desire to have dark skin. Tanned white skin is different from naturally darker skin, and whites do not want naturally darker skin. 319
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 31 May 2006 15:42 | # Tyen,
Americans blacks are much more obese than American whites, and they often get free food in the form of food stamps, and also by Churches and charities. So no, they have more than enough to eat. As far as opportunity and sporting equipment go, K-12 education is free in the U.S., and public schools offer plenty of sporting facilities and equipment. Once again, if you go through the contents of castefootball.us, you will encounter plenty of evidence for the special treatment of black athletes, and there are plenty of people encouraging blacks to participate in sporting activities in high school, yet they basically participate in activities that they are capable of being good at, i.e., football, basketball and some track and field events. Blacks simply do not have the build for excelling in most sports. When you are talking about the highest paid athletes, you are obviously talking about football and basketball, but there are other sports where the best athletes make a lot of money, but blacks are uncommon among the top ranks in these sports; e.g., tennis, golf, ice hockey. You could argue that this is because of lack of opportunity, but this was true in the past and does not apply to Americans blacks today. There is also plenty of proof of anti-white discrimination in football and basketball documented at castefootball.us. You have ignored the fact that the majority of Olympic medal winners are whites, who are less than 10% of the world’s population.
This is lame. Most blacks that win Olympic medals are American blacks. Of the few African blacks who excel in the Olympics, they do so in only some events such as sprinting (West Africans) and some long distance events (Kenyans), and this is because they have the build to excel in these activities, but they simply do not have the build to excel in most sports.
You may be misquoting Rushton on the alleged physical superiority of blacks; he might have commented on the better black performance in some sports, but the important issue is not what someone says, but what proof exists out there. The fact is that a greater proportion of fast-twitch fibers means diminished endurance. Thus, West African blacks are nowhere close to being champions in sports requiring endurance. Fast-twitch fibers are also associated with large motor units, and having more of these fibers translates to less success at fine motor skills. “Strong man” competitions require a combination of great strength and endurance, a combination that favors whites, not blacks, and you should look at the weight lifting records to see whether blacks or whites dominate weight lifting. If blacks are stronger than whites, how come they don’t dominate weight lifting, something that hardly requires any expensive equipment? The denser bones of blacks means that they cannot dominate swimming. The shorter, less powerful trunks of blacks means that they cannot dominate wrestling or bench pressing. The strength-agility-reaction time combination in blacks is such that they cannot dominate martial arts. The leg proportions of blacks, with relatively longer lower legs, means that they will not be dominating cycling. And so on; no amount of training, nutrition or good facilities is going to change this. How can you say that blacks are overall better at sports than whites? Ridiculous! quote]Of course whites with a billion times more money, nutrition, and opportunity have the resources to succeed in a few sports that no one cares about, but the fact that they are absent from the most competetive and lucrative sports of all, despite all their social advantages shows that all non-Africans are genetically disadvanted physically. This is an absurd statement. Whites are absent from the most competitive and lucrative sports? Have you not seen white players in the NFL and NBA (ever heard of Larry Bird, John Stockton?)?
Last I checked, Tennis and Golf, well paying at the top level, were dominated by whites. Whites have recently taken the boxing world by storm, and three of the four top heavyweight boxing titles are currently held by white men; you better read this. Even though blacks have some advantages in specific track and field events, whites do a better job at the decathlon. In short, the notion of black athletic superiority is complete nonsense; they only dominate a few sports. 320
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 31 May 2006 15:45 | # Tyen, You need to quit harping on James Flynn. I have not disputed the Flynn effect. You want to add 20 points to the 81 average IQ to India? This would make it equal the average white IQ. Like I have pointed previously, the Flynn effect mostly occurs in the lower half of the bell curve, and the smartest people are virtually unaffected. Given the huge gap between the brightest East Indians and the brightest whites, do you want me to believe that the average differences between East Indians and whites are little to none? You have again repeated nonsense related to the Flynn effect. You said that modern whites tower over their ancestors in height and mental capability. An increase in height of 1 SD over 50 years is not exactly towering over one’s recent ancestors. Similarly a 1 SD rise in IQ over 50 years, most of it in the lower half of the bell curve and almost no increase at the right extreme, is hardly towering over one’s recent ancestors. Stop saying that the IQ scores used by Lynn were not adjusted for the Flynn effect with reference to the date of publication/assessment; this adjustment was not possible in some cases, but India’s scores were adjusted. Flynn claims that the British in the 19th century were scoring in the 60s with respect to IQ? This is ridiculous. There were no IQ tests back then. Besides, a massive prevalence of undernutrition will drop the average IQ of any population, but it cannot be extrapolated from the rise in IQ of white populations that other populations have the same innate intellectual capability as whites. Once again, the abysmal presence of East Indians among the top intellects, inventors and innovators in the 20th century is not compatible with the notion that the intellectual potential is the same in whites and East Indians. I have been to India and have seen plenty of Indians there and also in the West. You are correct that Indians are shorter and much poorly built than whites. But is this evidence for massive malnutrition? Black Africa has a much greater problem with malnutrition than India does, yet West Africans have a better body build than East Indians. I have cited plenty of studies previously regarding the poor physical build of East Indians. If you go through these studies and additional references in them, you will come across some rather interesting finds. For instance, I have always found it curious that whereas East Indians are generally weakly built with respect to skeletal and muscular mass, they often have excess belly fat. I have wondered how is it possible for apparently underfed people to pack on excess belly fat. What the studies show is that East Indians are fatter than whites, i.e., their lean body mass is even lower than what appears to be the case! If you were to ask me to picture fat people, I would picture obese blacks, Polynesians and whites, not East Indians, but East Indians living in the west are among the fattest people, though they don’t look like it given their poor physical builds. Thus, the poor physical appearance of East Indians generally reflects their innate physical constitution rather than undernutrition, the exception being the minority of people who are homeless, diseased or old. Once again, widespread undernutrition culls the population, but India’s population has increased by hundreds of millions in the 20th century! I have not said that India is somehow an exception to the Flynn effect. The reason that I cited the study from rural Africa is that if a greater-than-international-average IQ rise can be shown in rural Africa, which is worse than most of India, then it is absurd to assume that a parallel process has not taken place in India, too. The fact is that the IQs of both whites and Indians have risen, but the white-Hindu gap has remained, just as the 18-point black-white gap in IQ has remained constant in the U.S. in spite of the Flynn effect operating in both groups. You need to understand that the average IQ of a reference population is always designated 100. If this average were to rise to 105, then new norms will be proposed to designate it as 100. Thus, a 100 IQ among whites today corresponds to a higher numerical value of IQ in the recent past just as an 81 IQ in India today corresponds to a higher numerical value of IQ in India in the recent past. The Indian IQ tests are unlikely to have recruited people affected by undernutrition, i.e., the poorest people. In fact, one of the Indian studies included by Lynn used the WISC-R, which is not something you would give to illiterates, i.e., over half of Indian children, yet it reported an average IQ of 82. Similarly, toward the end of Apartheid Africa, there was no undernutrition problem in the general public in South Africa, yet data from 1990 show an average IQ of 83 among the East Indians there (summarized by Lynn). 321
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 31 May 2006 15:49 | # Anon,
I have not deleted any of your comments, though most people would given your obnoxious manners. This is my house and I can do what I please, but you are a guest, and it seems that you have not learned manners. Don’t falsely accuse me. Malcolm has not presented any evidence for there only being three races among humans. There has never been any agreement in the past as to how many races existed among humans; Cavalli-Sforza himself cited racial classification attempts ranging from 3 to 200 races among humans, and demanded proof of the existence of biological races among humans in a 1997 paper (cited above). Malcolm 1) picked 19th century literature about 3 races from a Nordicist site; 2) ignored other racial classification schemes; 3) cited a dictionary; 4) ignored current genetic evidence for at least 5 races published in peer-reviewed journals; 5) Ignored craniometric evidence showing that it is not possible to classify humans into three races only or classify whites and East Indians into the same race; 6) misrepresented a prior U.S. Supreme Court decision; 7) cited some statements by Cavalli-Sforza in the 1970s whereby he used terms such as Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid without presenting evidence for only three races among humans; 8) cited a 1988 paper by Cavalli-Sforza to support his arguments even though this paper featured a genetic tree where NE Asians were clustering with the group labeled Caucasoid, not SE Asians; 9) ignored Cavalli-Sforza’s 1997 statement asking biologists who believe in race to offer genetic evidence for it, and so on. If you bring up again the notion of there being only three races among humans or that whites and East Indians belong to the same race, I will ask you to cite recent evidence from peer-reviewed journals that supports these contentions or else you will not be allowed to comment here. As far as your crushing my arguments goes, let us see what you have attempted. You cited literature that NE Asians have higher average IQs than whites from a reliable source, namely Wikipedia! Talk about scientific standards! I have been citing evidence from peer-reviewed journals to support my major contentions, and this is what you need to do. On the other hand, if you go though my entries and comments, I have never denied, and have acknowledged, the higher average IQ of NE Asians compared to whites. But South Asians are not NE Asians. Additionally, the brightest people are not NE Asians, but Europeans, as evidenced by Europeans producing modern civilization; winning the most Nobel Prizes and Field Medals; outcompeting NE Asians with respect to building the most technologically advanced equipment such as rockets, fighter jets, very powerful CPUs; dominating the top ranks of software coding, etc. You have called beauty a subjective topic, but ignored the paper I cited by Rhodes regarding objective correlates of beauty. You have apparently missed the contradiction between your statement that “when most men think of beautiful, sensual women, most do not think of nordic women…” and your statement that a large number of white women dye their hair blonde because the U.S. is full of dumb people like me. So which is it? I got news for you. White women in both the U.S. and Europe overwhelmingly dye their hair blonde compared to other colors, and there are a large number of such women. They do it because they know that most white men prefer blondes. Only in your distorted mind do men around the world dream of dark Brazilian and South Asian women. White men may dream of vacationing in the sun-kissed beaches of Brazil, the mystic deserts of Arabia and the ancient cities of India, but they will almost always imagine themselves snuggled between a blonde and a redhead, not Hindus or Middle Eastern women. You think Saira Mohan has gained an edge over other women because of race mixing? Hindus like you are so retarded that it is unbelievable. I posted a bunch of pictures of Saira Mohan within this thread and you can see that this woman is masculine and unattractive. And you need to quit pretending that you are a white man. It is telling that you Hindus feel the need to defend your arguments by portraying yourself as a white person. You have talked about blonde bimbos and an intelligent Saira Mohan. Saira Mohan is not dumb, but whereas Northern Europeans are responsible for modern civilization, the average Hindu is a mental retard by European standards.
The Indians who are adamant about marrying into their own castes and backgrounds have so extensively mixed with each other that the genetic distance between the untouchables and tribals on the one hand and the caste groups on the other hand is miniscule and a small fraction of the large genetic distance between the caste groups and Western Europeans; see the evidence by Bamshad et al. in their paper on women stratifying Hindu castes and the Sahoo et al. paper. Besides, Al Ross previously mentioned the Devadasi system in India. This is a disgusting form of temple prostitution in Southern India whereby upper caste men have sex with untouchable women. So much for Hindus avoiding other castes! And as far as Indians not wanting to mix their blood with whites goes, tell that to the white women that have been pestered and harassed by East Indian men. 322
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 31 May 2006 15:51 | # Anon, Regarding my comment about Lord Shiva’s representation and the Ayurveda system, instead of mentioning the philosophical high points of the penis worship and citing the proven medical benefits of Ayurvedic medicine, you have called my comments ignorant and vulgar, and described me as a sub-70 IQ inbred trailer trash moron. Some great defense of the high points of Hindu beliefs! I have not studied Hinduism like you have for 8 years, but I took plenty of religion classes when I was a student and came close to having a religion minor. Thus, it is not that I am clueless about Hinduism, but speaking of its philosophy, some of it is Aryan, not indigenous to the dark natives of India, and the actual beliefs and practices of the dark natives are atrocious. Shiva is a black-skinned indigenous god. You could not have missed references to how much the Aryans despised the black natives of India for, among other things, being penis worshippers. The beliefs associated with Lord Shiva are incredible, and a small sampler is documented below.
The philosophical underpinnings of Shiva beliefs speak for themselves. 323
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 31 May 2006 15:55 | # Anon, Regarding my statement that the darker the population, the dumber it is, you wrote:
You ignoramus, I did cite my own entry at MR, but all the data were presented from a recently published paper in a peer-reviewed journal. I even offered the pdf file of the paper, and the citation is:
Regarding the ACM 2006 competition and topcoder data, you wrote, and I will be addressing it line by line:
Your piss-poor investigation is remarkable. 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 As you can see, 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):
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, it is unlikely that you will bother to look up the topcoder.com data, but 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 suppose 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.
Talk about ignorance! Top U.S. schools established themselves as World Class Universities much before the 1960s immigration reform that flooded the U.S. with non-whites, and this achievement of high status had nothing to do with Asians. Asians are the smartest? The only smart Asian populations are the NE Asians, and you can see that they are notably underrepresented in the top ACM rankings, the top topcoder.com rankings, Nobel Prize winners, Field Medalists, etc.
Indians the smartest students? No team from India was present among the ranked in the 2006 ACM competition, no team from India is among the top 20 Universities at topcoder.com at present, only one of the 63 awardees of the ACM software system award till 2005 has been an Indian, Indians have only won 3 Nobel Prizes in science and no Field Medals, etc. Besides, some Indians may have decent purchasing power in the U.S., but only a miniscule number of them do so in their homeland. In summary, any reasonable person can see how effectively you have demolished my arguments, and I definitely recommend that you click on the link posted by Dhruv Mehta. As far as the pictures you have hotlinked go, I am pleased to see you argue on my behalf. Even though parts of the face are hidden by hair in several of your pictures, the looks of these women are seen for what they are. Almost no white male would give them a second look. Besides, you have posted a small picture of Aishwarya Rai and a picture of Saira Mohan, completely oblivious to the fact that several clear and multi-angle pictures of these unattractive women have been shown within this thread previously, but what would retards like you be expected to do? Dan Mohan mentioned Laila Rouass, a woman that does not look Indian, and it turns out she is half Moroccan. Both of her pictures that you hotlinked show the sides of her face covered by hair, but I didn’t have to search much to find a picture that shows her face outline more clearly, and she is hardly a woman that would turn the heads of white males.
324
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 31 May 2006 16:55 | # Perhaps 339 posts is enough for one thread, JR, and you should construct a new post for your critics to dash their brains against. 325
Posted by DAN MOHAN on Wed, 31 May 2006 23:28 | # dear J.RIchards as you said Why you want beauty to be described in your own terms,you call a large majority of the population on earth fools (including many whites) because their taste is different from yours.beauty concepts differ from person to person and from nation to nation . asian countries ,muslim countries even UK, extending to cape town africa fall in for indian beauties because of bollywood .In these countries many bollywood films fare well than hollywood. Now it is usual that hollywood directors come knocking the doors of bollywood beauties, many indain film actress turn down these offers due to over body exposure and sex scenes.Bollywood films keep coming up in the Uk top 10 films .you dont find aishwarya beautiful but there are millons or billions around that world that find her beautiful.Reports says that she has the largest fan base in the world taking into consideration that for a long time she has acted only in bollywood films now that hollywood directors are behind her for signing movies and she is to sure to top hollywood There is no particular standards for beauty and facial features so most beautiful will be the one that appeals to many.Anyway the asian countries ,muslim countries are not concerned about nordic beauties and many of these people find them ugly and tooo pale dead white 326
Posted by DAN MOHAN on Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:35 | # Dear j.Richards, None of the Nordic women in this thread look better than aishwarya rai or sonali or bipasha basu. Some of the Nordic women in this thread are head to toe ugly I will show you out specifically the ugliest ones 2 now the women next to sonali see that marks on her nose and that two nose holes are standing far away fom each other i dont think that she will attract any white or non white man in this world she is ugly.sonali is thousand times better 3now the women next to mallika (i dont like mallika) but the nordic women next to her does she have a nose ,is this what you call a fine feature is.oh god .now you compare the nose of this Nordic women to the Nordic women next to asin(not asin’s nose) and do u find any difference 4the women next to urmila you said that this nordic women is not ur favourite okay she has good figure but she looks damn ugly and does not come anywhere near the beauty and sex appeal of urmila. now you must check out the figures of indian women like SHILPA SHETTY ,shamita shetty thier figures can beat any nordic women you have posted above but they look only average even the nordic women that you have shown with the best figures are not good looking. 327
Posted by C. M. on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 05:16 | # dan mohan Nordic women are so called “ugly” in the eyes of the hindu, but why can’t white women who travel alone pass through India without being sexually assaulted or harassed by brownies. Of course these women are naieve but you better stay with your dirty hands off from them! You hindus are inferior and you better stay away from our women! 328
Posted by anjali on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:52 | # “You are out of your retarded mind to think that your ugly country men don’t find blonde women attractive.” Actually u kno CM ure right…our men do find these nordic women attractive…their most attractive quality however is the fact that they are “easy”...thats why all the boys love em…town bicycles is what they are reffered to as…haha PS…i am not a hindu…sorry what?!?! “Damn! I told you that I did not want this thread to digress into a who-has-the ugliest-women contest.” You did that a long time ago…Damn!!! “I am sick of having to deal with Aishwarya Rai. I don’t know what is up with you Hindus; what do you see in her?” The high cheekbones, the cut jaw, the high arch in the brow, the perfectly symmetrical almond eyes…let me reiterate…i am not a hindu “The rightmost picture is that of an older (30s), fatter Charlize without makeup, and with corrugated brows and lighting that makes her upper nose look pinched.” “it is clear that Aishwarya has a broader face, more massive cheekbones and more massive jaws.” “Besides, if Aishwarya were walking at the beach in a bikini with the flabby physique she presented at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival, I’d bet her physique would look a lot worse than the physique of Charlize in the paparazzi pictures. Aishwarya did look pretty flabby at cannes in ‘04, she was told to gain 20 pounds for Bride and Prejudice a movie she shot during that year…however she looked pretty buff and at cannes 2005…and at least her looks havent started deteriorating…too bad we cant say the same for charlize Southern European women are closer to Northern European women in facial features than Indian women, on average, including upper caste Indian women. sorry, but the majority of southern european women, especially the italians and greeks have the hooked nose u seem to detest…and lots of indians i know guys and girls alike get asked if they are greek or italian… “the darker the population, the dumber it is” hahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahahahahahaha “The evidence cited within this thread by me is state-of-the-art science” hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahaha “You need to improve your English skills and stop writing in all caps. I have been wasting time responding to your atrocious lack of understanding of what I have written, thanks to your poor English comprehension. Godamnit, improve your English proficiency.” Erhh…when ure english is perfect, then ull have every right to start berating others for their poor grasp of the english language…this works on the same principle of “those of you who are free of sine may cast the fisrt stone”. Anyway, your poor comments are useless to this thread. The typical Hindu has simply not evolved a better aesthetic sense.” The rest of the world seems to appreciate our tastes…the taj mahal (moghul architecture) for example…one of the seven wonders of the modern world, along with the great pyramid of giza (middle eastern), great wall of china (asian) are all exapmles of awesome “Laila Rouass, a woman that does not look Indian” Anways this forum/thread/blog whateva it is has become more boring than bat shit…ill go bak to staring at the walls, it was much more interesting…what happened to Malcolm A?? PS…Anon and others i wouldnt bother posting any more pictures…we all know that JR prefers ugly fat viking mammas and cavewomen to beautiful women 329
Posted by C. M. on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 10:41 | # You hindus are very funny, you claim children of foreigners as your own, this Leila Rouass is half or full maroccan, Katrina Kalf sounds very indian to me as is Dino Morea. Now the darker the dumber, it is simply true. Just look at what countries are doing fine, the countries with the best infrastructures, economies, science etc. About your comment of white women “being easy”, what can a backpacker girl do when she’s being assaulted by filthy hindus, victims of rape are always easy. Just admit that hindus are a bunch of filthy niggers 330
Posted by C. M. on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 11:14 | # Hindus and blacks are ugly niggers just being pushed by jewish media. 331
Posted by Nikhil Sheth on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 14:41 | # Malcolm, J. Richards - you are probably one of the most pathetic human beings to ever exist. Talking of IQ levels. India was granted independance merely 50 years ago. I’m sure America and the European countries were probably as screwed up in terms of literacy levels, IQ scores just as India is at the moment. (which btw is not as bad as you have made out). It’s funny that you say Aishwarya has a ugly nose or she has massive jaws (the most untrue statement i’ve ever heard of anyone). The fact is that she is so beautiful I could break down into tears just looking at her. She in some ways goes against every single notion that plastic surgeons, modelling agencies and hollywood put out as the ideal. Africans and Indians will sustain their looks much easier - nto having to resort to cosmetic surgery to possess more ‘cat like features’ and fewer wrinkles. For you nordic, your “beauty” (Because you are SOO BEAUTIFUL i mean wow, those freckles, that blotchyness, pastyness, i mean those prissy looking lips, that ghostly yellow hair) is temporary and no doubt couldn’t last more than one day in the Indian sun. 332
Posted by HC on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 21:52 | # Brunette women from Norway and Sweden are by far the most beautiful in the world, especially when they have a tan. Indian women are in general way too hairy and have ugly legs. 333
Posted by HC on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 22:22 | # In South Africa bc of the great climate and year round sunshine, european caucasoids have the most attractive skin tones - a lovely bronzed colour, whereas Indians and Blacks go too dark. Which is probably why all the rape cases are non-white on white. I have known many Nordics, who while normally quite pasty, when they live in a tropical climate go a lovely brown colour. Some South African beauties: file:///Users/hadcle00/Desktop/tp.jpg file:///Users/hadcle00/Desktop/tp2.jpg file:///Users/hadcle00/Desktop/roxyingram.jpg file:///Users/hadcle00/Desktop/Indian.jpg 335
Posted by dan mohan on Sat, 03 Jun 2006 00:38 | # hello C.M, you said that a lot of white women is raped in india .i will now educate you in this case these white women are real big fools they walk on the streets of india at mid night as it is thier own country and they are raped by the low class street men.they wear such dresseses to reveal whatever they can and these low class street roudies who dont even get achance to even glimpse a women from a good indian family as the women from high indian families and middle class families are very very beautiful and are not seen roaming the street at night like these white women, the roudies find a way to fulfill thier desire most of these white women just move in the night alone and it is well know that in india only prostiutes move alone on the streets at night after 12pm and and are easily trapped and raped by these low class beggars of the street. the high class indian families and middle classes indian families keep themselfs away from the these street beggars and women here do not wear revealing dresses on the street and do not go alone in night. the white women with thier pea nut brains no doubt cannot think better when they are in different situation because these white women are brought with modern facilities all the time with so many machines to aid them all the time that thier brains work rarely and when it works the indicator is always at zero so it never works so the incidence of white women being raped in india is not at all related to the high class and middle classes indian men you look into the cases of these white women being raped it is mostly by low class people like the autoricksaw drivers,,street roudies and the sewage cleaners and beggars. The high class and middle class indian men are not involved in this at all. so please educate your white women to use their senses and brain when they are outside there country .your cahances of failure in educating then will be 100% failure. 336
Posted by Buster on Sat, 03 Jun 2006 02:13 | # Its not because of their peanut brains. Its because of their goodness and naivety. White women cannot comprehend the destruction and violence that men of other races are capable of, until ofcourse, they experience it. 337
Posted by C. M. on Sat, 03 Jun 2006 06:12 | # “you look into the cases of these white women being raped it is mostly by low class people like the autoricksaw drivers,,street roudies and the sewage cleaners and beggars. The high class and middle class indian men are not involved in this at all.” You tell that to the Swiss woman of 40 who worked at the embassy in your filthy country. She was carjacked by a bunch of upper caste hindu men, one who drove her car and the other was raping her in the back of the car. You are a bunch of filthy niggers and rapists, the gang rape reveals your middle eastern roots of upper caste hindus. Jewish media should stop pretending that filthy india is a good tourists destination while it’s a horrible third world country. Maybe the jews can promote india so their own women do backpacking vacations there and end up with a bunch of hairy moneys all over them. If it was up to me I would freaking carpet bomb india. 338
Posted by C. M. on Sat, 03 Jun 2006 06:18 | # There is something else: If the jews are so convinced of mix relations I would believe it if Gwynyth Paltrow married a nigger and have nigger children. But for some reason I just don’t think so. They would not jeopardize their carefully acquired European looks after their 1500 years stay in Europe when they entered Europe they looked like a bunch of middle easterners. So jews must stop pushing the kind of James Blake and the ugly Saira Mohan. 339
Posted by DAN MOHAN on Sat, 03 Jun 2006 14:22 | # hello C.M, The 40 year old white women was raped by the two middle aged low class people these guys are not from the high class hindu families .You cannot even read a news well. Okay you say that we hindus are niggers and rapist then why your white womens keep coming to India in large number. Then stop these white pea nut brains from coming to India. Whatever happends even if they are raped or ripped of everything these white women flock in large numbers to India and that to many come lonely I think these white women love themselfs being sexually assulated and raped by Indian men. any way they make every thing easy for the low class Indian men(street ruodies, beggars ,sweeper class , rikshaw drivers) to rape them. These white women wear such small dresses whatever their age is, so no problem of riping or tearing of their clothes for the rapist and that too walk lonely in the streets and sea shores at night making every possibility of them being raped. These white women are allergic to dress and cannot bear on their body beyond the two piece dress. The incidence of these white women being raped fall small in number when compared to the number of white women who actually go to bed with the low class Indian men on their trip to India. It is fact in many hotspot tourist sites In India, it Is common to see white women going hand in hand with the local class people mostly the guys in their 20’s to 30’s.It is a shame these white women select theses fruit venders ,ferrymen and other low class maggots to spend their night with. So when these white women get raped it is her own mistake they do not have a brain to think of in a situation. Theses white women befriends any guy who pours a laugh upon them.I have seen a lot of these white women going around with the local guys that we don’t even like to be near with. Oh god put some sense into their heads. Your women are dumbos 340
Posted by DAN MOHAN on Sat, 03 Jun 2006 14:36 | # Dear JR, you said What man what she looks like to you,ya she is half morrocan but she has all the typicl indian features long nose ,black eyes,black hair,her skin tone.She looks every bit indian.You are totally out of mind now, i doubted it but i am now sure 341
Posted by you are all hate filled bastards on Sun, 04 Jun 2006 05:06 | # “If it was up to me I would freaking carpet bomb india.” Shows your small mind. You white trash morons obsessed with your ugly race should try to get some knowledge and read some books. You are only wasting your time in rebuttling India and Indians because sooner or later, you will be at her mercy. 342
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 04 Jun 2006 05:49 | # Gentlemen, We have a rule here. We address one another with civility. No one is faultless in that regard, and I too have slipped into the vernacular more than once. But I much prefer to read a thread filled with sound argument, eloquently put - and I assume that is your preference, too. Please raise your game if you wish to comment at MR. Thanks. 343
Posted by dan mohan on Mon, 05 Jun 2006 03:03 | # hello J.Richards, i am sending you this photo of a south indian women ,she is a bollywood actress she is very very beautiful ,she has this innocent look and a specially gifted beauty i dont think none of the women(indain or white) in the thread has this divine look of innocence , calm and beauty 344
Posted by dan mohan on Mon, 05 Jun 2006 03:14 | # J,Richards, here are some more photos of vidya balan http://www.hamaraphotos.com/vidya_balan_1073_9.html http://www.hamaraphotos.com/vidya_balan_1073_9.html http://www.apunkachoice.com/people/act780/vidya_balan-stills1.html 345
Posted by Dan's Mohannis on Mon, 05 Jun 2006 04:06 | # ok, seriously, how do you post pictures on this forum? 346
Posted by IndianGirl on Tue, 06 Jun 2006 04:56 | # Dan,
347
Posted by IndianGirl on Tue, 06 Jun 2006 05:17 | #
Based on my observation ONLY- Rajput Hindus, UP/Haryanavi/Rajasthani Hindu Jat community, Balochis, Sikh Jatts, and Malu Nairs tend to be tall and built on average (in comparison to other South Asian communities). I’m mainly talking about the males, not the females. 348
Posted by IndianGirl on Tue, 06 Jun 2006 05:33 | # Just to let you know, the communities that I mentioned are actually a minority in the West, in regards to the South Asian diaspora. Only certain South Asian groups and castes are dominant in the West. That’s why many Westerners aren’t exposed to the diversity of South Asians, and give in to the fallacy that South Asians are supposed to only look a certain way.
349
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 06 Jun 2006 06:41 | # IndianGirl - which group/caste are you talking about? I take it you are a member of this group/caste? 350
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 06 Jun 2006 07:24 | # In order to understand the Indian mentality, members of civilisation must consider the actions of a devotee of the goddess Kali. He carefully removes individual lice from his matted filthy hair with the utmost care lest he inadvertently ends the precious life of his parasites, then joins his fellow Thugee cult members in the murder of humans who have been befriended for the sole purpose of human sacrifice. 351
Posted by IndianGirl on Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:47 | # Lurker,
I guarantee you that most second-generation Indians have never heard of Rajputs, Balochis or Jats. Why? Because, most of them are in India and they make up a greater proportion of the army. 353
Posted by Amy on Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:16 | # Well, well… 354
Posted by Sacul on Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:03 | # The fact of the matter is attractiveness is based on preference. Whoever posted this thread obviously thinks that nordic women are the most attractive woemn in the world, and thats fine (and obviously this individual is a cacausian, probably nordic male). I know a dozen black guys that would entirely disagree with this argument, and make claim that black women are the most attractive. I know another dozen East asians that would claim east asians are the most attractive, and the same goes for middle eastern/south asians. To conclude I am cacuasian, and I am most often attracted to European women, and find myself not so attracted to people of colour. This doesnt mean that European women are the most beautiful women in the world, even though they may be in my opinion. Whoever wrote this thread needs to get out of their sheltered bubbled life, and realize there is an entire world outside of America. If you want to claim Nordic women are the most beautiful in the world, thats cool, but you dont have to demean other races, and attempt to prove that your perspective is scientifically sound…. because it isnt 355
Posted by C. M. on Fri, 09 Jun 2006 08:56 | # To dan the dandnigger mohan Huh so called “two middle age lower caste men"did the rape of the Swiss 36 year old woman. http://www.countercurrents.org/gen-wadhwa221003.htm read this moron, it’s clearly that only upper caste men can speak English in filthy india. 356
Posted by C. M. on Fri, 09 Jun 2006 09:07 | # dan sandnigger mohan, this is your callsign. “it Is common to see white women going hand in hand with the local class people mostly the guys in their 20’s to 30’s” You are talking about 50+ white woman from countries like Germany, right? Tell me what’s up with you hindus into older women? The two upper caste rapists in their early twenties raping a 36 year old mother of ? children, but because of their upper caste background they are of course being protected by the india police. One of the Dutch politicians who visited india called india “india is zo corrupt als de neten” a translation is something like"everybody in india is corrupt like hell”. 357
Posted by C. M. on Fri, 09 Jun 2006 09:11 | # you know those 50+ women also go to countries in Africa like Gabon, I saw it on the German television once. Disgusting. Besides only hippies or backpackers visit india, the number of europeans visiting india is neglicible. Only the hippies in Goa or the bakpackers who wants to save money go to india. 358
Posted by dan mohan on Sat, 10 Jun 2006 01:56 | # C.M, The case went unfiled and the two rapist eascaped as the women involed in it did not turn up again. you said only 50+ women are seen with guys here so sorry many of these white women who come to india are young between 20 to 30years. now a large number of white women from europe and USA flock to india.india comes in 5th in the hot tourist spots in global scenary and that to because all these white keep coming up here http://www.turnkeysoftwareprojects.com/top-destinations.html in 2000 - 2006 it is seen that many europeans come to india and actually many and many of them settle here in different jobs for a period of 1 year but they tend to stay longer and many of these europerans never leave ,this one below is one example of the many and by BBC news so that you can believe it 359
Posted by Anon on Mon, 12 Jun 2006 07:11 | # You rednecks should stop your petty minded racist discussions and wake up. Islam is knocking at our door. Learn the facts about Islam. Visit http://www.faithfreedom.org Unless we spread awareness and stop being politically correct, we cannot eradicate this canerous disease in the name of religion. The answer is staring us in the face. Please read this website and forward it to all your friends and loved ones. Specially make all Muslims read it. An example of what our free democracies can end up like: 360
Posted by Malcolm A on Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:07 | # Hi JR
I have no interest in replying to your nonsense, which is quite clearly a waste my time. I happened to return to this “trash’ thread after some time, and see that you are still villifying me. My only counter to all this nonsense you have written about me, as quoted above, is that YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST ( by your own admission ) and hence NOT QUALIFIED TO DEBATE OR SPEAK ON THIS MATTER using SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS. I hope you won’t hide behind your cowardly DELETE button and show some GUTS by posting this reply which is only defending my name, which you seem to be freely using when I am not here to defend it !! Otherwise stop using my name. 361
Posted by dan mohan on Wed, 14 Jun 2006 23:05 | # this thread is a waste filled with ugly nordic women who Jr says to be the best are not even good to be compared with the beautiful indian women 362
Posted by Sigurd on Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:54 | # There is a type of face, perhaps not unbearable, though certainly not beautiful, and because of this holding the promise of sex and sex with a certain, shall we say, gratitude. Non-whites have this face by definition and in decedent ages, when society has lost any sense of proper sexual mores (those that produce good breeding) and sex merely for whimsical gratification predominates, such a face may even become attractive as the goal is no longer breeding but easy sex with a grateful partner. The appreciation of facial beauty becomes refined in the relatively non-degenerate society, when producing offspring is regarded an obvious duty. 363
Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 15 Jun 2006 08:53 | #
Why write gobbledygook to hide the obvious. Speak for yourself. Most who say Indians are good looking are Non-Indians of Western origins. ( News magazines like Hello, Vogue, and celebrities like Julia Roberts, Lapierre etc ) 364
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:50 | # Malcom, Despite my occasional but, I would have thought, quite plain efforts to open your politically darkened eyes you still don’t seem capable of understanding that MultiCult, feel-good liberals and ethnically-aware Jews run the media, and set themselves up as the judges of Western female beauty. They are utterly unreliable and care only for their ever so anti-racist reputations in the case of liberals and ethnic advancement over the corpse of Western Man in the case of Jews. Now, is that perfectly clear? Please don’t repeat the same falsehood again. 366
Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:29 | # Hi Guessed Worker
Apart from my above quoted attempt at humor, felt that a brief clarification is in order, in regards to your statement, quoted below..
Falsehood = lie. As Julia Roberts, Dominique Lapierre , HELLO, VOGUE etc., are all on public record , it is obvious that I did NOT lie. (ie: make something up ). My rationale as to ‘why they said what they said’ is obviously different from your rationale ( ie; U seem to think it’s a jewsih conspiracy that makes westerners say Indians are good looking !——BTW Wouldn’t Jews be bound to say Jewish women, instead of Indian women, are the best looking ? ). BUT I did NOT utter a falsehood. So, please don’t accuse me of uttering falsehoods. Not my style. I did not intend to get dragged into this thread yet again, until I noticed that JR has been using my name very freely after using the DELETE button to suppress all opposing views !!!. Cheers. 367
Posted by Sigurd on Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:39 | # Malcolm, Why get angry to hide the obvious. Speak for yourself (and that great horde of non-whites salivating over white features whilst unable to admit to themselves what this implies.) 368
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:56 | # Don’t know or care what your style is. Anyway, the falsehood you have retailed throughout this thread is that the liberal opinion on race which permeates the mainstream media is representative of something more than itself, ie it is a reliable and objective assessor of, for example, Western female beauty. Self-evidently, it is not. Your entire argument has no legs. 369
Posted by Malcolm A on Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:14 | # Hi guessed worker
What you state here is an OPINION not a TRUTH or FALSEHOOD. Same for me . Hi Sigurd
I am not a NON WHITE. The issue is NOT what you are referring to BUT why are non nordics winning more beauty pageants these days, which is the OBVIOUS that I am referring to. Maybe U should read the whole thread. Cheers 370
Posted by Mera nam choot on Sat, 17 Jun 2006 07:45 | # Must see this, this is funny. Even the Pakistanis consider the Indians as monkeys. They compare the photos of random Indians and Pakis and you can see thier claim to being more attractiveness is due to their more Europeanlike look. http://www.afghansolidarity.com/forum/index.php?&act=ST&f=3&t=1300 371
Posted by jasmine on Sat, 17 Jun 2006 12:41 | # The fact is that u people cant digest the fact that indians are the most beautiful people in the world… what u call a hooked nose and whatever… they are the sharp feautures of indians… not blurred like most of the ..... whatever ethnicity girls….. U PEOPLE ARE DEPRIEVED OF THICK AND BLACK ATTRACTIVE EYEBROWS 372
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 17 Jun 2006 15:03 | # Malcom, The liberal nature and Jewish ownership of mainstream media is NOT an opinion. You are simply wrong, my friend, to rely upon such destructive voices. Jasmine, You simply can’t digest the meaning of this post - which is not, as JR said, about who has the ugliest women. Try to think more politically. 373
Posted by hmmm. on Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:41 | # Guessedworker, as the founder of this blog - I’d advise you to go through this thread when you have ample time and read the comments - particularly those contributed by MR participants. Reflect on the language, the tone, the arguments, and the overall contribution of this post/thread to your blog. Do read the comments first. All of them. 374
Posted by odin on Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:45 | # Interesting Stuff. I don’t think blonde hair comes from sexual selection though. During the ice ages humans in cold environments could not farm so were hunters. If you look at the predators in the arctic circle like the polar bear or the white fox you will see their hair is light. This is because the light hair provides a hunting advantage as they do not stick out so much against a mostly white background. 375
Posted by odin on Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:47 | # As mentioned men are ruddier and women fairer. This means men generally see white nordic woman as more feminine, and woman see ‘dark and handsome’ as more masculine. Just seeing this you can see ‘diversity’ will be a disaster. What it will actually do is destroy humans diversity by mixing us all together. As mentioned on this thread, I too almost always find it is Jewish people who are promoting immigration or race-mixing, and likely most are them are smart enough to see they are purposely causing the destruction of the white race. An all white school or town is thought to be a horrible thing and they work hard to bus or move minorities into the area. I too find a lot of Indian, Middle Eastern, and African woman to be sort of manly looking (expecially if they are really hairy), and being closer to Africa they may have more testestorone(see Prof. Rushton) and actually are more manly. This difference though is unfortunate for white men for we have evolved skills that make us superior in warfare or in one on one battles to the death, and I believe we are more honorable men, yet woman can sense higher testestorone levels in darker males and are attracted to it due to an ancient evolutionary instinct. And why are American woman becoming so manly? Is it due to the mixing of races or of cultures? It is beyond feminism, they are getting tattoos, talking vulgar, certain female sports you can see it the most where they look and talk like men. Everything is averages though and probably most people go against the norm. I think the Indian girls posted were very pretty, and so were the nordic girls but I don’t think they were the best lookers we have. But on average nordic woman are far better looking (Indians you should not hate us for this fact, and you can disagree with it too). Sweden is only around 8 million population, finland 5 mil, and norway 4. India has a billion. They should far more beautiful woman. The scandinavian countries have let in about 10% people of another race, I completly agree what they are doing is going to be a genocide of the nordic genome. Europe and America are becoming like India, a mix of races. Not to say that will not produce beautiful woman but they will all be mixed eventually. I think woman of all races are beautiful. Thats why humans should stay separate. Whether you believe God made us different for a reason, or that we evolved different, either way you should appreciate the diversity the human race has, and seek to help preserve this diversity. I am not saying race mixing is wrong, but there should be areas where each race can have to themselves, as well as areas for the multi-cultural societies we all know and love (or hate). 376
Posted by Nikhil Sheth on Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:12 | # This whole post is a sham NOthing but pictures vs other pictures with a comment from the idiot known as ‘Malcolm’ claiming more ‘refined features’ - no explanation - just “uhh yess.. here you can see more refined features”. shut up you moron. Why is plastic surgery so common in the WEST? Because vanity is everywhere. You have your pin ups of Angelina Jolie - who btw is czech, french and iroquis indian - and you group her as one of your own merely through the fact that she is “white”??? The thing is - with all these cosmetic enhancements I think people forget that there is nobody who is 100% perfect in their looks - and there never will be. The media has created a level of attractiveness that cannot be matched up to by anyone without the help of the hollywood treatment - surgery, hair extensions/pieces, makeup, hair dyes, coloured contacts etc. etc. i don’t how anybody can add anything more to this pathetic conversation in which some deluded person is intent upon reinforcing white supremacy on us. 377
Posted by Sigurd on Sun, 18 Jun 2006 01:18 | # Malcolm, If you don’t believe in the social and geographic separation of whites from non-whites (which I suspect you don’t) then you don’t believe in the continuance and survival of the white race. Therefore in what regard are you white? And if you’re not white, well then naturally you’re a non-white. And a very insincere apology for not being familiar with every inane word you’ve posted on this thread. Though you should remember it was you who attacked my comments which were never intended as a rejoinder to anything you had said but rather simply comments directed toward the general theme of the thread. I hadn’t read one of your comments prior to posting and now that I’ve learned you’re a pro-mixing non-white I’ve made a mental note not to read any in the future. Please don’t take it personally, but you see, for some reason, while contemplating solutions for white survival, the things that pro-mixing non-whites like you have to say don’t seem terribly relevant. Though perhaps I can recommend the comment board at American Renaissance as it seems there is a loyal group of white nationalists who never grow tired of the rather rote exercise of exposing all the obvious delusions, double standards, and hypocrisies of their opponents. I think you’ll find it especially rewarding: the perfect place for “whites” like yourself to go to show their Multicultural piety and gloat about Multiculturalism’s ascendancy and invincibility in the face of “evil bigots.” “It creates the most beautiful women in the world” you could argue “Just look at the recent pageant winners…proof, proof, proof.” And then maybe you could see about being a judge for one of these pageants. We’re certain you’d have all the right things to say in the interview. Though it seems you’ve also found some playmates here. That they feel it useful even to write three words refuting you is beyond my understanding. 378
Posted by Malcolm A on Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:46 | # Hi Guessed Worker
. Even the above quote, is your opinion, which is neither a truth nor a falsehood. Hi Sigurd
White race is threatened. By whom ? I dont see Osama or the Chinese posing any serious threat to the white race for another 200 to 300 years !. This is just a ‘scare’story invented by supremacists like you who looking for a ‘cause’ for a lack of better things to do.. If our race was in serious danger I would be the first to defend it Hi Mera Naam
Maybe the Pakistanis should take a good look at Musharaff !! So Pakistanis are different from Indians ? I dont think so ! You should visit Indian sites to see what Indians call Pakis ! Pakistanis can’t win a beauty pageant to save their life, because of their social backwardness and coarse facial features unlike the more refined and classy Indian elite women . That Muslim Pakistanis hate India and Indians is a well known fact, which is just a part of Islamic jealousy of Hindu India who beat them in 3 wars etc & leaving them in the dust in technology….. No one here is arguing that Indians (or Pakistanis for that matter ) are European like. Just that they classify together biologically as close sub-groups belonging to the same race. 379
Posted by Malcolm A on Sun, 18 Jun 2006 14:11 | # Hi Guessed Wroker In regards to your statements about the liberal media and jewish interests etc., whether I believe the liberal media OR not is irrelevant. The important thing is what is the TRUTH. Well, obviously you believe the TRUTH is something other than what I believe in. Does that mean I am somehow against my race. I dont think so. WHY ? I dont think a tiny matter like beauty can threaten the survival of any race. What threatens race is racial/religious prejudice. Are Muslims all of one race ?NO ! Are they attacking eachother and threatening eachother’s survival? YES. Did whites fight eachother and threaten eachothers survival ? YES ( WW I and II) Therefore, when it comes to survival it is neither race nor religion that matters , but individuals who believe that THEY ARE THREATENED and want to preempt. 380
Posted by Sigurd on Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:16 | # “This is just a ‘scare’story invented by supremacists like you who looking for a ‘cause’ for a lack of better things to do.. “ Where have I indicated I am a supremacist? In some ways European man is less fit than the other races. His present dilemma illustrates this. Particularly the tendency of some of its members to retreat into denial when things are at their most dangerous and the descent of our race most obvious and even convince themselves that things have never been better (nor the women more beautiful.) I also would never deny “having a cause” (and, indeed, there are a lack of better things to do) but you on the other hand may even be unaware you have a cause. Simply because your beginning premise has been handed to you as the “truth” and you’ve accepted it as such, doesn’t mean that it wasn’t someone’s “cause”. Are we to believe whereas we have an “agenda” your concern is simply truth? We are awed, indeed, by your “nobility.” Boas smiles down on you and guides you in your pursuit of truth against those deceiving ones with “agendas.” Though you seem at least clear headed enough to admit to yourself that whatever the truth is, believing what I believe and saying as much, would not help you much in your chosen profession. Is this your hidden “cause”? Or is it really as you say, you would be the FIRST to sacrifice for the benefit of your race. You’ll have to please excuse that sound of incredulous laughter. “Warrior of your race” is a bit of a stretch after what you’ve written. Though as Zeppelin says (and caring little as to what they meant): There’s still time to change the road you’re on. 381
Posted by JB on Sun, 18 Jun 2006 23:57 | # J Richards:
those bodybuilders look sick and unhealthy. Amy:
an example of a half-white woman combined with hollywoodian rhinoplasty Anon:
Visit: http://www.dieforisraelyoustupidgoyim.org Anon:
the problem isn’t islam it is us. Their presence among us is a symptom. Our minds have been poisoned by the mass media and the government’s schools. If we still had a collective racial conscience there wouldn’t be millions of arabs living in our lands. Malcolm A:
YOU ARE USING CAPITAL LETTERS TO MAKE A POINT and this point is a fallacy to begin with. John Jay Ray is a social scientist with a PhD and I don’t see what makes him special or credible. Albert Jacquard is a anarchist who became a geneticist and he’s a believer in Equality of the ‘everyone is born equal’ type so he’s full of s—t despite having one or two degrees in genetics. Malcolm A:
a lie is a falsehood told by someone who knows he’s not telling the truth. You could tell falsehoods which you think are true and that wouldn’t make you a liar. Being married to an indian woman this could influence you to the point of telling pro-indian falsehoods and still honestly thinking you are right. Malcolm A:
whites should be a minority in the USA in 50 years or so. And Clinton was very happy to tell that to a cheering University of Oregon audience. Same in Canada according to Paul Fromm. In England a hundred years perhaps. In France maybe 70-80. In what used to be our cities we are already minorities. It’s only going to get worse and worse unless whites overthrow the regimes that are killing them. Malcolm A:
says the so-called white guy who married a non-european woman 382
Posted by IndianGirl on Mon, 19 Jun 2006 02:38 | # WHoever said Indians were “weak” earlier- Do you know who this man is? DALIP SINGH aka The Great Khali
383
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 19 Jun 2006 05:23 | # That’s the effect of the needle, Indian Girl. On this website was you should be able to see what is possible with strict adherence to current dietary and training regimens, and NO drugs. It is a matter of public record that India, despite its population size, is almost invisible in high impact sports achievement. I am sure there are several areas of human endeavour in which Indian males have excelled, but power-based sport is definitely not one of them. Is it fair, then, to draw a conclusion from that about the genetic qualities of the population? Well, let’s look at the one sport - not really high impact, which all India loves: cricket. There can be no cultural explanation for the fact that India does not and never has dominated world cricket. Today, with a population of a billion it is not within any distance of that. Neither is Pakistan, with a population, I suppose, in excess of 130 million, though it has come closer. Yet the West Indies (an equally poor but, on a global scale, tiny society) Australia, with just 20 million, and apartheid South Africa (ie the Anglos there) have commanded the stage magnificently. I don’t think it is unreasonable to question the athletic qualties of the Indian population. It is for Indians to answer on the sports field, if they can. 384
Posted by IndianGirl on Mon, 19 Jun 2006 09:26 | # Dalip Singh had a grandfather, who was also close to 7 ft tall.
At one point, even going into Bollywood was almost seen as being a “prostitute.” Some of the most famous Indian actresses are rumored to be former prostitutes, children of prostitutes, or girls who came from poor, low-class families. That’s another reason why you don’t see few Indian females in the Western media. Most Indian families in America wouldn’t let their daughters get into that kind of business, even if their daughter got offered too. 385
Posted by Malcolm A on Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:26 | # Hi Sigurd
. White race will never be threatened. WHY ? Because numbers dont count. Quality over quantity !! I dont see a time when all whites will be mixed ? Will never happen. Biologically impossible. So relax !! HI JB
Hey, I was also married to a lily white woman and have a lily white kid ! Marriage 1 wasn’t as happy as mariage 2 though .
Numbers don’t count. S. Africa was run by a few whites ( a minority). Did they feel threatened ? I don’t think so.
Silly. If you needed brain surgery would you select a highschool drop-out, a qualified civil engineer or a qualified, expereinced brain surgeon ? Highschool drop out = J Richards Why, because we are discussing Biology and I am a qualified Biologist ( Believe it or not !)
This is again a matter of opinion ( in this case your opinion ). AND an opinion is neither a truth nor a falsehood in anyway. 386
Posted by Sigurd on Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:52 | # “White race will never be threatened. WHY ? Because numbers dont count. Quality over quantity !!” In what condition will they exist? In what condition do they now exist? As guilt-cowed, disempowered, second class citizens LEGALLY less entitled to the jobs of their own country than invading non-whites and whites living abroad? Without rights as a people, without a culture or in any case a proud culture? As whiggers? As a dwindling, infertile economic elite that has no loyalty to country, nation, culture or folk of any qualitative beauty, intelligence or strength, but instead must, in the most disheartening and dishonest manner, grovel before, lick the boots of and especially promote the lowest elements of the society in order to remain in power? As a people that worships money alone whatever the cost? This is appealing to you? It seems to me that as their quantity dwindles their quality does as well. The health and freedom of my people are my concern as well as their existence and clearly, to any free thinking individual who has the slightest sense of fairness, decency and baring this, even a “sense of aesthetic”, this is no way to live. Of course, given the weak health of whites as a people, naturally it follows that their very existence is also in peril. To degenerate means to die to grow unhealthy. Whoever denies that white race has degenerated does deserve to be called sane. We know that other races, sub races and even whole species have passed from the stage of history, why would we doubt this possibility when it comes to our own race, particularly as it occurs before our own eyes? But like you I don’t believe our race will pass. I think it will prevail but certainly not by the help of people who are too cowardly to admit the potential terminality of their illness so as to be rendered unable to take steps to reverse it. As I have said, by no useful definition are you white whatever the biological reality. In fact your mimicry of us makes you far worse, makes it possible for less brave or less intelligent whites to be deluded by you. Are you an example of the quality that you speak of? Do the traits: courage, nobility and honesty (especially honesty with oneself however terrible the truth) also figure into your definition of quality? 387
Posted by Sigurd on Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:59 | # To degenerate means to die, to grow unhealthy. Whoever denies that the white race has degenerated does NOT deserve to be called sane. Sorry about typos. 388
Posted by Malcolm A on Sun, 25 Jun 2006 11:54 | #
This is an unscientific observation. Less numbers dont mean less healthy or die out. (re : my example of South Africa during apartheid )
? These traits are individual traits not racial attributes. Are you saying Hitler was a good example of courage, nobility and honesty How about Alfonse Capone or Rcihard Nixon, OR Christine Wheeler ? Relax. Your own fear mongering is getting to you. 389
Posted by Nikhil Sheth on Sun, 25 Jun 2006 15:19 | # Aishwarya and Angelina are the most beautiful women in the world. J.Richards and Malcolm (same person!): you are insane, pathetic and probably one of the most ignorant creatures that ever existed on this earth since you had the audacity to write this pile of garbage. It makes me feel physically ill to know that people like you exist. It’s funny you say that blondes such as “Scarlett Johanson” are so beautiful - yet the have to use and endorse tanning cream products to make their skin more brown to actually look half decent. As well as all that makeup! 390
Posted by Sigurd on Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:25 | # “This is an unscientific observation. Less numbers dont mean less healthy or die out. (re : my example of South Africa during apartheid )” It’s an entirely scientific observation. When animal species dwindle in the wild, it represents a decline in the species health. What else could it indicate? Your example of South Africa during apartheid, whatever it is, is not a sound example. Generally, relatively high fertility whites colonized non-white territories, dominated and controlled the native population. Now the reverse is occurring: high fertility non-whites are colonizing white territories and dominating them politically and culturally. Politically, rigorously enforced taboos are placed on any criticism of non-whites, and non-whites are encouraged to organize for their own interests, while whites are forbidden from doing so. Culturally, their garbage culture and its dysgenic consequences are foisted on the host culture. I think the onus is on you to provide examples as to how whites are healthier or of higher quality now, then in former days. Otherwise we should assume you forfeit this point. “These traits are individual traits not racial attributes.” Whether they are racial traits or individual traits is not the point. These traits are in decline among all races. They reappear in traditional societies which by definition are opposed to the sort of senseless racial admixture and bad breeding occurring in modern Western societies. “Relax. Your own fear mongering is getting to you.” This is an unhelpful, snide and insulting remark. I could just as easily point out that it is your side of the debate, that’s engaged in fear mongering, by continually insinuating that any re-assertion of genuine pride in European heritage (thus also the desire to continue it) is tantamount to the rise of a genocidal dictator and a third world war. For example, by say slipping Hitler into the conversation. Has your own fear mongering gotten to you? See it’s a stupid remark. It lends nothing to the debate. 391
Posted by mikka on Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:22 | # i read a lot of shit what is considered from a truly scientist on this page. the more i read, the less i got interested by the question what s the relation of ethnicity and beauty, but instead i more and more got catched by the psychological background of that people who vainly praise “nordic features” in this topic. i would like to know the origins of your mimicry of scientific evaluations. 392
Posted by Malcolm A on Fri, 30 Jun 2006 10:29 | #
You are NOT a scientist and this statement proves it.
Yet Another ignorant statement . How do you know that whites who colonized nonwhites were “relatively high fertility”
Taboos maybe placed, BUT don’t mean they are being followed. Birth control is rigorously imposed in China etc too. That is a universal ting. BUt no one is following them . Not enforced. [quoteI think the onus is on you to provide examples as to how whites are healthier or of higher quality now, then in former days. Otherwise we should assume you forfeit this point Whites are the same as before. Evolution takes thousands of years. So it is upto you to justify your theory that they are low fertility now. You proposed it. Not I.
You are the one demeaning whites ( saying they are being endangered, less fertile, less healthy, less competitive etc.., w/out supporting data). That is FEAR MONGERING . I didn’t start the FEAR MONGERING. You did. SO stupid is as stupid does. 393
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:08 | # Malcolm, What is your ethnic interest in this discussion? You call yourself a scientist and you appear to believe that science is some kind of ultimate truth, without which deliberative grace all else is illusion. This is not a fit foundation for serious debate. It leads you to ascribe too much importance to your own opinions and not enough to others. Fertility can be read as birth-rate or as ease of conception. The former is well below replacement, the latter has been troubling scientists - real ones - for at least a decade. What are you denying, exactly? The post-war alien influx into the West is a disaster for us. Physical dispossession and the permanent harm of miscegenation (which is your life-choice, I understand) are terrible problems which we must find a way to address. There is nothing demeaning to European Man in this assessment. It is necessary and it is righteous. 394
Posted by shivani on Tue, 04 Jul 2006 12:04 | # wtf u white ppl make me sick, im not racist against you guys since mos tof my friends are white, but what they hell you guys think your so good looking?!! PSHHH…u all are soo proud of ur white skin….then WHY THE F*** ALL THE WHITE GIRLS HERE are soooo OBBESSED WITH TANNING…mmmm maybe to get the ARTICFICAL tan skin such as INDIANS AND OTHER BROWN PEOPLE….oh and their thin features are soo gorgeous…THEN WHY THEY HELL YOU WHITE PEOPLE USING ALL THESE BEAUTY PRODUCTS SUCH AS LIP GLOSS AND LIP INJECTIONS TO GET FULLER LIPS!??!....and culture: all the white girls going around wearing cute sequinced “ballet flats” saying aww look at my cute new shoes!!! when acutually they are PUNJABI SHOES (type of INDIANS… FOR YOU WHITE DUMBASSES) and indian girls have been wearing them for centuries….and why they hell you girls goin around wearing indian jewerly and clothes….why the hell dont u guys follow ur own culture…...OH YEAH THATS RIGHT I FORGOT…..YOU DONT HAVE ONE!!! and you guys think your soo smart?! wtf most the indians that are in us and england are there to do jobs YOU WHITE PPL CANT DO SUCH AS DOCTORS AND ENGINEERS….you guys are soo dumb….heck im in AP ENGLISH IN MY HIGH SCHOOL AND HALF THE PEOPLE IN MY CLASS ARENT WHITE….MOST OF THE WHITE PEOPLE ARE IN REGULAR ENGLISH GETS C’s, D’s, F’s…..in a class of their OWN LANGUAGE!!! 395
Posted by Racist to the maximum on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 08:05 | # Dude, I know u have done some research but your ideas r simply racist. Beauty is inthe eye of the beholder. Humans are all equal irrespective of sex, race, skin colour. Grow up mate. 396
Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:22 | # Hi G.W.
1. The point is that I don’t believe in the widely held “Myth” that the white race is endangered by any other race. It never was and never will be. Low fertility, if true, can be resolved by scientific means - eugenics etc..and we possess enough hi tech to do that Immigration was a well thought out policy to keep western society from disintegrating byway of there being not enough people to do the difficult and unpleasant labor work that we arent willing to do anymore. In South Africa, a vey small white minority managed to thrive despite being outnumbered a100 :1. |Were thry in danger of being assimilated ever ? I dont think so. 2. I don’t believe that admitting the fact that some women of other races are prettier than some beautiful white women is in any way endangering the survival of the white race. 3. This FEAR MONGERING - “white race is endangered ! It’s very survival is at risk !! We are the underdogs !!!” etc - is the actual cause of our downfall as it erodes our self confidence. AND MOST OF ALL THESE MYTHS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SCIENCE AND SCIENCE IS THE UNIVERSAL YARDSTICK irrespective of whether you and I agree or not. 397
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Jul 2006 14:02 | # Malcolm, Now your political naivety is shining though. Loss of living space is killing to a people. Loss of culture is killing, too. If you devalue these things to the point where you “don’t believe in the widely held Myth” etc, etc you will simply fail to grasp the arguments, and that is what is happening. Nonetheless, the arguments are irrefutable. If high “r” peoples gain admission to a geographic area belonging to a high “K” people, and if that high “K” people are seduced into complacency by liberalism, and their remaining survival instincts are effectively outlawed by their own Establishment, the prognosis is poor, wouldn’t you say? So which part of this “myth” do you not believe in? That the native peoples of the West are losing living space? That their populations are receding, and all population growth in their homelands is due to immigration? That their interests have been shaped by the individualism and self-interest which is the end-product of the liberal zeitgeist? That their normal, healthy expression of EGI - visible among other all peoples in all other societies - has been rendered morally illegitimate, and in several important regards actually illegal? On the “well thought out policy” of immigration, outside of organised Jewry, I don’t believe it was thought through at all. Certainly, the post-War British govenments stumbled into it with very little understanding of what it might mean. On science, it is NOT the universal yardstick, since not all people are members of the cognitive community. Philosophy IS, since all people have ideas, however knowingly, which arise in serious thought. Actually, science is only politically valid to the degree it is “potable”. Malcolm, this is a very long thread and takes a while to load. We will take quite a while, I think, to penetrate your carapace of complacency. Why don’t you find a suitable alternative and camp there, if you seriously want to discuss politics. 398
Posted by Stefan Kallin on Sun, 09 Jul 2006 03:38 | # Being myself a blond blue-eyed male with Swedish parents I tell you this: Scandinavians have lived their life in Scandinavia for some thousands years without much interference. Reason? No one wants to come here because there’s nothing here to get. The only times we had contact with the outer world is when we made war on it (Vikings and Thirty year War). 399
Posted by Emily on Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:03 | # By nordic white women being more beuatiful, do you mean compared to indian women, or all, such as asian, spanish, etc? 400
Posted by Malcolm A on Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:29 | # Hi G.W. Point taken. Will decamp, if that’s what you want me to do. I am unsure as to whetehr I can camp elsewhere, though, due to time constraints and lack of knowhow ! Cheers. 401
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:26 | # Comments have continued to pile up while I have been away, including insane comments, and worst of all, obstinate Hindu “Malcolm A” is back! Damn Malcolm, I told you to stay off of this thread unless you prove your scientific credentials and agree to a civil debate. I will address your comments, but will reply to some others first. —————————- Stefan Kallin, I know that liberals have been trying to convert Sweden to hell, and may they be damned to Hel. Amen! Anyway, now that people the world over know about Sweden, non-whites are eager to migrate to Scandinavia for its generous welfare checks, and non-white men have been itching to get their hands on blonde women. Scandinavia’s greatest treasure is its Nordic stock, and I sincerely wish that the Nords up there wake up to their senses and urge, even pay non-whites, especially Moslems, to go back where they came from. I don’t see why you need to see the faces of those of us who are describing the looks of some women in unflattering terms. What do our looks matter? Male beauty is no match for female beauty. ————————— Emily, Nordic beauty is the epitome of beauty, i.e., it is far superior to the beauty of any other people, as partially evidenced by a long history of non-Nordic European women trying to look Nordic, and most men placing Nordic women at the highest level of beauty rankings. In case you are wondering why this thread has addressed East Indian women, some tout the virtues of race mixing, and if there is any aesthetic merit to race mixing, it should be most extensively observed among South Asians, and hence this thread has attempted to examine whether this is the case. ————————— Shivani, Read previous comments prior to commenting. Whites do not tan because they value naturally dark skin, but because ever since most jobs moved indoors, poor whites have typically ended up pale, and a tan has become a marker of high status. Regarding white women using lip gloss, this is to enhance their seductiveness, not to make their lips thicker. Some white women, disproportionately with unusually thin lips, may resort to lip injections to make their lips thicker, but this is not because they admire the thicker lips of non-whites, but because more feminine women within a population have lips that are thicker than average, and white women attempting to make their lips thicker are trying to be more seductive to men. The same white women disproportionately dye their hair blonde rather than dark, and when they have nose jobs, they try to make their noses straighter and narrower, not more hooked and broader as among non-whites. Regarding ballet flats, I have never heard of them, but I gather they are some kind of footwear. So what if some whites adorn themselves with Indian jewelry and clothing? Most whites do not find Hindus in their midst welcoming, but you and many Hindus apparently would rather live in the West than in the Third World hellhole the “superior” Indian intellect has built. By the way, for someone in AP English in high school, you spell beautifully…I am so impressed! ————————— Indian girl, You have asked why this thread has addressed East Indian women. I have previously addressed East Asian women, and at some point it would have been pertinent to addressed East Indian women because of the alleged benefits of race mixing. My original entry only had a few comparisons; the rest were posted in response to the lame defense of Indian beauty by the Hindu signing off as “Malcolm A..” You have attempted to counter the claim that East Indians have a weakly built physical constitution, on average, by using the example of 7-foot-3 wrestler and bodybuilder Dalip Singh. This is the equivalent of saying that the likes of Yao Ming invalidate the claim that the Chinese are shorter than the Dutch. The weaker physical build of East Indians is a common observation, has been repeatedly documented in the scientific literature (citations in a previous comment), and is evidenced by the poor athletic prowess of East Indians. Dalip Singh’s face shows growth abnormalities. Whites with abnormal growth have outgrown the likes of Dalip. For instance, Andre the Giant was only about an inch taller than Dalip, but was at least 80 pounds heavier, though he was not a bodybuilder. There is also 7-feet-tall Paul Wight without any abnormal facial growth; he is about 80 pounds heavier than Dalip, without being a bodybuilder. Normal Indian body builders are no match for normal white bodybuilders. 402
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:30 | # Nikhil Sheth, Why do you criticize Malcolm A when he is a Hindu who is arguing on your behalf? As to who is the real ignoramus and fool, consider your own arguments. Scarlett Johansson is not blonde, and who has said that she is a beautiful woman? Certainly not me; I do not like her looks. Tanned skin helps unknown whites convey an impression of high status since richer whites have more time to spend outdoors, which normally results in a tan. High status individuals such as Scarlett do not need a tan to convey an impression of high status; people already know of her high status. Pale women such as Nicole Kidman and Julianne Moore have ended up in high profile lists of beautiful women, and whites in general have not expressed any displeasure at the paleness of the skin of these women. Besides, here is part of the Vanity Fair cover from a short while back, showing Scarlett Johanasson and also the normally-dark Keira Knightley as pale. Do you seriously believe that whites find the paleness of these women unacceptable?
Besides, Scarlett has been named the top-sexiest woman in FHM magazine’s latest poll. You apparently do not have the intellect to understand that the prominent lists of supposedly the most attractive women must include a diverse background of women lest they be seen as racist. Hence, we see the likes of Aishwarya Rai being named in such lists when her actual “beauty” is self-evident from her pictures shown previously. Besides, few people will bother to assess how Aishwarya looks like from multiple angles, but as her pictures within this thread reveal, the woman has massive cheekbones, large jaws, a flattened face, thick lips, a hooked nose, etc. I can understand Hindus finding her to be attractive, but don’t kid yourself; most whites have a better aesthetic sense. Regarding Jessica Alba, most of the time you see her with her hair dyed blonde. With the majority of the world’s population comprising of non-whites, and attractive Nordic women beyond the reach of almost all non-white men, the likes of Jessica Alba will make it in top lists of sexy women without being particularly attractive, but it is the white part of her ancestry that she needs to thank for the positive aspects of her looks. Let us see what other “intelligent comments” you have written.
Hindus such as Malcolm A have been trying to pass off half-white Indian celebrities as Indian; another person tried to pass off a half-Moroccan as an East Indian. Firstly, this proves my point that a shift toward whiteness is required for East Indians to look good. Secondly you speak of diversity, but the racial features of several of the East Indian women shown here are atypical of most Indians, and shifted toward European norms compared to the average Indian. So no, I am not proving your point. The fact is that hair and eye color diversity is greatest among Nordics, which is well documented in Peter Frost’s paper; East Indians don’t even come close.
This is a baseless comment. Celebrities generally try to avoid publicly talking about their cosmetic surgery unless it is something that they cannot hide, and it is the task of websites and paparazzi to point out who has had a nip here and a tuck there.
Who is saying that all Nordics are beautiful? The question is who has the most beautiful people?
Guess what, when dark-haired, brown-eyed and naturally unattractive-nosed whites such as Paris Hilton dye their hair blonde, wear blue contact lenses and surgically correct their noses to make them fine and straight, they shift their appearance toward Nordic ideals. The beauty ideal held by most whites is the Nordic ideal, and it is obvious that from a white perspective the most attractive people will disproportionately be found among Nordics.
If your ancestors had a better developed aesthetic sense, you and your co-ethnics would look better, but you and your co-ethnics have inherited both their looks and their aesthetic sense. Besides, this woman is shown as an example of a Nordic woman; she has not been presented as an attractive Nordic woman.
East Indians do have great skin color diversity, but contrary to your statement, the racial features of most of the “attractive” Indians shown within this thread are atypical of the majority. The one potential shortcoming of the looks of Nordics you have identified is how long youthful skin lasts in them. Well, Nordics who live in parts of the world where there is little UV radiation and who do not tan themselves excessively will typically maintain decent facial skin well into their thirties, but most Nordics have decent skin in their twenties and several have the kind of facial features that Indians can only dream of. Once again, this thread is about who has the most attractive women, i.e., one is considering young adult women rather than how well skin ages across populations. 403
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:28 | # Malcolm A, You are the worst Hindu that I have come across. When somebody tells you that you are not welcome at his house unless you comply with some rules, it is time for you to leave if you have no intentions of complying with the rules. You have come back in response to my allegedly having continued to vilify your name! What you call vilification is merely an explanation to another obstinate Hindu as to why I did not accept your reasoning for there only being only three races among humans. What I described about your poor and inadequate reasoning is accurate, not vilification. The fact is that you are incapable of citing scientific literature to support your argument about the number of races, simply because these arguments cannot be made within the realm of science. The best that you can do is to claim that I am not a scientist and hence not qualified to use scientific arguments! Scientific arguments rest on citing evidence, not one’s qualifications, and what counts is evidence from peer-reviewed journals, not your piss-poor evidence in the form of citing a dictionary, misrepresenting a Supreme Court decision, citing a Nordicist and playing semantic games. I could easily find a scientist to debate you on the race issue, but you will not have the balls to debate such people. Speaking of vilification, let me quote two passages from you:
What comments of yours have I deleted? I removed three of your comments from the thread and copied them verbatim into a text file, which I subsequently linked to. The removal of your comments was in the hope that you get the hint, namely that you are not welcome here given your refusal to comply with some rules. The fact that anyone can read your removed comments means that I have not deleted them. I have never deleted anyone’s comments, and you are the one who is vilifying me by accusing me of deleting opposing viewpoints. There is a lot more to your obnoxious comments. You have started repeating your arguments that have been debunked quite a while ago within this thread. For instance, you brought up again the fact that some Western sources/people such as Hello magazine, Vogue, Julia Roberts, beauty pageant judges, etc., have praised the looks of some Indians, and continued to harp on it in spite of Guessedworker requesting you to stop repeating your old falsehoods. The attractiveness of people is assessed by their looks rather than commentary on their looks. Then we see that you repeatedly try to dismiss counterarguments by saying that they are mere opinions, which are neither truthful nor false, as if all opinions are equally valid and one cannot arrive at the factual truth! For instance, JB countered your statement that “falsehood=lie” by saying that knowingly uttering a falsehood equals a lie but one could tell falsehoods that one believed to be true without being a liar. Your response—this is a mere opinion!!! Your rebuttal to the crises that whites presently encounter is ludicrous. Apparently numbers don’t count, but quality does, and your example of the better quality of whites is a minority of whites that ruled over a black majority in South Africa during the Apartheid regime! How retarded can you be? That was the past, which is no more. Many whites have been beaten, raped and killed in South Africa; others have been driven away. Look at what happened to the former Rhodesia, and South Africa is headed toward the fate of Zimbabwe. There was a time when white French ruled Haiti, but they were betrayed and abandoned by their white brethren, leading to their rape, torture and mass killings by black Haitians. The facts are clear: white advantage cannot be assumed to persist in the future if non-whites continue to flood into the West, something that is bound to worsen in a number of Western nations if the sub-replacement fertility is not reversed. You have also resorted to baiting in the form of bringing Hitler into the discussion. You have continued to display your ignorance of biology by claiming that “humans are not subject to the same evolutionary stresses that animals are subjected to in the jungle,” apparently because humans are part of an artificial society. What in the world! Most stressors are shared by humans and non-human species, and where modern living eases some stressors, it adds novel stressors, too. You have attempted to ridicule the idea of the higher fertility (more children per couple) of whites in the past by pointing out that India and China were more populated in the past than European nations! You ignoramus, the effective population size of a number of non-European people has been larger than that of whites historically since whites are among the newer groups to have evolved from ancestors whose features combined elements of Negroid/Australoid features with some Mongoloid features. Thus, even with high fertility, whites would not exactly attain or surpass the numbers of various non-white populations in the past. It is a matter of history that the number of children born per European woman was greater in the past than in the present, which is actually below replacement level in several Western nations. This creates pressure to accept aliens into Western nations so as to support the aging population, but these non-whites will destroy white society in the long run. Non-white immigration was a well-thought-out plan? What a bunch of crock! For instance, criminality has increased in the Netherlands and Sweden as a result of their having allowed non-white immigration. You have to be one of the most demented Hindus around. I have been thinking of coming up with a lengthy entry on your psychology where I will enumerate the numerous clues that you have provided about your being non-white, and this entry will not have any comments functionality, i.e., you will read and weep, but not be able to do anything about it. If you leave one more comment here in the absence of an alternative that I will mention soon, I may come up with this entry. If you leave more than one additional comment here or if you come up with more of your retarded pointers in the absence of this alternative, then I will surely come up with this entry. It is in your best interests to stop commenting here or alternatively prove your scientific credentials and agree to a civil debate, i.e., citing peer-reviewed journals and refraining from disparaging remarks about the presumed scientific incompetence of your opponents. You have mentioned privacy concerns regarding your list of publications. This list is simply going to mention your name, not your address or other contact information. You are also not espousing any politically incorrect viewpoints. Besides, I just need to verify your publications. So, you can email them to us (link at the top of this page); I will not post them. The choice is yours. 404
Posted by dan mohan on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 06:30 | # check out this
Q. Who is the GM of Hewlett Packard (hp) ? A. Rajiv Gupta
Q. Who is the creator of Pentium chip (needs no introduction as 90% of the today’s computers run on it)? A. Vinod Dahm
Q. Who is the third richest man on the world? A. According to the latest report , it is Mittal, the steel tycoon.
Q. Who is the founder and creator of Hotmail (Hotmail is world’s No.1 web based email program)? A. Sabeer Bhatia
Q. Who is the president of AT & T-Bell Labs (AT & T-Bell Labs is the creator of program languages such as C, C++, Unix to name a few)? A. Arun Netravalli
Q. Who is the new MTD (Microsoft Testing Director) of Windows 2000, responsible to iron out all initial problems? A. Sanjay Tejwrika
Q. Who are the Chief Executives of CitiBank, Mckensey & Stanchart? A. Victor Menezes, Rajat Gupta, and Rana Talwar.
Q. We Indians are the wealthiest among all ethnic groups in America, even faring better than the whites and the natives. There are 3.22 millions of Indians in USA (15% of population) . YET, 38% of doctors in USA are Indians. 12% scientists in USA are Indians. 36% of NASA scientists are Indians. 34% of Microsoft employees are Indians. 28% of IBM employees are Indians. 17% of INTEL scientists are Indians. 13% of XEROX employees are! Indians.
Some of the following facts may be known to you. These facts were recently published in a German magazine, which deals with WORLD HISTORY FACTS ABOUT INDIA. 1. India never invaded any country in her last 1000 years of history. 2. India invented the Number system. Zero was invented by Aryabhatta. 3. The world’s first University was established in Takshila in 700BC. More than 10,500 students from all over the world studied more than 60 subjects. The University of Nalanda built in the 4 th century BC was one of the greatest achievements of ancient India in the field of education. 4. According to the Forbes magazine, Sanskrit is the most suitable language for computer software. 5. Ayurveda is the earliest school of medicine known to humans. 6. Although western media portray modern images of India as poverty striken and underdeveloped through political corruption, India was once the richest empire on earth. 7. The art of navigation was born in the river Sindh 5000 years ago. The very word “Navigation” is derived from the Sanskrit word NAVGATIH. 8. The value of pi was first calculated by Budhayana, and he explained the concept of what is now known as the Pythagorean Theorem. British scholars have last year (1999) officially published that Budhayan’s works dates to the 6 th Century which is long before the European mathematicians. 9. Algebra, trigonometry and calculus came from India . Quadratic equations were by Sridharacharya in the 11 th Century; the largest numbers the Greeks and the Romans used were 106 whereas Indians used numbers as big as 10 53 10. According to the Gemmological Institute of America, up until 1896, India was the only source of diamonds to the world. 11. USA based IEEE has proved what has been a century-old suspicion amongst academics that the pioneer of wireless communication was Professor Jagdeesh Bose and not Marconi. 12. The earliest reservoir and dam for irrigation was built in Saurashtra. 13. Chess was invented in India 14. Sushruta is the father of surgery. 2600 years ago he and health scientists of his time conducted surgeries like cesareans, cataract, fractures and urinary stones. Usage of anaesthesia was well known in ancient India . 15. When many cultures in the world were only nomadic forest dwellers over 5000 years ago, Indians established Harappan culture in Sindhu Valley ( Indus Valley Indiain 100 BC.
Quotes about India We owe a lot to the Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made. Albert Einstein.
India is the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of history, the grandmother of legend and the great grand mother of tradition. Mark Twain. If there is one place on the face of earth where all dreams of living men have found a home from the very earliest days when man began the dream of existence, it is India French scholar Romain Rolland. India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border. Hu Shih (former Chinese ambassador to USA ) ALL OF THE ABOVE IS JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG, THE LIST COULD BE ENDLESS. BUT, if we don’t see even a glimpse of that great India in the India that we see today, it clearly means that we are not working up to our potential; and that if we do, we could once again be an evershining and inspiring country setting a bright path for rest of the world to follow. 405
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 07:42 | # Dan Mohan, Please stop posting here. Your insane comments are not welcome. You have lifted the same Hindu propaganda off of dozens of Hindu sites that Anjali posted previously in this thread, and this propaganda is not even related to the topic of the original entry. The intellect of Hindus has been addressed at length within this thread; some of what you have posted has been definitively debunked and the rest is seen for what it is. I am getting tired of nonsensical comments; if this keeps up, I will be forced to close the comments on this entry. 406
Posted by CARNIVOROUS PLAYER on Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:46 | # I hate whoever started this thing whoever thinks that their race is better in any terms, beauty brains and whatever bull shiiiiiit….. Go to ur bathroom, put ur head in there and flush…. Universal truth:women are beautiful everywhere. 407
Posted by CARNIVOROUS PLAYER on Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:25 | # I hate whoever started this thing all comparisons will only build up tensions. Universal truth: beauty is everywhere 408
Posted by EC on Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:34 | # Listen Tyrone, you are a walking, talking contradiction. You hate all the hate, yet you hate a lot of things apparently. Therefore, logically you hate your own stinking ass. Right Playa? These two-bit whores you bed, like you for your “length and girth” according to you, yet there is a dearth of verbiage from these “women” when it comes to your intellect, honesty, sincerity, trustworthiness, providership and the like. So what you are trying to tell us in essence is that you are 37 degree Celcius dildo. Right Playa? LOL 409
Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:16 | # Hi J.R. 1. If as you say, you removed some of my comments from the main body of the thread because you thought they were irrelevant, then why are you commenting on my ‘scientific’ arguments after having admittedly eliminated my ability to raise a defense the way I would like to ? After I left the thread you should have stopped attacking and bad mouthing me [ trying to prove that my scientific arguments were all wrong..], which you did NOT. 2. As you may have noticed I am not raising any more scientific points/ arguments now. WHY ? Because as I said you are not a scientist ( your own admission ), and it’s not worth my while trying to argue science with you.. 3. If I am a Hindu, Indian, then you must be a Martian !! Don’t put your foot in your mouth by trying to prove the unprovable. 4. Sure. I am gonna expose my name and credentials to some loser.. Are you kidding yourself. This is the internet and everybody uses handles for privacy reasons. Besides if you were a real scientist, you would know that you are talking to one . See that’s your problem. One doesn’t need to see credentials to know whether one is speaking to a expert. Thats how I know you are NOT one. 410
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 20 Jul 2006 04:09 | # Malcolm A, You are an obstinate and retarded Hindu. I said that I removed three of your comments from the thread and copied them verbatim into a text file, which I subsequently linked to. I did not do this because I thought that these comments of yours were irrelevant, but because I wanted you to get the hint that you are not welcome here unless you comply with some specified rules. I have not eliminated your ability to defend yourself. Your comments are archived. Since you have made a big deal about your scientific credentials, sneered at the assumed scientific incompetence of your opponents, and eventually resorted to accuse me of merely copying and pasting with no understanding whatsoever of what I was pasting, it is only appropriate that I ask you to prove your scientific credentials, stick to citing peer-reviewed journal articles and debate within the confines of science. You have repeated your accusation that I continued to attack and bad mouth you after you left for a while. As I wrote previosuly, “What you call vilification is merely an explanation to another obstinate Hindu as to why I did not accept your reasoning for there only being only three races among humans.” The fact is that your evidence is a disgrace to scientific argumentation. The first person to scientifically classify human races was Linnaeus, and he came up with 4 races, which was followed by Blumenbach’s 5 races. Even the classification scheme that you took from Richard McCullough is an adaptation of Carleton Coon’s classification scheme, which proposed 5 races. So what prominent scientific figures have proposed and justified 3 races only? In addition, the aforementioned classification schemes predate modern genetics, modern craniometrics and the availability of sophisticated statistical tools, which altogether prove a minimum of 5 human races and classify Hindus outside the race of whites. Your claim that you are not raising any more scientific points because I am not a scientist is seen for the absurdity that it is. Modern scientific evidence on the nature of racial differentiation is very clear on the fact that your ideas are not supported at all, and you cannot bring yourself to admit this, and have thus resorted to the ruse of my being so incompetent that it is not worth your time to debate me. Regarding your being a Hindu, a retard like you is so ignorant about Northern Europeans that you have given multiple clues that you are not white, let alone a Northern European. If you comment here anymore, I will come up with a lengthy argument on your psychology in a separate entry without any comments facility, as promised above, and it will include all the clues that you have provided about your being non-white. You will read and weep, but not be able to do anything about it. If you really are a scientist, I don’t see why you should have a problem with emailing us your list of publications. I said that I will not publish it, and even if I were to, it will not contain your contact details, and you are not espousing any politically incorrect ideas, which would make you fear some kind of retribution. But then you are most likely not a scientist or a piss-poor Hindu scientist who got his degree from a joke of an institution in India. Scientists do not make the lame arguments that you have made, and they most certainly do not make arguments that rest on authority and reputation. Most scientists are also humble people who do not display your snobbish attitude. You are not welcome here unless you prove your scientific credentials or admit the truth and agree to debate within the confines of science. It is obvious that you are not going to comply with these requirements, and hence you need to stop commenting here. 411
Posted by jkg on Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:59 | # can you post more pics of hot indian chicks? i havent come yet 412
Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:24 | # Hi J.R. Sure, go ahead and feel great about provng your own arguments to yourself ! If there is no dissent there is no debate. Why you really want me to leave is because you simply cant handle me ! AND because I exposed your ‘pseudo-scientific’ thoeries for what they really are ; just biased, racist theories w/ no scientic foundation whatsoever. My question to you is, IF you admit that you are not a scientist , then why are you interpreting high level scientific theories on subjects that you are NOT qualified to speak on ( and this is regardless of whether I am a scientist or not ). Do you seriously expect folks to believe scientific interpretations/arguments proposed by a self-admitted non-scientist ? Have you ever searched your very small brain as to why most of the bloggers here including ‘guessed worker’ etc., are using handles. Because no one wants to expose their personal details to some loser, that one just met over the internet. Thats why ? its not the wise thing to do, for one thing, considering the number of loonies lurking in cyberspace. I never said I am a European. let alone a northern European. I can assure you that I am Neither a Hindu nor an Indian. If you were a scientist, you would have realized by now that I am a scientist ( MS, PhD, US university ). I tried my best to explain science to you many times but your lack of basic scientific knowledge was/is an unsurmountable barrier. AND no scholar with a decent education would call another names ( retard etc ) and use the kind of verbal abuse and foul language that you have used on this thread despite the fact that I never used such low tactics against you and have always given you respect ( any thing I said (eg. moron )was always in response to your abuse only). THIS IS A BIG POINTER TO YOUR LACK OF EDUCATION AND CLASS. On public forums , decorum must be maintained and we must agree to disagree while respecting eachother. You seem to be violating all of these, when you, of all people, as a writer of your own columns here, must set an example to all other bloggers who respond to your columns. I am not responding to any of your scientific arguments as you have already imposed limitations in favor of your OWN point of view. What you are simply saying here is, WHATEVER I, J. RICHARD, SAY IS WRONG IS WRONG AND AINT’ NO ONE GONNA PROVE OTHERWISE. IF THEY DONT AGREE W/ ME THEY WILL BE DELETED ! Cheers. Cheers, 413
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 21 Jul 2006 02:19 | # Malcolm A, That does it…I will probably come up with a post that will make you weep, and if so, then this will be several weeks from now. Regarding my education and class, this cannot be assessed by my use of foul language; foul language knows no socioeconomic/educational barriers. Besides, if you go through all of my entries and comments, you will note that I have used censored profanity only against you but nobody else, in spite of my being called foul names by others and even threatened by someone who said that he will track me down and burn down my house. I warned you prior to using censored profanity against you that I will resort to foul language unless you come up with arguments that befit a scientific discussion, but you did not heed the warning. What you have glossed over is that I presented new scientific data in the midst of censored profanity, i.e., the comments were not lowbrow. In addition, your insinuations that your opponents are scientific ignoramuses are more invidious than mere profanity. As far as my calling you a retard goes, this is not mere senseless name calling, but an apt description of you, the rationale for which is self-evident from the prior discussion and also from your latest comment. For instance, you wrote that you never said that you are a European, let alone a Northern European. You have repeatedly claimed to be a white person. When one talks about a European in a racial sense, one means a white person regardless of where he was born and is currently residing. You have also made repeated use of terms such as “our women” to refer to Nordic women and “one of our own” to refer to Richard McCullough. Therefore, it is obvious that you have been claiming to be a Northern European from a racial standpoint. You have also said that you are more “Dutch than Brit.” One of the reasons that you are a retard is that you have repeatedly forgotten what you wrote a few comments back. Like I have pointed out previously, I am using Hindu as a proxy for East Indian. Therefore, even if you do not harbor Hindu beliefs or do not hold Indian nationality, it does not mean that you are not East Indian by origin. It is in this sense that you are most likely a Hindu or, more specifically, someone of East Indian origin. What is clear from your ignorance of Northern Europeans is that you most certainly are not one or even white. Another example of your being a retard stems from your last statement, which again accuses me of threatening to delete comments that disagree with my viewpoints. There are only two people that I have warned that they will not be allowed to comment here unless they cite peer-reviewed journal articles to back up their rejection of my arguments; one of these people is you and the other person is the Hindu signing off as Anon within this thread. I have not deleted comments in either case or anywhere else; once again for a retard like you, some of your comments that were removed in their original form were copied verbatim and archived in a downloadable text file, and hence they have not been deleted. The only things that I am asking you to comply with are to stick to a proper scientific debate, i.e., citing the most up to date peer-reviewed journal articles, not sneering at the presumed lack of scientific competence of your opponents and proving your scientific credentials, and the latter is in response to your snobbishness and making a big deal about your credentials. As I have said before, I could easily find a scientist to debate you on the nature of racial classification, but you have to agree to the standards of a scientific debate, examples of which include citing up to date evidence in peer-reviewed journal articles, no arguments by authority, etc. Another example of your being a retard is your claim that most of the bloggers at this site are using handles to protect their privacy. Most of them are using their actual names (see left column), and if you did a search, some of them even have their pictures online. Some of us need to use handles or hide part of our names because we are espousing politically incorrect ideas and would get into a lot of trouble if exposed. You, on the other hand, are not espousing politically incorrect ideas, and I am not asking for your personal details such as address and phone number; I just need to see your list of publications to verify your scientific credentials. Your claim that you have tried your best to explain science to me but have been thwarted by the insurmountable problem of my lack of basic scientific education is laughable, as should be obvious to any third party observer who goes through this thread. How would it be possible for someone with not even basic scientific education to come up with this thread and cite plenty of scientific literature in the comments? You have accused me of merely copying and pasting, but has it ever occurred to you that a lot of the data that I have cited is not accessible to the general public, i.e., it is not obtainable by using search engines? How do you think I got hold of the data, even knew where to look for the data if I do not even have basic scientific education? Do I seriously expect people to believe the scientific interpretations/arguments of a self-admitted pimp who dropped out of high school, i.e., myself? Well, most people are not retarded enough to assume that if a scientist says that this is what science says, then it must be true, but if a non-scientist says the same, then it should not be believed unless confirmed by a scientist. Some scientists are known liars, and some of them have written garbage on matters they have no expertise in; e.g., Stephen J. Gould in “The Mismeasure of Man.” What reasonable people look for are the citations, which they can check for themselves to see whether the arguments are correct, and I have provided plenty of citations. A retard like you didn’t bother to read Rosenberg’s 2005 paper to see whether he documented the existence of at least 5 races, and went to about.com to find a critique of his paper, and posted a criticism of his 2002 paper without being aware that all those criticisms were dismissed in his 2005 paper. Retards like you look for arguments built on authority and reputation, but reasonable people look for arguments supported by the most up to date peer-reviewed journal article citations, which they can look up to verify whether the arguments have any merit. And no, don’t be deluded that I want you to leave because you have exposed my allegedly “pseudo-scientific” arguments; you have achieved nothing except proving that you are uncouth, a snob, a retard and an ignoramus, which are the reasons why I want you to stop commenting here. If you are an unwanted guest, you should have the courtesy to leave. 414
Posted by Anon on Fri, 21 Jul 2006 05:23 | # J Richards, Its amusing to see how lame you and your friends are. You lack social interaction and basically what most of us have, known as a life. I wonder if your lack of social interaction with physical humans is due to your unacceptably disgusting physical appearences. It wouldn’t be especially pleasant to see the kind of shit-faces you have. Like Stefan said, let us see your faces before criticize women of other races. Besides the fact that nordic women are ghostly and disgusting, I challenge you to show your faces here so that we can all see what kind of ass-wipes you, Guessedworker, EC and the rest of the lot are. This website should be banned. Cheers 415
Posted by Anon on Fri, 21 Jul 2006 05:28 | # I have come back to this blog after a month and a half. I see that you monkeys (JR, Guessedworker, EC etc) are still up to your old baseless mischief. GET A LIFE. 416
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 21 Jul 2006 06:16 | # Anon - No, you get a life. You keep coming back to visit after all… I see you advocate banning this website. That would be because you are on the winning side of the argument then? 417
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:12 | # I am pleased you think MR should be banned, Anon. Wouldn’t want it any other way. 418
Posted by Anon on Sat, 22 Jul 2006 08:09 | # Lurker, Gw, You at mr.com have no argument. The challange still stands. Show your incredibly handsome faces and we will all shut up and leave.
419
Posted by dan mohan on Sun, 23 Jul 2006 05:43 | # Jr HA HA HA HA HA HA INDIAN BEAUTY IS ON EVERY DISCUSSION LINE WHY WHY JUST THINK BECAUSE INDIAN WOMENS ARE THE BEST WHEN COMES TO BEAUTY .EVERY GLOBALLY KNOWN BEAUTY INDUSTRY NOW HUNTS FOR A INDIAN FACE .WHITE WOMEN WERE ON THE GLOBAL FACE FOR A LONG TIME IN THE PAST NOW PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD ARE BORED SEEING THEM ,SO INDAIN BEAUTIES ARE PREFERRED SO ANYWAY YOU CAN CONTINUE YOUR VOID AND MEANING LESS SITE WHO IS GOING TO CARE FOR THIS DUST.I AM OUT OF HERE FOR EVER I CANNOT DEGRADE MYSELF ANYMORE BY GETTING INTO THIS UNKNOWM SITE .SO JR ONE MORE PERSON VISTING UR SITE IS FALLING OFF SO BAD LUCK 420
Posted by Malcolm A on Sun, 23 Jul 2006 23:56 | # Hi JR,
2. Foul language used under any pretext is a reflection of the persons character. 3. As I said any uneducated person can copy and paste scientific papers or portions of scientific papers. It is the interpretation thereof that would be questionable if the person is not trained in science. ( ie. a doctor only would be able to correctly interpret medical research data etc.) 4. Are you saying that one needs to be European to be white? How about George W. Bush? White does not necessarily mean European. I understand that it may mean European ancestry; I consider myself a North American, not a European. 5. I am not an East Indian either. 6. Removing a reply from the main body of the thread virtually amounts to deletion as no one will bother reading your links. 7. Finally, as I have always said a proper scientific debate can only occur between two scientists and you have already admitted that you are not one. This has been the major obstacle to proving your point as no one will take whatever you say seriously, as all your interpretations immediately become suspect. Cheers. 421
Posted by Diza on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:15 | # Whiter females of any race are biologically more sexiually attractive than slightly darker ones of the SAME RACE, because of a slight pigment increase during pregnancy. You seem fixated on finding a rationale to your undelying age old classical racial claims, that have infected the eurpean continent (and that continet alone!!) during the ages. and brought us genocide and world wars.(nogood?) Assuming a coltural tendency for sexual freedom in the north, for the past 20,000 years?!?!!! your logic is ridicouls sometimes. Diza. 422
Posted by Diza on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:22 | # The author said: This is plain ignorance, and as one of the commenters here stated the only Sure natural change was not iceness or coldness or even coltural shifts, but Cloudness. It’s a simpel amtter of bology, that is surprisingly not discussed here, that Vitamin D manufacturing is depnded on direct sunlight on the skin. That simple. With lots of realyl cool pics. (can you plaease make a post of nothing but pics of the super white race..? 423
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:02 | # Diza, You should at least read the paper before criticizing it. The inference of stronger sexual selection among Northern Europeans, starting from the time period their ancestors moved into Northern Europe, is based on molecular evidence, MC1R variability in particular, not on written historical records. Your argument about Vitamin D sysnthesis and skin color is irrelevant. The issue is hair lightening, eye lightening, and the diversity of hair and eye color. Natural selection pressures related to skin lightening are not related to hair lightening or eye lightening. There are pale and light-haired whites with dark brown eyes. You have to be clueless if you believe that many Northern white women prefer darker men such as Arabs and Indians; most Nordic women wouldn’t touch a non-white male…and your justification for the preference for darker men is the “the tendecy for a genetic drift that makes hetrogenous chromosomes disengage non-functional beneficial traits”? Are you insane? Aside from pregnancy, lighter women of the same race living within a narrow geographical region tend to be more feminine (more estrogens; less androgens), i.e., one need not invoke pregnancy to explain the typical preference for lighter women. None of my arguments here have been behind genocide in the 20th century. The reasons for genocide have been numerous, and the ideology that was responsible for by far the most deaths happened to be communism, the egalitarian belief system about the brotherhood of humankind. 424
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:07 | # Malcolm A, You stupid retarded Hindu, I never said anything about my having any “secret data” on you. What I said was that you are so ignorant of Northern Europeans that your comments have extensively shown that you are not white, let alone a Northern European. If foul language used under any pretext is a reflection of one’s character, then almost all have sinned, including you, and “any pretext” means that there is no excuse, even if one uses foul language in response to another’s use of foul language. I have shown enough civility to 1) use censored profanity, 2) apologize to all in advance except you prior to using the censored profanity and 3) used censored profanity along with scientific data to rebut your arguments, thereby avoiding true lowbrow comments. As I explained earlier, my use of censored profanity was in response to your repeated ignoring of my pointers, you umpteenth repetition of the same arguments, piss-poor arguments that are a disgrace to reason (citing a dictionary, arguments by authority, citing a Nordicist, etc.), among other egregious tactics. In addition, I have repeatedly told you that you are an unwanted guest, yet you keep coming back with your retarded comments, and do not have the courtesy to leave. It is fairly obvious who has shown higher class. No you stupid retard, I am not saying that one needs to be European as in born and raised in Europe to be a white person. There are non-whites born and raised in Europe, just as there are whites born and raised outside Europe. When one talks about a European in a racial sense, one means white person. I have stated that you are not a white person. You consider yourself a North American? What is a North American? Certainly not a race, but merely a legal resident of the U.S. or Canada. Besides, are you a North American as in one who was born and raised in North America? The typical uneducated person is surely capable of copying and pasting, but there are a couple of questions that you have not answered. How would I, a non-scientist, be able to access papers that are not publicly available? How would I know where to look? How would I know whether the issue under discussion has even been investigated scientifically? How would I make head or tails of the jargon in the journal articles that I have cited? How would I be able to summarize the main finds or paraphrase some passages in my own words? How come that I have been able to cite a whole lot of current articles from peer-reviewed journals but you, a scientist and a Ph.D., have 1) not been able to cite a single peer-reviewed journal article to support the existence of three races only and your claim that most Hindus and whites belong to the same race, and 2) cited lame sources such as a dictionary, a Nordicist, etc.? You have repeatedly pointed out that my interpretation does not matter because I am not a scientist. However, you have not provided a single example where my “interpretation” is at odds with what the authors implied in the paper(s) that I have cited. You are so retarded that it is pathetic. Do you believe that others are as retarded as you are? In other words, do you believe that other readers going through this thread would take my word for it if I had explicitly stated that I am a scientist but would not accept my arguments because I am saying that I am a pimp who dropped out of high school? I can claim to be a member of just about any profession out there. Would anybody be retarded enough to blindly believe what I am saying what my profession is? You are so incredibly retarded that you do not realize that reasonable people look for citations that they can check for themselves; they don’t demand to know the credentials of the person making the arguments prior to considering what the person has to say. A retard like you doesn’t even bother to look up the citations that I have provided to check to see whether I have been misrepresenting or misinterpreting anything and just dismisses them because I have claimed to be a pimp who dropped out of high school. It is obvious that the anthropological and genetics papers that I have cited would go over your head if you tried to read them, and this is the reason that you have been trying to get around the requirement of reading the papers in order to show that I am either misrepresenting or misinterpreting the data. What I did to your referenced comment does not amount to anything approaching virtual deletion. The link was not put in any obscure place; it was put in the body of the comment that you left and is clearly visible. The archived comments were put in a text file, not some propriety format that requires special software; the text file also loads faster than the typical web page, and is fully capable of being displayed by any web browser, i.e., all it takes is one click on a prominent link. I am asking you again to stop commenting here unless you are willing to comply with previously specified requirements; you are not welcome otherwise. If you keep off of this thread, I may not even write the entry that will make you weep. I am too busy and would rather not write it. 425
Posted by Shalabh Mairh on Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:51 | # What I Think 2. Indians, for the most part, could care less. We have work on our minds. 3. I got what I wanted 4. Oh, and about beauty… can’t tell me Nordic features are “softer” or “nicer”. Most your women are obese or disproportionate. Bone structures like Iron Man. Great for pornography though 5. Some guys on page 1 posted something like “leave Australia/America/Europe”. Okay, I’ll give you guys Europe, but what besides that was a “White Continent” anyway? Not the Americas and certainly not Australia. Your “firewater” was poison for aborigines. You killed off the locals. Then imported “Negroids”. Of all the civilizations up until now you have scavenged the most. Parasites in a way. But that’s okay: someone had to do it, might as well be white-skinned people. But it’s not like you could do it BECAUSE you have white skins. 6. 7. AND please do keep posting pics of semi-nude Nordic Babes. I love them all. muah muah muah :D 426
Posted by Sreesh on Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:58 | # :( Who ever compared That Idiot Mandira Beddy & Jacklyn Smith. Please, dont ever do that again. Please. 427
Posted by Reality on Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:32 | # Hi there, I am a new member to this site and came accross it by accident whilst looking for a synopsis on the net of almond eye shape that I have extremeley large pronounced almond shaped eyes for a caucasion. As I was reading some of the articles posted, I was amazed and stunned by just how biased people really can be regarding ethnicity of all kinds and what is to be considered the ‘perfect’ shape of womanness…. Let me please please reassure you all that suprisingly and on the contrary, what men find attractive in woman-ness is very suprisingly not physical on the whole scheme of things but how at ease she is with her own self-confidence and self esteem. How she projects herself and embodies confidence in her ability to be attractive. Being attractive for most ordinary women, they presumme that they must exemplify the images and perceptions of these super-imposed women they must compete. Most men do not, and let me repeat myself here, find these kinds of women all that attractive at all and largely because they appear unobtainable for one thing and secondly, because they embody so much contrived pose - most men and decent ones prefer by far a woman so ordinary as long as she is confident and in many ways quite individualistic who does not compare and contrast herself with other women - that is a turn off for many. It is a woman who is (not) afraid of being and showing her vulnerability such as in bridgit jones diary who is natural and very unpretentious even if not considered super-model of what it is that attracts and draws a man to a woman. Although her character is somewhat exaggerated, bridget for instance is not afraid to be herself and that is what is more attractive than any symmetry in a face. Of course, taking pride in appearnce is important, what is essential is that she is not contrived or super-imposed like the pictures of women in these pictures. I am an extremely attractive woman physically and can beat the socks off any other woman just as any other beautiful woman and colour and shape has absoloutley nothing at all to do with it. I used to professionally model and I can tell you all that men are very shy an dfearful of women who are naturally very attractive and explains the reason why it is in many cases that very beautiful people are some of the most lonliest of all despite their looks. It is not because of their attractiveness as such, but their own insecurities surrounding their appearance to which they can become so preoccupied. For instance, I am naturally very attractive I resemble sophia loren combined with the gentler features of claudia schiffer and have very large almond eyes and have excessive oil in my skin that makes me appear so much younger than my 32 years. I am tall but not above 5ft8 (men are fearful of tallness) and am naturally curvacious with hips and breasts and am not flat in any way.
Men also make longer lasting relationships with women less physically threatening (beautiful) - it is a well known fact and why so many successful models and some exceptionally attractive actresses are lonley creatures also because of their success. whether you are blonde, aubern or black does, has nothing to do with it all - really. Ideally, the majority of men according to statistics, desire and go for kelly brooke Curvacious, below 5ft7 height given that tallness is threatening to a great majority of men is also well known, that sparkle of innoccence that neither makes a person arrogant nor self-conceited. Picking out specific nose shapes etc is quite a contrived approach towards what attractiveness is perceived to be but in fact is a great deal more than this. There is no such thing as perfection even within perfectio itself if that makes any sense? - difference is what is and should be appreciated. We are all beautiful people and within our own rights, there is no set standard not even in the media. 428
Posted by Top on Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:06 | # Guessworker, I just finished reading this thread for the first time today and I have to say the following on the topic. I like your site a lot, but this whole thread is out of place, and frankly counter-productive to any other good efforts. The whole beauty thing is just not in line with what I perceive majority rights to be about. All it does is rile up non-whites, invites drive-by-shooters/spammers so that they can preach their pwn-perceived superiror morality, and then degenerates into the never helpful, ‘which race is the greatest’ debate. Of course we also get the classic line like ‘why are you so full of hate, I hate you!’ (enough white girls get gang-raped because of this ‘reasoning’ already), and the other classic ‘we are all equal… except white people who disagree with us -> they should all be banned/punished/killed/ect’. It is impossible to argue amongst humans about superiority/inferiority issues, especially when it comes to ethnic groups. There are too many survival mechanisms that kick in in the debates. So why do it? Majority rights movements do not have to be based on superiority/inferiorty type debates - in fact, they should not be! I do not need to convince anyone of anyone’s superiority in order to assert my rights or my group rights. There are so many other bigger fires to put out. What we need to do instead is to challenge statements like those by Malcom, in which he states that the health of the group is not reflected by their population weight, which then extends to the utterly insane statements about the health of whites in South Africa. That is something to fight! There is so much ammunition there. And Malcom… I will debate you on this topic any day! Let’s just drop the beauty thing. PLEASE!!!! 429
Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:56 | # Hi JR, 1. I think I am driving you crazier by the day, judging by the increasingly foul language content in your comments. 2. How can you, a non-scientist, make a judgement about the race that I belong to. So do make that comment that will make me weep. 3. I don’t think I have used any foul language here. The worst was “moron” and that is not a four letter word. You say you apologized in advance. Sure, I can hit you on the head first and then apologize. 4. You say I am arrogant and snobbish because I declared myself a scientist. That is not arrogance because I was stating a fact which is relevant to the discussion. Would you want to waste time debating a highschool dropout who doesn’t know what he is talking about ? So that is why it’s helpful to introduce ourselves and our credentials. 5. Turkey belongs to the European continent. By your own silly argument (ie. When one talks about a European in a racial sense, one means white person.) are Turkish then whites ? From your ignorant point of view European may mean a white person. But there are a lot Indians etc. who are British citizens etc. identified as Europeans. You belong in the stone age. The world has passed you by. 6.
Easy. First google it. Then get a friend who is a college student to access it for you. As for ” how would I know” googling terms will direct you to a whole lot of sites.
You didn’t. You just wrote down some mumbo jumbo that you thought was the interpretation of the articles you cited.
Your summaries were all cockeyed and meaningless hocus pocus interpretations that you thought would support your racist views. ANY BONA-FIDE SCIENTIST COULD SEE THAT YOU WERE A PHONY ‘SCIENTIST’. 8.
Says you, the non-scientist. How would you know? Go back and re-read the articles that I cited. Are you saying that Cavalli-Sforza’s publications in Science etc. are not peer reviewed ? 9.
You have publicly admitted that you are NOT a scientist. So, any scientist would conclude that you are not qualified to interpret advanced scientific papers. Ask any scientist if you don’t believe me. You may think your interpretations are not at odds with what the authors implied, but that is because you didn’t comprehend what the authors implied in the first place. AND why was that ? Because you are not a scientist and do not possess the required skills and training. 10.
Like I said before, no one wants to conduct a debate with someone who is not qualified to speak on the matter. Therefore, for the last time, credentials do matter.
Calling me a retard over and over won’t turn you into a scientist over night. As I said, your ‘very dignified’ writing style itself is a clear reflection of your education and background. 12.
The above maybe true as far as your intentions go. But once deleted from the main thread very few would bother to link to your textfiles. 13.
As far as I know I have been extra nice and civil, and the only reason I can see for your persistence that I leave is that you have no comeback to my arguments. Take care Cheers 430
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 03 Aug 2006 09:11 | # Shalabh Mairh, This entry is not about skin color or praise of white skin. Nordic women are known for their relative lack of obesity. Nordic women are in high demand among models because of their typical disproportion, right? And, Nordic women are good for pornography because of their iron-like bone structure? Insane! Regarding the Americas and Australia, the modern civilizations built in these continents were built by whites on their own rather than scavenged from the locals. Besides, most Native Americans were killed by infectious diseases. Whites have a right to demand that non-whites, particularly incompetents and hostile individuals, leave the premises of a white-built civilization, regardless of whether it is in Europe or elsewhere. ——————— Sreesh, The Hindu using the handle “Malcolm A” is the one who pointed out Mandira Bedi as an example of an attractive East Indian woman, and this is the reason why you see the comparison. I had never heard of Mandira before Malcolm pointed her out. ——————— Top, There is merit to the argument that if it is our own, then it should be preserved. However, it is also useful to consider whether what one desires to preserve is something that has value apart from it being our own. If such value can be shown, then it makes the case for preservation stronger. Attempting to prove such value could be mistaken as supremacism, but one should not let this risk make one abandon the attempt. A white person who argues that whites should not breed with non-whites in order to preserve ethnic genetic interests would typically be regarded by leftists and many non-whites to be no different from a white person who makes the same argument because he believes whites to be superior. Therefore, one should not shy away from investigating whether there are elements of the white phenotype that have value by themselves. The original entry was fairly simple in scope: it addressed a topic that is of interest to Northern Europeans and pointed out the negative aesthetic consequences—from the perspective of whites—that will follow if non-whites are absorbed into the white gene pool. The first couple of comments are fine, too. The thread degenerated when the retarded Hindu “Malcolm A” started posting. Regarding a comparison of physical attractiveness, if someone like Dan Mohan argues that Indian women are better looking because they just are, then it is not possible to have a meaningful discussion, but Malcolm provided us with some reasons why among Nordic and East Indian women, the best looking ones are East Indian. This is something that can be objectively addressed, and hence the numerous comparisons in the comments. Anyway, don’t bother challenging Malcolm on the South Africa issue. Malcolm is obviously a retard; he makes his arguments by authority and dismisses those of his opponents by insisting that they have no scientific qualifications. 431
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 03 Aug 2006 09:13 | # Malcolm A, You are pathologically retarded, and every comment by you further reveals the sorry state of your mind. I am using increasingly foul language? The only two negative adjectives I used in my previous comment addressed to you were “stupid” and “retarded,” which aptly describe you and do not constitute profanity. I used censored profanity against you a long while back and have not repeated it. Do I have to be a scientist to guess what race you belong to? Wow, talk about retardation! Your very first comment would make any reasonable person suspect that you are a subcon, and you have made this almost certain given the nature of your arguments and your poor knowledge of Northern Europeans. You have also shown yourself to be a liar, initially claiming to be a Northern European, and then eventually forgetting that you made this claim. Then we have the following from you:
You retard, I apologized to others in advance, not to you. Why would I be retarded enough to apologize to you before using censored profanity against you? Besides, apart from moron, you have used words such as fool, thick skulled, fraud and booze-ridden to describe me. I have not said that you are arrogant and snobbish because you have declared yourself to be a scientist. Who would make such a retarded claim? You are arrogant because you have made your arguments by authority and made a big deal about your alleged scientific credentials. Your very first sentence within this thread started out as follows:
Of course, in your first comment, you did not offer a single reason why the paper presented was not scientific. You have not merely introduced yourself and mentioned your credentials, but have rested your arguments on your credentials, which is what partly makes you arrogant. You are snobbish because you have sneered at the assumed scientific incompetence of your opponents and pretended that your opponents are so unqualified that they are not worth your time. Your later comments have a common theme: “I will not bother responding because you are not a scientist, won’t understand, are unqualified,...” Here is another retarded comment by you:
Europe is physically connected to Asia, and the demarcation of Europe from Asia is not on a purely geographical basis, but is somewhat arbitrary and reflects political history. Reflecting the somewhat arbitary demarcation of borders, part of Turkey can be said to belong to the European landmass and the rest to the Asian landmass. Some Turks, disproportionately the upper class, are white, but most Turks are not. Next you wrote:
You wrote the above right after quoting me on “a European in a racial sense”; I did not imply any other sense. Non-whites who are citizens of European nations are not European in a racial sense. Besides, you have still not answered whether you are North American as in someone who was born and raised in North America. Now you think that I got a college student to access the papers. Well, why couldn’t I have gotten a graduate student or scientist to actually have written the scientific parts and posted them under my name? The best part of your latest comment is your accusing me of having written mumbo-jumbo and “cockeyed and meaningless hocus pocus.” This confirms your lack of scientific credentials in so far as genetics and physical anthropology are concerned, as any scientist can refer to the papers cited and see how well they have been portrayed within my comments.
No real scientist would be foolish enough to accept my interpretation If I say that I am a scientist [because I can say anything on the internet] or would assume that I am not qualified to interpret advanced scientific papers if I say that I am not a scientist; he would look up the papers to see what they say.
The only way for you to prove that I have not understood what the authors have implied is to read what I have cited and then show how my portrayal is at odds with the papers. You have done no such thing, and this is obviously because the papers would go over your head. Regarding the papers that you cited, you have cited very few papers; none have made the case for three races only; none have made the case for South Asians and whites belonging to the same race; one of them about the alleged Aryan gene—R1a—has been undermined by the latest evidence provided by Sahoo et al., and one of your papers cited in support of 3 races only makes the case for at least 4 races among humans.
If credentials matter prior to a debate, then you have not proven your credentials, and have assumed that I have no scientific credentials. Some people can learn on their own and are self-taught, and one cannot assume that no college equals no academic qualifications. Also, you have admitted that one can claim to be anything on the Internet. Therefore, your claim that you are a scientist has no merit unless you prove it.
I am calling you a retard because you are one. After all, who other than a retard would expect me to believe that if I repeatedly call you a retard then it will turn me into a scientist? I have maintained a dignified writing style except for a brief interlude of censored profanity, and only against you. You are the one who has show “true dignity” in the form of arrogance and snobbishness.
Link to the text file? Nobody needs to link to it; one need only click on it to read it, and you can bet that anyone interested in following your comments has done so or will do so.
You have been nice and civil indeed: espousing arrogance and snobbishness, repeatedly ignoring evidence, repeating the same points for the umpteenth time and forcing me to reiterate my rebuttal, making arguments by authority, etc. Don’t be deluded, I am not asking you to leave because of my inability to rebut your arguments; I have rebutted all your arguments. I am asking you to leave because you have dragged this thread down the drain; you are not welcome here. 432
Posted by Anon on Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:21 | # JR, GW etc I challenged you a while ago to post your pictures here so that we can all see what handsome Northern European white hunks you are. Are you afraid to show us your gorgeous hunky faces? Would it then be that you are 300lb obese trailer trash sitting in Iowa jacking off to some 50 DDD bra sized blonde hoe on the cover of playboy? Come on… you cant let us down now!! Show us all that you do have a life and that you are really hunky white men that all women of mankind dream of…. HAHAHAHAHHAA 433
Posted by Anon on Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:24 | # By the way, how many people here have heard of the expression “tall, white-washed and handsome” ?
434
Posted by I. Jonassen on Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:18 | # Dear reader, I came across this thread while searching for Ragnhild Marie Alvær, and was pleasantly surprised to also come across an interesting discussion, which unfortunately has been marred by some absurd comments and foul language. I am a molecular biologist by profession, and would especially like to make a few points about the “scientific arguments” of Malcolm A. Statistical methodology in assessing racial reality; the tool of cluster analysis Malcolm has dismissed the use of cluster analysis in assessing racial reality and demanded citations showing statistically significant differences based on t-tests, ANOVAs and chi-squared analyses! If two populations are compared on a normally distributed variable, then a t-test is appropriate, and if the variable has either-or characteristics such as presence or absence of an allele, then a chi-squared analysis is used. However if more than two populations are compared on a single normally distributed variable, then using multiple t-tests for all possible between-groups comparisons would increase the odds of a false significant-difference find, and hence an ANOVA would be needed. On the other hand, single variables are hardly racially informative. To assess racial reality, one has to compare multiple populations with respect to multiple variables, i.e., use statistical tools for multivariate analyses rather than the univariate tool of ANOVA. Cluster analysis is an especially appealing multivariate tool because it does not depend upon the mathematically convenient properties of the multivariate normal distribution. Cluster analysis is also useful because it finds its own groups/categories as opposed to multivariate tools such as discriminant analysis where one has to define categories beforehand. In assessing racial reality, if one defines racial categories beforehand, then one can be accused of having a pre-set notion that one is trying to validate, and it is therefore best to use a tool that finds on its own whether there are underlying categories. In a generic situation, if one does not know whether there are underlying categories, and if so then how many, then one uses cluster analysis, and such use can be deemed to be of an exploratory nature, but to infer from “exploratory nature” that the tool of cluster analysis does not answer questions about differences between clusters is patent ignorance, as the distance or dissimilarity function will easily show the nature of the differences between separate clusters. For Malcolm to therefore dismiss the use of cluster analysis in assessing racial reality and especially insist that the assignment of objects to separate clusters does not correspond to statistically significant differences between the clusters reflects his ignorance of basic statistics. 435
Posted by I. Jonassen on Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:20 | # Another comment on Malcolm A.: The number of races in humans Malcolm has grossly misrepresented the portrayal of race in the scientific literature. He would have the reader believe that the long-standing consensus is the belief in three human races. However, there has never been any such consensus. In volume 29 of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Lieberman et al. reported the results of a 1985 survey on belief in biological races among humans, and the proportions of professionals who denied the existence of biological races among humans were: biologists (16%), developmental psychologists (36%), physical anthropologists (41%) and cultural anthropologists (53%). In volume 105(1) of American Anthropologist, Lieberman et al. reported that 69% of physical anthropologists in a 1999 survey denied the existence of biological races among humans. This same paper featured the following table.
In short, within the past few decades, there has been no broad consensus among scientists on the existence of biological human races, forget about a consensus that there are only three races. A broad consensus on the existence of biological human races existed prior to the mid-twentieth century. However, there was no consensus about the number of races among humankind. For instance, the number of races proposed by some prominent authors are: Francois Bernier (4), Linnaeus (4 actual and 3 imaginary), Johann Blumenbach (5), Louis Agassiz (12), Thomas Huxley (12), Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau (4), Stanley M. Garn (9), William Henry Boyd (6), and Carleton Coon (5). An example of someone classifying humans into three races is the classification of anthropologist Edward Long in the 18th century, and he proposed a European race that included Chinese and American Indians, a Negro race and an Orang-utan race. Malcolm has also grossly misrepresented the arguments of Cavalli-Sforza. On page 19 of the unabridged edition of his book, “The History and Geography of Human Genes,” Cavalli-Sforza explicitly denies the existence of biological races among humans (see the scan below). Cavalli-Sforza does use terms such as Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid, but he also uses Australoid, and none of these terms is meant to imply a biological race, let alone the existence of only three biological races among humans.
It is another matter that much data accumulated after the publication of Cavalli-Sforza’s book shows the concept of biological races among humans to be real, as J. Richards as already pointed out. 436
Posted by I. Jonassen on Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:22 | # Yet another comment on Malcolm A.: Do South Asians and whites belong to the same race? Delineating races is of special importance to conservation biology, and the following four criteria, proposed by John C. Avise, R. Martin Ball Jr., Stephen J. O’Brien and Ernst Mayr in the early 1990s, have been adopted as the standard criteria (Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology 1990;7:45-67 and Science 1991;2 51:1187-1188): Using these four criteria, it is impossible to classify humans into three races only or classify south Asians and whites as members of the same race. Whites and south Asians have developed under geographically and climatically distinct regions, which is not undermined by the minor white genetic contribution to South Asia. The natural history of whites and South Asians is different. Humans that moved up north were subjected to a harsh, cold environment that resulted in considerable depigmentation among whites, at least a one standard deviation IQ increase among whites compared to south Asians, and stronger sexual selection among whites, as per numerous studies previously cited by JR. Additionally, visual examination, craniofacial studies (e.g., Li et al., 1991) and genetic analyses (e.g., Yang et al., 2005) concordantly assign South Asians outside the grouping/category of whites and to their own major cluster, which, as JR has pointed out, are on the order of a racial cluster, along the lines of an East Asian cluster, a black African cluster, and so on. The only examples of the classification of South Asians and whites into the same race predate genetics and modern craniometrics, and were never universally agreed upon. South Asians and whites were classified as part of the Caucasoid race by Blumenbach and also Coon. However, Blumenbach also classified Lapps and Finns as Mongols (what later was termed Mongoloid). Lapps are white-Asian mixes, with the white component, on average, being greater. Whereas Blumenbach could be excused for classifying Lapps as Mongols, he obviously had not seen enough white Finns, and undoubtedly had no idea that the masses of South Asians do not have anything close to the facial features of whites. Coon, too, based his classification scheme on a visual examination, but had no idea of the range of looks in South Asia. On the other hand, with standard criteria for delineating races, modern craniometrics, genetic tools and the availability of sophisticated statistical analyses, it is unambiguously clear that south Asians and whites do not belong to the same race. 437
Posted by I. Jonassen on Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:26 | # Nordic beauty vs. Indian beauty using Malcolm’s criteria Based on Indian women suggested by Malcolm as particularly good looking and his other arguments, it is clear that he believes that a major white component is required for the greatest beauty among women, which is not found among the whitest women, but among the [assumed] racially-similar-to-white upper caste Indian women, who he initially claimed to have no lower caste and untouchable elements, but after JR pointed out evidence for such admixture, Malcolm argued that this non-white admixture is what gave the upper class Indian women a beauty edge over Nordic women. What does this non-white admixture comprise of? It comprises of features similar to those in Australoids/aborigines, East Asians and blacks, all of whom he regards as less beautiful that whites. Therefore, how is it possible for whites, let alone Nordics, to absorb the genetics of people with Australoid/black/East Asian features and improve in looks? Skin darkening perhaps, if one prefers darker skin, but by Malcolm’s criteria, the facial features will become uglier. Malcolm has ridiculously repeatedly insisted that the Indian women that he pointed out have facial features as fine as those in Nordic women, when the side by side comparisons clearly showed otherwise. Whereas Malcolm has continued to spew garbage for many months now, he stopped posting links to pictures of Indian women who can presumably more than match Nordic beauty a long time back, undoubtedly after realizing that further examples of “Indian beauty” will only serve to undermine his case. 438
Posted by I. Jonassen on Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:39 | # Some recommendations for the site owner(s) This is an interesting site, and entries such as this would make for a lively and informative discussion were it not marred by the foul language and charlatans like the subcon “Malcolm A.” You guys need to set down some policies such as zero tolerance for foul language, and ban ignoramuses and charlatans such as “Malcolm A,” who has the chutzpah to belittle J. Richards and others for supposedly being unqualified to discuss scientific matters! I can sympathize with J. Richards in his use of censored profanity against Malcolm, and I would have been prompted to use much worse and uncensored language, but this could have been avoided if Malcolm had been banned after it became clear a long time ago that he is not here to debate within the bounds of reason, logic and science. 439
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 05 Aug 2006 16:46 | # I Jonassen, Thank you for five extremely interesting additions to the thread. I am the owner of MR. JR is an editor and our technical manager. On the subject of foul language, we have a clear policy of civility. The fact is that in the Anonymiser age banning is not always effective. If a banned thread commenter really wants to carry on his campaign he can always do so no matter how often we ban him. However, we do at least have the consolation that those who cannot express themselves without profanities damn themselves out of their own mouths. I am sure JR will thank you for your clear-eyed support. I would add that if you are ever interested in originating a post - scientific or otherwise - in support of our general thesis we would be happy to give you a platform. Thanks again. 440
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 07 Aug 2006 23:17 | # I. Jonassen, Thank your for your comments. I should read books more. If I had read Cavalli-Sforza’s book, I would have pointed out page 19 a long time ago and prevented the subcon from harping on Cavalli-Sforza. You are correct that someone like Malcolm is best banned. On the other hand, IP bans are usually temporary measures. A better quality control method is having people register with the site and then login in order to post, but we have decided against this measure as this would drive away some commentators who have useful points to make. Those who resort to foul language or absurd comments are best ignored—one shouldn’t feed trolls—but if they persist, then they need to be warned. Malcolm has too much of an ego to stop, but just as he stopped posting links to “beautiful” Indian women after realizing that he is undermining his case by pointing out real world examples, he will stop commenting here when it is obvious to him that he has made enough of a fool of himself. 441
Posted by Rheingold on Tue, 08 Aug 2006 05:53 | # I read as much of this thread as I could stomach, and I think all you anthros could do with a healthy dose of basic biology (& common sense perhaps). The underlying claim of the poster is that Nordic features are the most attractive, and White features in general more attractive than non-White. Of the little objective evidence presented, apparently the most convincing is that the facial STRUCTURES (jaw angles etc) most favored on AVERAGE, seem to hew closest to average White features. From a biological perspective this is risible. In genetics terms, your argument means that there should be a directional selection towards Nordic features (i.e. since these features are acknowledged as superior, the allele population should shift to match them). Yet that’s not what has happened. When populations are offered great opportunities to interbreed (e.g. Britain in India or vice versa) there is no sign that the Nordic or White mode is irresistibly superior, out breeding or outmating the competition. Instead over our two million years of evolution as a species we have seen increasing not decreasing diversity. We must thus abandon the idea of directional selection. The Nordic ideal is not an ideal at all. Why then was it selected by the “ideal face” experimenters (e.g. presenting different shaped faces for people to rate)? Any college graduate can tell you what is wrong with your argument. You have committed the same fallacy as someone who calls a chessboard “gray, on average.” Increasing diversity tells us that genetic selection has been DISRUPTIVE not DIRECTIONAL. In nature this happens all the time. Why? Natural environments are not homogeneous. Directional selection posits a single ideal and moves towards it. In some cases (e.g. resistance to disease) this is not a bad model. But it’s not always right. Let’s take the example of a species of snail raised in a chessboard environment (or if you prefer, light and dark rocks). Our snails start out gray, but the keen eyes of the kite, its predator, will soon change that! Soon we will have two breeds or races of snail - light and dark, to match the two environments. This is disruptive selection - movement AWAY FROM THE MEAN. It renders any talk of averages absolutely useless. The snails are still gray on average, but none are gray… An illustration. The mean does not change, but the population alleles radically do.
Now, sexual selection is not less dire than predator selection… Biologically speaking, it is futile to debate the merits or value of the different “modes” of attractive appearances; they exist & have existed for hundreds of thousands of generations therefore they MUST have biological fitness and value. You can express your personal likes and dislikes but that doesn’t change biological history. Indeed, any objective person can observe racial modes of beauty in action. Women with dark-colored skin do not become more comely after the fashion photographers have digitally lightened their skins to fit the stereotype of White beauty. Instead they become less beautiful. Why? Because the features of an African woman that make her beautiful come part and parcel with her skin color. African features on a face too light to match them look out of place and not very attractive. Yet try to find a picture of Halle Berry that ISN’T overexposed… As for me, I am White (of German and Dutch ancestry mainly) and to me the modes of beauty represented by Laetitia Casta, Jessica Alba, Aishwarya Rai, Rachel Weisz, Scarlett Johansson etc., are all quite clear and apparent. Putting Laetitia’s nose on Aishwarya would be farcical. That does not make either less or more beautiful than the other. It’s a pity that you are not able to enjoy so wide a range of beauties, perhaps due to cultural factors? Your obsession with Nordics seems unhealthy to me. Your studies have proven that White faces are the average of sexual desire, but not that they are uniquely and exclusively beautiful. The reality, as expressed by the actual human population, is that there are several allele “peaks” of attractiveness corresponding to several different ways to be beautiful: light hair with light skin and such-and-such features, dark hair with darker skin and such-and-such features, and so on. Does that rule out racial intermarriage (or as you racialists deem it, “miscegenation”)? Not at all. Unless you think Soledad O’Brien is fugly!
Beyond Soledad, I’m not going to engage in the Battle Of The Pinup Pictures. Your responses to others’ postings have already proved fallacious enough. It’s easy to find unattractive pictures of beautiful women; but your response has not been to point this out, but the No True Scotsman fallacy - that any picture of a non-attractive White woman simply proves she isn’t White enough. Similarly you have responded to attractive pictures of beautiful non-White women by repeatedly pointing out racial characteristics as if they were flaws. Aishwarya Rai’s hooked nose, for instance, is once more part and parcel of her special (and Indian) beauty. You might as well argue that the fact that she has dark hair “disproves” her beauty, as anything but blonde is merely “not blonde enough.” Ironically (given the super-bleached model of “beauty” that heads your post) studies have repeatedly shown that men prefer light brown hair… Maybe that explains why Aryanists are so nervous about their “cultural heritage”? 442
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 08 Aug 2006 07:19 | # Rheingold, As far as directional selection toward Nordic facial features goes, I recommend you read the paper by Hanihara on facial flatness across human populations, and also the works of M.M. Lahr. It would be fairly obvious how ancestral man looked like and how he has changed through time, with the most overall derived facial type being the Northern European type. Your argument against this directional change is the ridiculous example that when populations are given the opportunity to interbreed, there is no sign of Nordics outbreeding or outmating the competition! The fact is that among the Maoris, Native Americans and many other mixed populations, the Y chromosome is disproportionately European, showing that white males have been favored historically. Even among the Icelandic population, the Y is mostly Scandinavian, whereas the mitochondrial DNA is more Gaelic. Few whites have a sexual interest in non-whites, and there have been few cases of non-white males breeding with white females, with most such cases comprising of low status whites females (unattractive, obese, mentally ill). When it comes to competing with others for a high status partner, whites are favored. You mention the example of India, where there is a strong preference for light skin, where bleaching creams do brisk business, and where facial features shifted toward European norms are considered more attractive. Ask yourself what the hell are you talking about? You say that the directional selection model for facial features should be abandoned because diversity has increased during the course of our evolution. There is a great deal of facial diversity among humans, but it is clear that all human populations have shifted away from the ape norms, which is a clear directional shift. This shift has not stopped with the origin of anatomically modern humans; it has continued, and Northern Europeans have emerged as the most overall derived of all populations. At any given time, there is both directional selection and stabilizing selection. Directional shifts on some counts are not incompatible with increasing diversity on a number of counts. When you say that dark women do not become more comely after they have been lightened, you do not know what you are talking about. You may be describing your preference, but most populations prefer lighter than average women. Blacks in the U.S. themselves generally favor lighter blacks; the exceptions are some black populations in Africa. Attractive people are found in all populations; I am not disputing this, but this does not mean that attractive people from different populations cannot be compared. For every Soledad O’Brien—who is not that attractive by the way—one could find several unattractive mixed race individuals. In the case of Soledad O’Brien, it is obvious that her looks have improved upon the Negroid average, but she is worse looking than the white average. By average, I am not talking about a plain Jane picked at random, but the central tendency of the population. Whites have nothing to gain and lots to lose from an aesthetics perspective by absorbing non-whites. A white person desirous of beautiful children would do much better by breeding with an attractive white person rather than a non-white person. No, it is not easy to find unattractive pictures of beautiful women. How can a woman be beautiful if one can find unattractive pictures of her (excluding photos shot during illness or accidental disfigurement)? My arguments are not of the “No True Scotsman” type. If it is obvious that Hindus find whiter looking individuals better looking, on average, then pointing out that the reason some Hindu woman look unattractive is because they have some features closer to the non-white norms in India is to make an argument that would make sense to most whites and most Hindus, too. If, according to you, studies have repeatedly shown that [white] men prefer light brown hair in women, then why do so many white women dye their hair blonde? To look less attractive? 443
Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 10 Aug 2006 13:13 | # Hi JR,
Very classy. Why won’t you debate like a gentleman?
Even one negative adjective is one too many for a civilized debater. Shows your breeding and class.
Liar is as liar does. I already said that I am a subcon (born in the subcontinent). But that doesn’t mean I am not white.
No civilized, educated writer would insult those responding to his posts, whether with or without an apology in advance.
If you are familiar at all with scientific symposia, seminars etc. etc., you would know that all speakers are introduced in advance in regards to their qualifications and areas of expertise. There is no arrogance involved in that at all.
Why should I offer any reasons that would take up pages on this thread when it is crystal clear that your motives in posting the original article was racist and bigotted. The paper you cited itself did not offer any explanations.
As I said, a proper debate can take place only among equals and unless you are a biologist I would be wasting my time trying to argue with you. Refusing to do that is not ‘snobbishness’ but just common sense. You admitted you are not a scientist in the beginning, but now you are trying to imply that you maybe one, which would then make you a liar, thereby losing all credibility.
Sure sure, trying to wriggle out of that one huh?
European in a racial sense? Which millenium are you living in?
That is quite possible too. But a grad student is still a college student. If someone else posted the scientific parts how come you are interpreting them?
I am not referring to the cited papers per se… Only to your ‘cockeyed’ interpretations of those papers.
From your interpretations of the cited papers alone I can see that you have no training in biology. You have no in-depth understanding of correlation, cluster analysis or anything else.
I did read the relevant papers and that’s why I told you that those papers by Rosenberg etc. do not prove what you are trying to imply in any manner what so ever.
The key to citing references is not the number, but the relevancy of the papers. It is time that you understood this simple fact before you start debating real scientists.
If you were really a scientist, by now you would have realized that I know what I am talking about. The problem is that you are not one and hence unable to recognize another scientist.
Calling someone a retard, even if he were one, is against all rules of decent debate. But then, how can one expect you to know anything about decency? During that brief interlude full of profanity you have shown your true colors to everybody here.
Clicking leads to linking. This is why I say I am wasting my time here.
Arrogance and snobbishness is a matter of opinion. But using the F… word ... now that’s a clear indication of class.
Don’t be deluded yourself… You only THINK that you have rebutted all my arguements.
444
Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 10 Aug 2006 13:29 | # Hi Jonassen,
That’s exactly why I inquired from JR whether he could provide any papers based on ANOVA that show Indians and whites falling into significantly different populations based on a number of relevant traits.
Please don’t try to educate me on cluster analysis. I lived cluster analysis while I was a grad student doing taxonomic projects on insect pest populations. Cluster analysis, as I have already said, is a useful preliminary tool that helps to pool closely related groups together but it does not prove any significant differences between groups. I have already cited references in my previous posts, which you may have perhaps missed.
Tell me about it! Cluster analysis mostly uses correlation coefficients, which lend themselves to ANOVA in turn. But still it only proves significant association rather than significant differences. I don’t have time and space to waste trying to elaborate on these issues. Cheers 445
Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 10 Aug 2006 13:44 | # Hi Jonassen,
According to Cavalli-Sforza himself there is no consensus about the number of races. What I said was based on anthropolgical, morphological and genetic traits there are three clearly identifiable human races. Others are all subject to opinions of various researchers who tried to indicate that these three races could be further split. These suggestions have not been widely accepted.
This is old hat. This type of debate has been going on forever.
Only an orangutan would believe all this. Just kidding. Why delve into ancient literature? Whether there be 3 races or 10 races, our main issue is which race do the whites and Indians belong to? Is it the caucasoid race or not?
So what did Cavalli-Sforza imply by the term caucasoid? And why did he link the Indians and the Europeans under Caucasoid in his 1988 publication (that I have cited), which he is yet to revise or refute.
So what was the need for your first para which argues that there are no human races. You could have saved space and time by just stating that the latest consensus is that human races are real. Cheers 446
Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 10 Aug 2006 13:58 | # Hi Jonassen,
I have never argued that Indians and whites fall into the same group, but only that they are subraces of the same race, meaning there are differences. Your so-called ’ pure white women’ are also descendants of the same ancestor and therefore carry a multitude of genes that are common to all races. So, your point, that white women posses mutually exclusive genes is wrong. What I said was that the degree of admixture varies widely among the Indians and the beautiful ones have less admixture than the rest. And that makes them prettier and more attractive by statistical definition of the median being preferable.
Talk to the judges of those beauty pagents which declared Ashwariya Rai etc. as the prettiest Ms.World etc. Most of them were whites. I am sure they know fine facial features when they see them.
This piece makes me suspect that you maybe JR’s avatar. I stopped posting links to pictures because you started selective editing of those pictures. Who are you trying to kid? Cheers 447
Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:04 | # Hi JR,
Mandira Bedi is not bad looking, but I posted her picture mainly to dispel the myth ” Indians have hooked noses “, that you were spreading around like a virus here. Cheers 448
Posted by Andrew Smyth on Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:13 | # Your site illustrates that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” 449
Posted by I. Jonassen on Fri, 11 Aug 2006 04:19 | # Malcolm A, Comment on statistical analysis Your statistical naivete shows. Cluster analysis uses mostly uses correlation coefficients? Haven’t you heard of the following methods of arriving at clusters: nearest neighbor, furthest neighbor, unweighted pair-group method using averages, average linkage within groups, Ward’s method, centroid method, median method and binary matching? Besides, several papers that JR has cited have not used the correlation method of cluster analysis. For instance, the skull study of Li et al. (1991) was based on Euclidean distances and Rosenberg et al. (2005) showed evidence for racial clustering using an uncorrelated alleles model. You wrote, “That’s exactly why I inquired from JR whether he could provide any papers based on ANOVA that show Indians and whites falling into significantly different populations based on a number of relevant traits,” after JR wrote that “To assess racial reality, one has to compare multiple populations with respect to multiple variables, i.e., use statistical tools for multivariate analyses rather than the univariate tool of ANOVA.” Huh? Anyway, JR did cite a paper on facial flatness by Hanihara and another paper by Farkas and others (2005) where the differences are presented as means and standard deviations. JR reproduced a number of these figures as they relate to the nose, citing the p values, and the data show broader and shorter noses among South Asians with flatter nasal bones compared to whites. Strictly speaking, these citations are not needed. Common observation suggests that white and South Asian norms differ with respect to numerous facial features. Besides, for genetic data where you are testing for presence or absence of an allele, would one use ANOVA? Are such data interval data that are normally distributed? Even if you consider multiple normally distributed phenotypic variables, racial delineation would require the use of multivariate tools, not univariate tools such as ANOVA. Clustering does not imply significant differences between clusters? Like JR, I challenge you to cite one paper with respect to genotype or phenotype in humans where the data points are assigned to two or more clusters, and it is proven that there are no statistically significant differences between the clusters. Besides, in the typical paper, statistics describing the major differences between clusters will be provided, refuting your contention that the papers cited somehow do not prove any statistically significant differences between clusters. Comment on the race issue Even though I have shown that you have misrepresented racial reality, you wrote, “What I said was based on anthropolgical, morphological and genetic traits there are three clearly identifiable human races.” Where is your evidence? You also dismissed a passage by me as old hat when it simply pointed out your false claim that there is some kind of long-standing consensus on the division of humanity into three races. You have tried to shift around the issue of three races only, asking why should I delve into old literature, said that it does not matter whether there are 3 races or 10, and pointed out that the main issue is to which race Indians and whites belong to, and whether this is the Caucasoid race. The historical aspects of the racial literature need to be cited to point out your falsehood that there has been broad consensus on the number of races in humans; I cited prominent names to show that there has never been a broad consensus in history. It definitely matters to your arguments whether there are 3 or 10 races. It is clear from your previous comments that a belief in 3 races, where one race comprises of blacks and another race comprises of East Asians, is necessary in order for you to argue that South Asians best fit in with whites rather than blacks or East Asians and hence whites and South Asians belong to the same race. If there are more than 3 races, then there could very well be a white race and another race to which South Asians belong or there could be a separate South Asian race. Since Cavalli-Sforza has explicitly argued against the notion of biological races of humankind in his book, the fact remains that you have yet to cite any papers in support of your contentions that there are only three races among humans and that whites and South Asians belong to the same race. As per the four standard criteria of racial delineation that I cited in a previous comment, these two contentions of yours are simply not supportable. You have asked what did Cavalli-Sforza imply by the term Caucasoid and why did he link the Indians and the Europeans under Caucasoid in his 1988 publication? Cavalli-Sforza used Blumenbach’s definition. Ask him why he used this definition. What matters is that Cavalli-Sforza has not used the word Caucasoid to imply a biological race. His use of the word Caucasoid does not help your argument that there is a Caucasoid race stretching from Europe to India. In his 1998 paper, for the small number of loci analyzed, the contribution of the European group to India was greater than that of East Asians, and hence the attachment to the European group, which as JR has already pointed out reflects the basic principle of genetic tree formation, whereby a mixed group attaches to the branch that has contributed the greatest fraction. I cannot understand how you have come up with the following statement:
My first paragraph did not argue that there are no human races. It pointed out that within the past few decades, there has been no broad consensus among scientists on the existence of biological human races, forget about a consensus that there are only three races. Additionally, nowhere have I implied that the latest consensus is that human races are real; there is no such consensus at present. Evidence for racial reality exists in published papers, not in consensus statements. The resolution of politically sensitive issues is not to be found in consensus statements. Comment on Nordic vs. Indian beauty You have used the straw man of “pure white women.” Besides, have I argued that “white women possess mutually exclusive genes”? Races are distinguished by a cluster of phenotypic and genotypic markers, notwithstanding genetic similarity between races at most loci; and the cluster of phenotypic markers distinguishing whites from non-whites are also the factors relevant to the beauty question. Your contention that upper class Indian women are rendered “prettier and more attractive by statistical definition of the median being preferable” is nonsensical. Statistical averaging of human face shapes will reveal facial features shifted toward black, East Asian and aboriginal norms compared to Northern European norms, and by your own belief, black, East Asian and aboriginal norms are less attractive than Nordic norms. Therefore, how can the facial features of upper caste Indian women be better looking than those of Nordic women by your own reasoning? Beauty pageant judges are not the authorities for pronouncing what is beautiful. In the latest Miss World and Miss Universe contests, the Indian women had masculine faces, just as many other contestants did. Look at the physique of the contestants in these pageants. They are very tall and typically not curvaceous. Several of them have a fashion modeling background. Are these the kind of women most people find attractive? No. The easiest way to compare the attractiveness of two women is to see them side by side, and there are numerous such comparisons here, and several others from interacting with people of different races in daily life. By your own reasoning, it is very clear that Northern Europeans have the edge with respect to beauty, though you obviously have a preference for Indian women, and have simply chosen inappropriate reasoning to justify it. Most men seeking beautiful women do not seek Indian women; they seek white, especially Northern European women. You stopped posting links to Indian women because I started selective editing of the pictures? I was not involved at all. You are referring to JR here, but what I see is that JR has provided clear examples, as opposed to your examples, which often comprise of small and unclear pictures. 450
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 11 Aug 2006 06:37 | # Malcolm A, Why don’t I debate like a gentleman with you? I had a long gentlemanly discussion with you in the beginning, but it became clear that your pathetic arguments are worthy of nothing other than contempt, derision and ridicule, and your refusal to stop and go away prompted me to use some negative adjectives, which you more than deserve. It is not possible to have a gentlemanly discussion with you. If, according to you, “even one negative adjective is one too many for a civilized debater” and shows one’s “breeding and class,” then your breeding and class is self-evident by your use of terms such as moron, fool, thick skulled, fraud and booze-ridden to describe me. If a liar is as a liar does, then your lies speak volumes. You have been exposed as a liar when it comes to claiming that you are a Northern European from an ancestry standpoint. You lied by accusing me of deleting comments with opposing viewpoints. You also lied by claiming that I have not posted any data that you were not aware of. One of the stduies that I cited rebutted your argument that upper caste Hindus have not absorbed the genetics of lower caste and untouchable Hindus. The Sahoo et al. paper, most comprehensive on Indian Y chromosomes so far, also rebutted your claim to R1a being an “Aryan gene.” These are just some of the items that you were previously unaware of. You lied by claiming that you read the 2005 Rosenberg et al. paper prior to commenting on it, as explained shortly. In your latest comment, you have additionally lied by saying that like a virus, I have been dispelling the myth that “Indians have hooked noses.” I have made no such argument; I pointed out the higher frequency of hooked nose among the women that you have posted and Indians. Civilized and educated writers do not insult those responding to their posts if the responses are of any merit, and I tolerated your poor arguments for a long time before using insulting terminology, which your pathetic and retarded self fully deserves. Yes, in scientific gatherings, the credentials of the authors making the presentations are mentioned, but, unlike you, the authors do not rest their case on their credentials; they present evidence, and all of us can see just how “scientific” your evidence is. As to why you should have offered reasons in your very first comment within this thread to justify your claim of the unscientific nature of the entry, there are no arguments by authority; you cannot say that you are a scientist and have found the entry to lack scientific merit, and expect others to believe you. Contrary to your assertion that Peter Frost’s paper “did not offer any explanations,” the paper documented stronger sexual selection among Northern Europeans using molecular data, MC1R and Y data to be more precise. It also cited papers regarding the more feminine appearance of white women as in more feminine waist-to-hip ratios, etc. Stronger sexual selection would select for greater attractiveness. The paper cited makes an excellent case for my arguments. If you refuse to debate me because I am not a biologist, then debate Jonassen. Jonassen has already devasted the central tenets of your arguments. Where did you get the idea that I admitted to not being a scientist in the beginning but later tried to imply that I maybe one? If this is indeed the case, and it makes me a liar, thereby losing all credibility, then you have also lost all credibility because a bunch of your lies have been exposed. On the other hand, if your assertion is correct, then I would be a liar if I recently implied that I definitely am a scientist, but your assertion states that I have implied that I maybe one. This maybe, not definitively, makes me a liar. However, your assertion is incorrect. I have implied that I have sufficient scientific knowledge, not that I am a scientist. I alluded to some people being self-taught; I am one. Am I trying to wiggle out in reference to your absurdity concerning Turkey? No, you are the one doing so by avoiding my pointers. In response to my using European in a racial sense, you asked what millennium I am living in. In the current one. See the papers by Rosenberg et al. and others that I cited. A European race is revealed by state of the art evidence, but your assertion of a Caucasoid race inclusive of South Asians is without evidence. Okay, a grad student may still be a college student, but how do you know that it was definitely a grad student rather than a scientist that supplied the scientific arguments? And how do you know that I have been interpreting the scientific parts posted by other(s)? Why couldn’t I have been posting their interpretations? How can you be sure that I don’t have a scientist for a roommate or friend and he/she writes all the scientific part? So my “interpretations” show that I have no understanding of biology? This is coming from someone who has been labeled a charlatan by a scientist (Jonassen)! Do you seriously believe that Jonassen or any other scientist would get the impression that you are a scientist? Ha, ha, ha… Did you really read the 2005 paper by Rosenberg et al. prior to commenting on it? If so, then how come your criticism of it was lifted off of another site and actually described the shortcomings of their 2002 paper, all of which had been rectified in the new paper? Clicking leads to linking? Retard, clicking on the text file will display it in your browser, just like a webpage. This is not what one calls linking; linking is to highlight the word(s) that when clicked will lead to the requested file, which is what I have already done. Your assertion was that no one would link to the text file. I pointed out that the reader does not need to link to it, but just click on it in order to read it. Using the F-word is not an indicator of class; this word knows no class barriers. You deserve the uncensored F-word, but out of courtesy for other readers, I censored it. Go away, retard! 451
Posted by Jack on Fri, 11 Aug 2006 15:40 | # What do you all think of Nicole Kidman, especially back in the day when she was a stunning red head with alabaster skin? 452
Posted by ben kingsley on Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:17 | # J. Richards is an incredibly immature individual, quite obviously emotionally bunged-up. One might even call him a retard. LOL! 453
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:35 | # I’ve never been a fan of Nicole Kidman’s, whether of her particular looks, her personality, or her acting talent (or her taste in men, for that matter—after her and Tom Cruise’s divorce she was for a time the girlfriend of a Negro rap singer and complete asshole, Lenny Kravitz). However, in general—completely apart from Nicole Kidman, whom I happen to dislike—I find red hair utterly ravishing, I adore the alabaster skin of white women, and I greet expressions by white men of a preference for tanned skin in women with a very, very, very big yawwwwwnnnn. 454
Posted by Rheingold on Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:46 | # Yeah, it’s clear to me now that he’s a racist asshat. In my country we have the same thing - trailer trash who think they’re the racial top of the heap. Using code words like “White/Southern heritage” or whatever. The sad truth is most Southern/Midwestern White women are pasty-faced fatsos. The average white woman comes nowhere close to looking like the beauty models that have been posted here. Meanwhile, J. Richards et al. compare those faces to deliberately selected pictures of quite average or subaverage non-Whites, or the most unattractive pictures of non-White models they can find. Can you say - double standard? There’s a reason these racialists have to use aggrieved and victimized language like “majority rights” - the same reason they obsess over the beauty of their own women. Let’s just say they have a lot to compensate for. If you asked me what the most attractive group of women were, I’d say Jews. I can’t wait for Richards to start to “deconstruct” the beauty of Susanna Hoffs or Natalie Portman. Let me give him a head start: “These dirty Kikes all have hooked noses and manly faces, unlike the master race…” etc. I’m sure he can continue from there. 455
Posted by Rheingold on Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:54 | # Susanna Hoffs, filthy Jewess:
Natalie Portman, hooked-nose atrocity:
456
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:33 | # I don’t think a comment like Rheindross’s, consisting exclusively of strawmen, is worth the electrons required to rebut it. Rheindross, when you decide to actually address the issues instead of inventing a series of strawmen in commentary liberally laced with standard-issue radical-leftist anti-racist drivel, let us know, OK? Until then, you’re boring everyone to fricking death. Now run along. 457
Posted by Rheingold on Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:49 | # The comment was directed at Richards, not you. I do seriously want to see how he can puzzle it out that these women, being non-Blonde non-Nordics, must automatically be ugly. As for strawman - true but only in the sense that it was an unnecessary argument, the views of your readers on Jews being already all too clear: The use of derogatory slurs like Kike and Jewess, intended sardonically, turned out to have hit a bit too close to home, I guess, as you can find them & other racist trash all over this site. I had no idea that being “anti-racist” is a “radical-leftist” stand - I am a staunch conservative. However I guess in the company of racists every outsider is a leftist. By the way, do you know the provenance of my name, or are you just ignorant? 458
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 11 Aug 2006 23:15 | # Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz….................... 459
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 11 Aug 2006 23:33 | # Andrew Smyth, This entry does not address the Chinese, though I may address East Asian women in more detail later. I have not argued that the blondes shown are the best looking. In most of the comparisons, all I needed to do was to come up with a better looking Northern European, not a woman who is among the best looking white women. I agree that some Indian women look good, but I do not personally know of any white man who would prefer an Indian woman to an attractive Nordic woman. —————— Jack, Nicole Kidman has a slender, not very feminine physique. Judging her face is a different matter since she is a plastic surgery junky. Her face qualifies as fine facial featured, but not that feminine. —————— Rheingold, Agent provocateurs are not welcome here. If you cannot come up with a reasonable rebuttal, you should bow out of the discussion rather than come up with straw men. Nowhere have I argued that non-blonde and non-Nordic equals ugly or for that matter blonde Nordic equals attractive. When it come to comparing attractiveness, it is appropriate to compare the better looking people from different populations rather than people picked at random. Most people in any population will not be attractive. There are both negative and positive comments regarding Jews within this site. Some bloggers and regular commentators have often left comments favorable toward Jews, and one of our bloggers has repeatedly pointed out that he is an unwavering supporter of Israel. Time for you to do your homework prior to accusing us of being racist. Regarding the Indian women that I selected, in the original entry that started this thread, I compared the top finishers of the 2005 Miss India contest with the top finishers of the 2005 Miss USA contest, a comparison that by design is in favor of Indians because it is highly unlikely that they have to deal with the political correctness than Miss USA has to put up with. The other set of comparisons picked Hindu actresses known to play romantic roles, thereby being selected for beauty by Indian standards. The majority of the comparisons occur in the comments thread and use women pointed out by the South Asian “Malcolm A.” I have provided enough clear pictures where gross face shape variables can easily be compared, which rebut the charge that make up or pose make a significant contribution to the more unattractive appearance of the Indian women. 461
Posted by collander on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 02:22 | # interesting site. what is race?? according to the scientific evolution theory we all came from monkeys, if we are religious we believe that we have derived from one tribe into many. You can either believe in science or religion, either way there is no such thing as race. Also from my understanding nordics are from northern europe? northern europe encompasses 5 countries, they are Finland, Denmark, 462
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 06:59 | # Collander, No such thing as race? Read this. Nordic as used here means pertaining to Northern Europe, not just Scandinavia. Therefore, England, Scotland, Netherlands, Northern Germany, Estonia and other parts of Northern Europe are included. 463
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 10:07 | # Collander apparently got his name because all useful material, common sense, and things that are obvious facts run right out of his brain like water through a seive. But his college teachers must certainly be proud of him: the one thing that hasn’t leaked straight out of his brain is the standard array of Jewish-invented-and-pushed “there are no such things as races” sophistries—he’s got those down pat. Bottom line? Collander’s not worth debating. To be worth debating around here you have to have honesty, respect for truth, an IQ that actually gets out of the double digits, and two functioning eyes in your head. Sorry, Collander: you just don’t make the grade on any criteria. Oh, and I almost forgot—the eyes have to line up with the holes in your face or, as the Froggies say, tu dois avoir des yeux qui sont en face des trous. If you haven’t got all that, Collander, I’m afraid you’re not worth anyone’s time. Certainly not mine! Bye, and have a nice day! 464
Posted by meanie on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:14 | # gawd, u guys are lifeless….seriously go get laid…whether u r indian or nordic, hooked nose or not!! next thing we’ll see is which creature is better…human or animal…as long as we have shallow humans like ya’ll i give myself d benefit of the doubt that this wouldnt happen!! you white dudes, dont always think you race is superior, coz we humans have the same blood running through our veins. i know animals have blood too but if one human gets into an accident, an animal cant donate blood to the human rite? i know you indian people are defending for you honour but at the end of the day do you think its worth it? as long as you guys keep on going on about this, the white people will have a reason to put your religion down, dont give them this opportunity, this doesnt make you weak, only stronger!! because fighting ignorant people who dont know any better isnt a sign of strength. at the end of the day i’m not saying one race is better than the other but for ya’ll to come up with a site to pinpoint the other races’ weaknesses only to prover yours is superior, i guess you better start questioning you races’s credibility!! coz sounds to me like you belong to the weaker race!! 465
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 13 Aug 2006 03:28 | # Meanie, We share most of our genes with monkeys, yet this does mean that there are not some important differences between humans and monkeys. If you needed a bone marrow transplant or equivalent, your best bet would be a same-race individual. Learn about racial reality. We didn’t come up with this site to prove our superiority by pointing out the shortcomings of our other races. This site has been set up to make the case that like non-whites, whites also have the right to maintain their culture and ensure their prosperity. Toward this purpose, it is sometimes necessary to point out the undesirability—from the perspective of whites—of whites acquiring some elements characteristic of non-whites. The latter is not supremacism. 466
Posted by felicia on Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:56 | # hey can i see more pics of indian stars and nordics next to them ? 467
Posted by Harry Leary on Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:47 | # I’ve never heard such uninformed thought. Firstly as a geneticist, I can tell you that variation (or a better term, adaptation) in a gene pool is primarily a product of the physical environmental (geographical) surroundings of that gene pool resides in & secondary, the social (selective) pressures that exist. Social selectivity affords a preference to physical attraction that may exist in that geography, & may not reflect those views held by other gene pools isolated by geographical location. In the case of India genetic Vedic Aryans only cover the North Western regions of India, being Punjab, Haryana & Himachal Pradesh. This region is surrounded by states which in the main mixed race Dravidians, Scythians are prevalent. It is important to remember that Vedic Aryans developed the Rig Veda here which was the precursor to the Vedic development of caste based on racial grounds. It is fair to say then that people of the Vedic region will have similar characteristics (more in common) to those of Teutonic, Nordic or Romanic Aryans. This is backed by the prevalence of Sanskrit in all these regions. The Vedic region of India still has social & physical preference for Vedic features, physique & colour over those of Dravidian, Scythian or a mix thereof. However, this is not to say that the Indo-European group of Aryans are one ethnicity rather that at some stage of history these peoples shared the same socio-geographical location & as such had mixing of their gene pools. Further adaptation from socio-geographical isolation then brought visible differentiators between these Aryan groups. Today with more mobile migrations taking place, a populations gene pool becomes further mixed. The world is truly becoming a smaller place. All this being said I am not racist. Every population’s gene pool becomes further integrated as their size increases. This I can confidently say is necessary in order for humanity to adapt to changes in environment. History has shown that specialisation has lead to the extinction of many a species. Accept differences in race, be proud of yours if you will, but don’t fear others, life is too short, mankind is after all one species stemming from one race. In terms of this blog, the wise old saying ‘beauty being in the eye of the beholder’ rings home! 468
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:25 | # Felicia, The Hindu “Malcolm A” stopped posting links to pictures of attractive Indian women, and hence I stopped posting comparisons, but if you want to see some more comparisons you should suggest some newer attractive Indian women. I have been mulling addressing Indian beauty queens. Malcolm has repeatedly pointed out the success of Indian women in beauty pageants as proof of their superior attractiveness and even claimed that the judges find them to be fine featured enough to place well in the contests. Perhaps I should find pictures of the top-ranked Indian beauty queens from 1990 onward and see just how fine featured they are. ————————- Harry Leary, You may be a geneticist, though I see no evidence of this in your comment. What does the source of general genetic variability in a population have to do with this entry? However, the variability of the MC1R locus is important to this entry, and it is clear from the cited evidence that the unusual amount of diversity at this locus in Europeans has risen rapidly, ruling out random genetic drift, and it has been selected for via sexual selection rather than natural selection. The Vedic Aryans are nowhere to be found in India; their legacy is what is found in India, and the genetic legacy is most evident in the Northwestern part, but the present inhabitants in this region are excessively admixed with non-European alleles and cannot be considered Vedic Aryans or similar to Nordic whites or even whites in general in facial features and a number of other attributes. I doubt that the Rig Veda was developed in India; the Aryans most likely brought the basic Rig Vedic beliefs with them and added on to them while in India. Of course people in Northwestern India prefer lighter skin and more Caucasoid facial features, but so do Indians in general. Nobody here is implying that the Indo-European people all represented the same ethnicity. However, the inhabitants of Northwestern India, even the upper caste Hindus, have absorbed a lot of non-European genetic material, and are outside the race of the European descendents of the original Indo-European people. Race mixing is not necessary for the prosperity of species. Most of the variability in the human species is found within populations, and for high IQ populations such as Northeast Asians and whites, absorbing the darker races can only mean diminished capability of sustaining modern civilization. Large scale migration of non-whites into Western nations has been taking place for a while, but this cannot continue for long. This migration is asymmetric, and nations with a large and increasing proportion of non-whites will decline rapidly, on the order of decades, prompting a white backlash that will save many Western nations from being destroyed by non-whites. 469
Posted by Venom on Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:12 | # No offense, but those blondes posted on the first page are UGLY… Some of the Asian chicks posted look good, though. 470
Posted by Harry Leary on Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:59 | # J Richards, You seem to be aggravated, why? “Most of the variability in the human species is found within populations”....ever heard of cystic fibrosis (whites), sickle cell anaemia (black) amongst ethnicities? “and for high IQ populations such as Northeast Asians and whites”....even I know that base 10 mathematics (concept of zero) & decimalisation was developed within the ‘subcon’ region. This is an extraordinary leap of mathematical intelligence, unmatched thus far. Your argument does not hold up. Anyone can quote so called scientific statistics & theory, but they must be verifiable & accepted by your peers or they remain just that, theory! You may wish to distort truth to better fit your perceived inadequacies, but I don’t need to. That’s the beauty of truth, it forever remains truth! I was hoping to have reasoned debate here about genuine social concerns, better look elsewhere. Thanks for the entertainment. 471
Posted by Kick Your Ass on Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:55 | # You forgot to mention that Blond women have no brain and Indian women have that.. What do this white asssss think.. 472
Posted by Inés on Sat, 19 Aug 2006 08:48 | # I am a first time visitor to this site and I am shocked to see that these discussions are actually taking place in 2006. In Europe, this kind of rubbish would not exist.
I am from Spain and I have been to the US on various occasions and have had the misfortune of meeting several wannabe Americans like you. Europeans can see through your deep-set insecurity of wanting to desperately hang on to your now-non-existent European past. Sorry to say, but just because you are white-skinned it does not make you in the least bit European. You are about as European as McDonalds and Coke. Americans in general are known as trash in my country and we usually dodge them on the street when they come towards us in their horrendous accent asking for directions. In America you are probably upper-class right wing elite, but in Europe your kind of people are regarded as trash and as fascists who we do not allot breathing space in our midst. Also, I would like to say that the Indian woman you have presented on this site are far superior looking than the nordic ones. Another well known fact is that Indians are more intelligent than Americans and perform exceptionally well in the communities they live in. While I was in New York I met Indians who were at the top of their fields. Most of them are very well off financially and according to internet search 1 out of 9 Indian in the US is a millionaire. Richest families in UK and Europe’s richest man – all Indian. In Spain there are not many Indians (except in Canary Islands) but those who are here are well established business families. We have more Pakistani and Bangladesh immigrants in cities (would have preferred more Indian) but unlike the Latino, Morroccan, Russian (who engage in robbing and crime) these two groups are timid and go about their business peacefully. However, coming back to your point about the “inferiority” of non nordic races, you are terribly mistaken. What has Scandinavia contributed to our world? Not even a fraction of Western culture perhaps. Greeks are the fathers of European culture and there cannot be any dispute to that. Also, the Europeans are not one race. “White” is not one race. Nordics are one people, southern European are completely different. We are blended in with Arab and Jewish ties and the gypsies bring their own ethnic diversity into our country. Thus I thank the diversity of my land and would not ever want to live in a “blond only” country, it would be far too dull. And please don’t tell me that nordic women are superior to southern European because that is a whole lot of crap that no one buys. Blond was out a long time ago. The beautiful women in my country do not dye their hair blond, but shades of brunette. The women in my country, me included, we pierce our nose, Indian style. We like to wear colourful clothes, not black or gray. Our hope for our lifetime is not to visit the US, but to visit India and the East. I advise you before making your demented posts please think. If you have a brain, it would be good to use it once in a while. 473
Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:43 | # Hi Jonassen aka JR,
Whatever the methods used to arrive at the clusters, the degree of association of these clusters is analyzed using correlation coefficients, which indicate the degree of association between closely linked groups. Comprehende?
Huh? As I said, if you wanna establish that Nordics and Indians are DIFFERENT the tool to use would be ANOVA of a number of emperical characteristics that can be measured such as facial features etc., in a factorial design. As there are no such differences between these two groups nobody can provide such research data.
Harihara et al. have not proved any such significant differences.
JR, who are you trying to kid? I know Jonnasen and you are the same. I know this from the degree of ignorance that you have displayed here. When I asked for ANOVA I was referring to quantitative measurements such as skull, bone and skeletal etc. The use of genetic data, such as SNP markers, microsatellites etc. , that lead to classification into haplogroups depend on cluster analysis mainly due to the fact that these are qualitative more than quantitative.
The significant differences you are talking about pertain to the correlation coefficients themselves and not to the groups per se.
Comment on the race issue
Just use common sense. Look at the Africans, the Orientals, and the Caucasians and you will know that there are three major groups without any of your scientific mumbo-jumbo.
I’m not shifting around anything. The main debate is about whether Indians and Nordics fall under one racial group ; the Caucasoids. The more than 3 races debate is just a side issue. If you can’t even see that, then your scientific thinking is not worth anything.
This is old hat anyways, and further historical aspects confirm the three race theory ( Coon et al. etc.)
The races are not mainly classified based on the criterion of color as you are trying to imply. Continued below 474
Posted by On Holliday on Sat, 19 Aug 2006 17:59 | # “Americans in general are known as trash in my country and we usually dodge them on the street when they come towards us in their horrendous accent asking for directions.” That’s fine. Why do you visit the USA, by the way? Maybe *we* do not want *you* in our country, asking for directions in a horrendous accent. “In America you are probably upper-class right wing elite, but in Europe your kind of people are regarded as trash and as fascists who we do not allot breathing space in our midst.” Well, gee, if only the Europeans would have the same opinion toward non-white immigrants, they wouldn’t find themselves being demographically replaced in their own homelands, idiot. Let’s see: Americans of European descent, who discuss racial issues on the internet are “trash”, non-whites who plant bombs on trains, or who fill Spanish cities with criminal gangs, are A-OK. 475
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:35 | # Harry Leary, You are the one who is the source of unreason. You ridicule my assertion about the majority of genetic variation in humans being found within populations by citing two examples of single-gene disorders! I did not say that all genetic variation is within populations. India has made some contributions to math, but as you have acknowledged, some whites migrated to the region thousands of years ago. So how can you be sure that the contributions that you have mentioned were not the product of white or near-white people in India? Now that the indigenous natives of India are non-white, what is their contribution to math? Geniuses such as A.K. Ramanujan fewer than the number of fingers in an individual and zero Field medals in spite of a billion-plus people. Even black Africa produces some people with 125-plus IQs, good enough for advanced scientific work. However, this does not undermine the fact that their average IQ is in the mentally retarded range. The IQ of South Asians has been addressed at length within this thread, and it is clear that it is below the threshold required to maintain a First World nation. As far as the scientific papers that I have cited go, their contents can easily be verified; just read them; and, they have been taken from peer-reviewed journals, i.e., the data in these papers have met the requirements of peer acceptance. —————— Inés, The brainchild behind this site, Guessedworker, is an Englishman, and no less European than you are. Many contributors to this site are also based in Europe. Therefore, your anti-American rant is misplaced. The only thing uniquely American about this site is that it is hosted in the U.S., thanks to the anti-free speech beliefs that you and many powerful people in Europe harbor. I am well aware that Americans are disliked by several Europeans and for two main reasons. The major reason is American foreign policy and the minor reason is the greater religiosity of Americans, which is objectionable to only the less religious European populations. American foreign policy has long being hijacked by a minority ethnic group that is hostile to Western interests and one that should never have been let into the U.S. It is hardly reasonable to dislike white Americans in general because of the behavior of this alien minority. East Indians are more intelligent than American whites? East Indian IQ has been extensively addressed within this thread. In his latest review of the global distribution of average IQ, Richard Lynn has documented that American whites have a somewhat higher IQ than most white populations and are second to no European white population. The average white IQ is 15-20 points higher than the average East Indian IQ. East Indians living in the U.S. are atypical of East Indians with respect to education. What has Scandinavia contributed to our world? Before I address this, I would like to say that I do not wish to foment any discord among Europeans, but some facts cannot be denied. Scandinavian nations, at about half the number of Nordic whites compared to Spaniards, have won many times the number of Nobel Prizes in science compared to Spain (also Greece). Northern Europeans have been largely responsible for modern civilization. The Greek issue has come up previously. In brief, anti-Nordicist J. Lawrence Angel attempted to refute Nordicist beliefs regarding the achievements of classical Greece by studying ancient Greek skeletons. He surely wasn’t pleased to find out that about one-fourth of the inhabitants of classical Greece were Nordic whites as in similar to Anglo-Saxons and equivalent Frankish tribes. We do know that the intellectual achievements of classical Greece were overwhelmingly the products of the aristocracy, and the aristocracy was disproportionately Nordic. Read this thread for more on J. Lawrence Angel. For your information, there are no “blond only” nations. The beautiful women in Spain who dye their hair some shade of brown are probably black haired. These women would generally look very fake if they attempted to dye their hair blonde. On the other hand, many brunettes dye their hair blonde. Why is this so if blonde is passé? On a more serious note, it is time for you to rethink diversity. You do acknowledge a great deal of diversity among Europeans; this diversity is fine, but large scale addition of non-European elements is not needed and would be disastrous. 476
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 19 Aug 2006 23:01 | # Malcolm A, Enough is enough! I do not know anyone named Jonassen. I will let Jonassen take care of your latest comment and will respond in detail only if he/she doesn’t respond. However, you have yet again posted absurdities that have been previously refuted, and I will address the parts of your comment where you respond to Jonassen citing my data. You wrote, “As there are no such differences [regarding facial features] between these two groups [Nordics and Indians] nobody can provide such research data.” This is so ignorant that it needs no comment. Only a retarded [non-white] subcon would believe that South Asians have the facial features of Nordics, minus the white skin. You have forced me to repeat what I posted on the nose a while ago, something that you completely ignored, and this passage also refutes your contention that Hanihara’s paper on facial flatness did not prove any statistically significant differences. The passage is:
You have again referred to the Caucasoid race, inclusive of East Indians, when your only scientific source in support of this notion, Cavalli-Sforza, doesn’t believe in biological races. You also referred to Coon in reference to historical aspects confirming the three race theory when in reality Coon proposed 5 races and there never was any widespread belief in three races only. This is getting ridiculous. So let me make it clear that since you left your latest comment as “continued below,” I will let you complete your response, but if your comments contain any more repetitions of your refuted ideas, ignoring of previously cited data or piss-poor arguments that you attempt to pass off as science, you will not be commenting here anymore. Since you have stated that liars lose all credibility, and you have been caught lying on several occasions, I have no qualms about deleting your arguments, and I won’t bother archiving them now. 477
Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 19 Aug 2006 23:59 | # Hi Jonassen/JR,
You can talk till kingdom come, but the fact that Cavalli-Sforza clustered Indians and the Nordics under one taxonomical group, be it Caucasoid or Marsoid clearly indicates that Indians and Nordics are closer to eachother than all other human groups. Your contention that Caucasoid is a not a race or subrace etc. does not matter as it is clear that these two groups share a common major group, as opposed to others such as Mongoloids and Negroids etc.
Your first para went on and on about the fact that scientists have argued against human races. Then in your last para you went on to say that race is an accepted scientific concept at present. Therefore, your first para becomes irrelevant.
The rather silly statement “Statistical averaging of human face shapes will reveal facial features shifted toward black, East Asian and aboriginal norms compared to Northern European norms,” implies that Northern European women are somehow more beautiful than those whose facial features have shifted towards blacks and East Asians etc. That is your own racist belief, but there is no evidence supporting that Northern European women are somehow more beautiful than the others in general.
This is all your personal opinion. That is why people have panels of judges. Having a panel of judges cancels out individual preferences such as racial bias, prejudice etc. In other words it is a majority decision that over rules personal preferences.
In beauty contests they do compare women side by side. The comparisons here comprise of a very small sample of beauties. Do not put words in my mouth. By my own reasoning Northern European women are edged out by the marginal admixture bringing input from other racial groups that makes Indians, latinos etc. much more prettier and attractive.
Sure, ... you are not JR! And I’m not Malcolm A. Take Care 478
Posted by Malcolm A on Sun, 20 Aug 2006 00:08 | # Hi JR/ Jonassen
So because you thought my arguements were pathetic and didn’t care for them, you felt that it would be appropriate to insult me? Talk about decency
Moron sounds rather lame compared to F-ing retard, doesn’t it now? I was forced to call you a moron in self-defense, because that’s what you looked like when you started using foul language on your own thread. Moron is not a curse word.
You will become a liar if you are trying to change your earlier comment that you weren’t a scientist. Then you ask me how was it that you were able to find, decipher and interpret advanced scientific papers, if you weren’t a scientist. Which tells me that you are now implying that you might be one.
Don’t waste time going in circles. Civilized and educated writers will not stoop to insulting any one, for any reason, period.
How can a non-scientist, like yourself, judge how “scientific” my evidence is.
Who argued by authority? I have cited more than a few key, relevant papers that would have cleared up the confusion in your head about beauty. As I said before, it’s not the quantity but the quality and relevance of the papers that matter. The sexual selection explanation does not apply outside the Northern European group. There was sexual selection among all human races, as beauty is a universal trait.
Sure, sure. Where was this guy hiding all this time?
If your are not a scientist, then this whole debate is moot.
Turkey is as Turkey does.
I know more about Rosenberg than you ever will.
Because interpretation is what you have been doing all this time. Go back and read your own posts.
Getting desperate are we?
I did not lift off anything. That site was posted openly to demonstrate to your stupidity that even other scientists don’t take Rosenberg’s interpretations as seriously as you do (meaning I’m not the only one).
If you just click on it, it will link you to the page where you have pasted it. Got it now?
Using the F-word is actually an indicator of high class. Yeah, yeah you are a real classy guy for not using the uncensored F-word.
See what I mean? You are a classy guy! Take care. 479
Posted by Malcolm A on Sun, 20 Aug 2006 00:35 | # Enough is enough! I do not know anyone named Jonassen. I will let Jonassen take care of your latest comment and will respond in detail only if he/she doesn’t respond. However, you have yet again posted absurdities that have been previously refuted, and I will address the parts of your comment where you respond to Jonassen citing my data.
(1) I see that your college room-mate, grad student is confusing your brain beyond recovery level. Get a dose of this : (2) Here are some quotes from your great Hanihara study: (a) “even if you take the Punjab population, a light-skinned people that are genetically closer to Europeans than South Asians from other parts of India” (3) So, what does this study indicate? Do these differences in nose lengths indicate that North Europeans and Indians fall into different racial groups OR different subracial groups within one racial group? If you go back and read what I told you about clustering, the whale and the elephant have different facial structures but the whale is closer to the elephant than fishes. Therefore, it is an assortment of traits including physical, physiological, genetical and anatomical factors that have to be shown to be significantly different. I am sure your brother’s nose is significantly shorter than your nose, (because you are a big liar! Just kidding.) But, that doesn’t mean he is not your brother. Hanihara the Mongoloid, was making a pathetic attempt to show that the Mongloid classification was incorrect in order for him to get classified with the Caucasoids. And you seem to be falling into his trap. Read some more science papers before you start debating scientists. Take care 480
Posted by JJR Apologist on Sun, 20 Aug 2006 00:59 | # As a TPO, it’s clear that Malcolm A has been throughly thrashed (about half a year ago). It’s definitely time to delete his repetitive and content-less posts. 481
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 20 Aug 2006 01:15 | # Malcolm A, I will respond to your comments later, but you are outta here. 482
Posted by Inés on Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:51 | # 1. It doesn’t matter that the (hardly brain) child of this site is English. The english have sold their culture to the Americans and the mac donalds and have lost their European-ness a lot time ago.
483
Posted by Lilien on Sun, 20 Aug 2006 14:16 | # Just a minor correction… Aishwarya Rai does not wear contacts. 484
Posted by Lilien on Sun, 20 Aug 2006 14:26 | # And another thing… you guys need to get a life and stop worrying about which woman, Hindu or Nordic, is more attractive. You’ve managed to completely deviate from the topic of genetics and made fools of yourselves for I believe that if given the opportunity neither woman would choose you as a sexual partner. 485
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:09 | # Lilien, Aishwarya Rai’s eye color looks fake, and it is reasonable to conclude that she wears colored contacts, but I have no way of knowing for sure. I am sorry for the deviation from genetics. Free speech has its downside in the form of spam, but Malcolm will not be spamming this thread anymore. ———————- Inés, The English have not sold their culture to the Americans; don’t extrapolate Tony Blair’s pro-American stance with that of the English in general. It is the Americans that have been notably influenced by the English originally; what used to be an American in the past was a modified Englishman. McDonald’s has franchises in many nations, and its presence in England hardly suggests that the English have been subsumed by the Americans. If this site were about fascism, which is on record for being anti-free speech, then Malcolm and others of his ilk would have at most been able to leave a few comments, if at all, since fascists do not tolerate viewpoints that go against their own beliefs. Another way of looking at the issue is that there is a problem with tolerating the intolerant. To maintain freedom of speech in the West, it is imperative that immigration of people that do not support free speech, which would be most people from most cultures in the world, be minimized. Is this fascism? Nobel prizes are won by a handful of people, usually not from a destitute background, and it is a lame excuse to blame fewer Nobel prizes on some adversity affecting a large number of people. Spain has experienced lesser adversity than Germans have since the inception of the Nobel Prize: Versailles treaty, Nazis, mass killings and rapes by allied forces, massive reparations to Jews, and so on. However, Germany has won more Nobel prizes in science per capita than Spain, even of you exclude the Ashkenazim contributions. Your anti-American views are based on poor foundations. Americans are not stingy; there are plenty of philanthropists in the U.S., and the U.S. donates a lot of money/resources to poor nations. Many Americans are well aware of what is going around the world, but America has a large underclass, disproportionately comprising of blacks and Hispanics, and these people often do not care about what is going on in America, let alone other parts of the world. You mention the biased coverage of news in the mainstream American media, but most of these news sources as well as Hollywood are under the control of the same minority ethnic group that controls American foreign policy. It is especially remarkable that anyone could claim that Hollywood is giving people what they want to see! There is a strong demand for Christian-themed movies in the U.S., but the anti-Christian people who control Hollywood couldn’t be bothered fulfilling this demand, and they produce and promote instead mockeries of Christianity—e.g., The DaVinci Code. I have no idea where you got the grossly incorrect idea that beautiful American women go to bed on the first night; perhaps from Hollywood filth. Regarding the intellectual prowess of Indians, it is obvious that you have not carefully gone through this thread. The Muslim invaders initially exploited India, but they called India their home after a short amount of time. IQ studies show that West Asians, the Muslim types who went toward India, have somewhat higher IQs than Indian natives, i.e., you are not looking at a lower IQ people migrating toward India. Most Muslims in India today are the descendents of Hindus. As far as the British go, they gave India a democracy, set up a railways system, introduced the telegraph and helped industrialize India, among other positive contributions. I am not saying that there were no negative consequences of British rule, but IQ studies show that the average Indian IQ is below the threshold required for self-achieved industrialization. Therefore, India’s poor performance when it comes to Nobel Prizes and Field Medals per capita cannot be blamed upon the British or Muslims. The number of economically productive Indians, mostly the upper caste Hindus and other upper class people, exceed the number of Scandinavians by far, yet India does not even come close to the Scandinavians when it comes to top-notch intellectual achievements. I have previously pointed out that India’s economic rise in recent years has a lot to do with Western jobs being outsourced there, not some indigenous developments. As far as Indians dealing with the Muslims invaders went, no people would surrender to aliens without a fight. The Indians didn’t do anything out of the ordinary, and it was their disunity that prevented them from joining forces to successfully repel the Muslims invaders. You claim that 100 million Indians were killed by the Muslims. Most likely this is an exaggerated figure. Besides, you are mistaken about Alexander; Alexander conquered parts of northwestern South Asia with ease. He stopped and went back because his soldiers were getting tired of constant wars and they had strayed too far from home. Some blond women in the U.S. are known to dye their hair black (e.g., some into the gothic scene), but dark-to-light hair dyes are by far much more prevalent. Anyway, you have confirmed my statement than blonde hair coloring will not suit several Spanish women—it will look too unnatural. On the other hand, if one were to make a list of the most beautiful European women, whereas Northern Europeans will be overrepresented, there will be plenty of Spanish women in the list, and these Spanish women will mostly come from the white Spanish stock, not the Middle Eastern element in Spain. Therefore, you have one powerful reason to limit non-white immigration to Spain: you do not want the beauty of Spaniards to be compromised by the creeping in of non-white genetics into the Spaniard gene pool. I will be displaying no cowardice by not allowing Malcolm to comment here anymore. He has been commenting here for months, and for a quite a while his comments have constituted nothing but spam. To provide an analogy, consider your own response to what I said about classical Greece. The links that I provided will take you through skeletal evidence, historical evidence, evidence from busts, evidence from paintings, etc. Yet, all you do is ignore the evidence and dismiss my citations for no specified reasons other than my presumed vanity! Malcolm has repeatedly done this, and it is reasonable to get frustrated with such people. Malcolm has also indulged in a wide variety of sins with respect to reasoned debate, which is on record for anyone to see. He has misrepresented science and is clearly incapable of understanding modern genetics, advanced statistics and is unaware of basic physical anthropology. He has repeatedly ignored my asking him to prove his scientific credentials since he has made much of it, stick to citing scientific evidence, avoid arguments by authority, stop sneering at the presumed scientific incompetence of his opponents, and comply with other basic requirements for a scientific debate or leave, but he has not complied. He is also on record for saying that liars lose all credibility, and a bunch of his lies have been exposed. Allowing Malcolm to comment here anymore will only worsen this thread, and I don’t want this to happen. Regarding diversity, there is definitely such a thing as too much diversity. If Spain allows large scale migration of non-Europeans, you will end up with people having less in common with each other and increased ethnic conflict. India has a massive population, and it is not difficult to find tens of thousands of bright Indians. If you bring these bright Indians to the West, they will shine, but they will collude with each other to undermine the interests of native Spaniards and open the doors to mass immigration of their co-ethnics. Therefore, initially you will have a bright and productive minority, but as more people from this minority immigrate, the minority will regress to the mean in India, which is a low IQ, less free speech-respecting, more nepotistic and more corrupt people. Do you want this in Spain? Please rethink diversity. There is plenty of cultural and physical diversity of value that is indigenous to Europe, and it cannot be enriched by non-Europeans, only undermined instead. 486
Posted by Inés on Mon, 21 Aug 2006 10:59 | # Part I 487
Posted by Inés on Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:02 | # Part II <span lang=“EN” Trebuchet MS; color: black”>I have no idea where you got the grossly incorrect idea that beautiful American women go <span lang=“EN” Trebuchet MS; color: blue”>-<span “Times New Roman”“> <span lang=“EN” Trebuchet MS; color: blue”>-<span “Times New Roman”“> <span lang=“EN” Trebuchet MS; color: blue”>-<span “Times New Roman”“> <span lang=“EN” Trebuchet MS; color: blue”>-<span “Times New Roman”“> <span lang=“EN” Trebuchet MS; color: blue”>-<span “Times New Roman”“> <span lang=“EN” Trebuchet MS; color: blue”>-<span “Times New Roman”“> <span lang=“EN” Trebuchet MS; color: blue”>-<span “Times New Roman”“> <span lang=“EN” Trebuchet MS; color: blue”>-<span “Times New Roman”“> <span lang=“EN” Trebuchet MS; color: blue”>The Upanishads were a scientific collection of books with the Jyotisha on Astronomy and Astrology. The Kalpa explained rituals and legal matters, Siksha explained Phoenetics, Aitreya – Creation of Universe, Man and Evolotion, Chandogya – Reincarnation and Soul. The Dhanur Veda taught the Science of Archery and War. Yajur Veda taught Arithicmetic and Geometric Progression. The Mundaka taught Discipline, Faith and warning of Ignorance. The Sulba Sutra taught Knowlede of Mathematicas, Yoga Sutra taught Knowledge of Meditation, Kama Sutra – Knowledge of Love and Sex. </span> <span lang=“EN” Trebuchet MS; color: blue”>Many of these texts also contain detailed knowledge of anatomia, physiology, aetilogy, embroyology, digestion, metabolismo, genetica, and immunity.</span> <span lang=“EN” Trebuchet MS; color: blue”> </span> <span lang=“EN” Trebuchet MS; color: blue”>If this is not enough, more knowledge that originated in ancient India:</span> <span lang=“EN” Trebuchet MS; color: blue”>Madhavacharya discovered the Taylor series on Sine and Cosine functions about 250 years before Taylor and the power series for Pi about 300 years before Leibnitz.</span> <span lang=“EN” Trebuchet MS; color: blue”>Theory of continued fractions was discovered by Bhaskaracharya II. Govindaswami discovered Newton Gauss Interpolation formula 1800 years before Newton. </span> <span lang=“EN” Trebuchet MS; color: blue”>Positive and negative nummber calculations were first explained by Bhramagupta in his book Bhrahmasputa Siddhanta. Pythagorean theory discovered by Boudhayana in 6<sup>th</sup> <span lang=“EN” Trebuchet MS; color: blue”>Quadratic Equations were proponed by Sridhacharya in the 11<sup>th</sup> century, as well as Algebra, Trignometri and Calculus. <span lang=“EN” Trebuchet MS; color: blue”>Your point is entirely INVALID as discussed above.</span> <span lang=“EN” Trebuchet MS; color: blue”>In reponse to Besides, you are mistaken about Alexander; Alexander 488
Posted by Rheingold on Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:28 | # “American foreign policy has long being hijacked by a minority ethnic group that is hostile to Western interests and one that should never have been let into the U.S. It is hardly reasonable to dislike white Americans in general because of the behavior of this alien minority.” Ah, and now your own attitude to Jews comes to light at last? No doubt you are one of those who would like to conduct Mendelssohn with white gloves, and burn Isaac Stern cds? I suppose if the Greeks can be Nordicised in your revisionist history, making Albert Einstein a Swede and Jesus Christ a German would not be too far a leap for you? 489
Posted by Inés on Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:42 | # By the way, another hard fact for you: it has been estimated that the total amount of treasure that the British looted from India had already reached GBP 1.000.000.000 ( GBP 1 billion) by 1901. Taking into consideration interest rates and inflation, this would be worth more than GBP 1.000.000.000.000 (GBP 1 trillion) in real terms today.
One final message from my side: Do not EVER come to Europe. You Americans are NOT WELCOME HERE. You are the shit of the world, and you deserve that rotten land where you are. Also remember: as much as YOU WORSHIP US, WE HATE YOU just a little more than that. !! PUTOS FACHAS ¡¡¡¡¡ 490
Posted by Inés on Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:46 | # If there are any non-Fascists Americans, the above post was not intended for you. Above message was for people who run this page. Excuse the generalisation. 491
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 23 Aug 2006 02:43 | # Rheingold, When I talked about an ethnic minority in control of America’s foreign policy, I didn’t name it; you obviously clicked on the link and encountered an article, chock full of evidence, that named this minority. You accuse me of a bigoted viewpoint without bothering to address any of the evidence. Similarly, the links that I cited in reference to classical Greece will take you through skeletal evidence, paintings, busts, etc. in reference to significant Nordic presence in classic Greece and their contributions to the intellectual achievements of classical Greece. You ridicule this idea without addressing any of the evidence. Don’t comment here unless you are willing to address evidence. 492
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 23 Aug 2006 02:46 | # Inés, I can debate you, but you MUST read the entire thread prior to commenting. You have raised many points that have already been addressed. Like Malcolm, you give me no choice but to reiterate my rebuttal. Please understand that this is frustrating. Regarding science, we have a geneticist on board, JW Holliday, several of our readers have a background in science and molecular biologist I. Jonassen has left a couple of comments here, too. If the scientific literature that I have cited was inappropriate, misinterpreted and/or misrepresented, then these individuals would have pointed out the problems with my arguments. Therefore, do not question the scientific literature that I have cited unless you have objections on scientific grounds. Science cannot be completed avoided in this discussion, but it is easy to address what you call “established facts” without delving into a lot of science. Your claim that I have access to “white supremacist (fascist) databases with zero credibility, which is where you pull all your material from” (emphasis added) is easily undermined by the data from peer-reviewed journals that I have cited. Are you going to call them all white supremacist sources? You explain that England, Spain and some other nations have derived their wealth by exploiting others. This is a mistaken belief. There are equivalent white-built nations that are equally wealthy and have built their societies without colonizing other people. The English built an advanced and powerful society that allowed them to colonize several other nations; this advanced and powerful society was indigenously built; benefits derived from colonial societies added to England, but to argue that the exploitation of others has been responsible for English wealth is ridiculous. Regarding the capitalistic influence and weaker socialism in England, this does not represent an American influence; socialism never penetrated England like it did some Eastern European nations. An economic system in between extreme capitalism and extreme socialism, leaning more toward the capitalism end, is required to maintain a viable large middle class presence, and what you see in the U.S., minus some examples of corporate greed, is a natural system that any democracy would lean toward as long as socialists are not in power. The U.S. offers free care for pregnant women, welfare support, and social security for elderly individuals, though these systems are threatened by the increasing underclass. The U.S. also has a massive underclass that prevents any Sweden-style generous welfare program from being viable in the long run. For instance, the U.S. used to have a generous welfare program, but too many black women went on welfare, never sought work and had a lot of babies, making the black population soar, forcing welfare cuts in the 1990s. You are incorrect that “In the US, a dying person has to have sufficient amount of health insurance with the correct coverage in order to receive treatment.” Hospitals in the U.S. are required to provide emergency treatment to anyone irrespective of whether they have health insurance or money to pay for their treatment; poor people get free treatment. Socialized medicine has its downside in the form of delays in outpatient treatment and inferior health care services, and given the large underclass in the U.S., it is not viable here. In any case, poor people and illegal aliens get free emergency treatment in the U.S., and the well off have to indirectly pay for such treatment in terms of exorbitant costs for medical treatment. You call Ukraine, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic more European than England because they are more socialist. This is absurd. Since when has socialism been a yardstick for being European? The Nazis were socialists, but will you consider them to have been very European? England has a rapidly increasing non-white population, which in both percentage and absolute numbers is a lot larger than in the more “European” nations you identify. Ethnic heterogeneity, especially comprising of non-whites that are disproportionately on welfare and seen as public charges, is not conducive to strong support for a generous welfare policy, especially in a nation such as the U.S. Even the ethnically heterogeneous but overwhelmingly white nation of Switzerland does not have strong public support for a Sweden-style generous welfare system, undoubtedly due to its ethnic heterogeneity. In short, don’t give me ridiculous pointers about white English not being very European. You have pointed out some characteristics of fascism that supposedly characterize this site, except for the free speech issue. Let us see what you have addressed. Your first point is the glorification of the state and the subordination of the individual. Preservation of individual rights requires that immigration of people from nations that have lower respect for individual rights be minimized. The latter is not fascism. Besides, it is the leftists that are in favor of a powerful state that subordinates individuals; read about the nature of leftism (here and here). We are not leftists. It is completely reasonable rather than fascist that people who are incapable of maintaining a First World Society, disdainful of and hostile toward Western culture, culturally inassimilable or likely to become public charges be kept of the West. Then you mention fascist aggressive militarism. What aggressiveness and hate have this site’s bloggers put forth? Then you mention fascist elitism. You accuse us of harboring supremacist beliefs yet do not refute any documented evidence that portrays whites in a better light than non-whites. On the other hand, were the socialist non-elitist? The National socialists a.k.a. Nazis surely held elitist viewpoints. History abundantly documents racist beliefs held by leftists (see here and here). We reject reason like the fascists do? Why do we allow the public to comment on our entries since we should have reason to fear that some commentators will use reason to debate us? Why have I bothered to cite evidence from peer-reviewed journals? You accuse us of being sexist like other fascists because the bloggers are male. The charge of sexism will hold only if men and women that happened to be equally competent were considered for being contributors but the women were rejected. However, no such thing has happened. We have not come across women volunteers. Are we like fascists building up a patriotic frenzy to eliminate a perceived threat – “racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists”? This site is not about patriotism; it is about cultural and racial issues that whites should be aware of in order to ensure the prosperity of their descendents. We inform and recommend; we don’t incite people to socially unacceptable behaviors. Are we obsessed over national security and fear like the fascists? If a ship is sinking and the powers that be ignore it, then it behooves the reasonable to point it out; the latter is not obsession. You acknowledge that the Muslims are dangerous, but they are the not the only source of the problem. In the U.S., there is a large and rapidly increasing illegal Hispanic population with an average IQ of 89. Should this not be a reason for concern? Since 1965, tens of millions of people, mostly non-white, have immigrated to the U.S., and a large number of these non-whites are hostile toward whites. Many American manufacturing jobs have been outsourced and many white collar jobs in the U.S. are in the process of being outsourced. Are these not reasons for concern? Why should whites allow themselves to become a minority in a First World nation that they built? Why should we not be concerned about the leftists that have unleashed insane immigration policies and affirmative action upon us? Should we not be concerned that American foreign policy is under the control of Zionists that are hostile to American interests, have gotten America involved in wars for Jewish causes and at great costs, have made the world hate the U.S. and prompted Muslim terrorists to attack us, as in the 9/11 attacks? We are not obsessives; we are sane people in favor of sanity in politics. You accuse us of wanting to establish Christianity as a dominating world religion. This is remarkable! Guessedworker (brainchild, site owner, admin) and I (admin) are not Christian. Our most prolific blogger, John Ray, is an atheist. Easily half of the regulars here are not Christian or even nominally religious, and some are hostile toward Christianity. In short, none of the characteristics of fascists that you have specified characterize us. 493
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:01 | # Inés, No such thing as number of Nobel Prizes per capita? Huh? All one needs to do is to divide the number of prizes by the population size to assess intellectual competence of a population. You make much of abuse and plunder to explain India’s poor intellectual achievements in recent history. Guess what? Many European nations have a history of devastation, too. I mentioned the example of devastations in Germany in the 20th century, which you have lamely tried to explain away. Spain did suffer like other Western nations during the World Wars, but no Western nation suffered like Germany did: once again, economic ruin thanks to the Versailles treaty, Nazis, huge number of civilians killed by the allied forces (e.g., Dresden), massive reparations to Jews, and so on. Prior to the 20th century, Germany experienced many catastrophes, including the 30 years war, which killed a third of Germans and destroyed Germany’s infrastructure, yet Germany today is the economic engine of Europe and has produced a staggering number of Nobel Prize winners, even if the Ashkenazim are excluded. How is this possible? Even if we assume that Spain and Germany equally suffered in the 20th century, Germany still beats Spain in intellectual achievements hands down. Don’t try to explain this in terms of most Spaniards being too busy trying to make ends meet; this has been true of most people in Germany for quite a while. Germany is not the only nation to have a history of being devastated. The Nordic nations have a long history of fighting and killing each other, too. However, devastated whites rebuild their societies and remain at the forefront of civilizational achievement. Similarly, the Japanese have built a First World nation out of a resource-poor nation whereas resource-rich nations in sub-Saharan Africa remain destitute. It did not take the Japanese long to recover from the devastation of World War II. Why is this so? I have to reiterate my point that the number of economically productive people in India, mostly upper caste and equivalent individuals, easily exceed the population of Scandinavia, and India has been free of British rule for over half a century now, but where are the large number of mind boggling intellectual achievements of Indians in the past half century to rival that of the Scandinavians or the Japanese? I have previously cited a massive literature review of IQ studies from around the world, published in a peer-reviewed journal, and the Indian IQ studies have been conducted by Indians and adjusted for the Flynn effect. In this study, the correlation between predominant skin color of indigenous populations and average population IQ was -0.92, which is close to a prefect correlation of -1.0. In other words, the darker the population, the dumber it is. This is seen on a global basis. Why should India be an exception to this rule? The results of this study are validated by cranial size measurements as a function of distance from the equator and GDP per capita as a function of average IQ. There are also numerous biological correlates of IQ. Therefore, the abysmally low average IQ of India is supported by a large amount of evidence. The aforementioned link also shows the average IQ of Muslim nations from West Asia and the Middle East to be a little higher than that of India. It is interesting that whereas you have cited some sources for your claims about India, you cited no source for the listed intellectual achievements of ancient India, but then you simply have lifted Hindu Propaganda left at plenty of sites with no supporting citations. If you had read this thread properly, you would have encountered your list plus more, posted by two Indians already, and several of the claims have been debunked. It is very frustrating to encounter the same arguments when they have already been debunked. To start with, there has been much talk of Aryan migrations toward India within this thread. If your list of ancient Indian achievements is true, then how can we be sure that dark Indians rather than white Aryans or near-white people were responsible for the achievements? A brief examination of the intellectual achievements of ancient Indians should suffice.
Should I bother verifying every one of your claims? I don’t think it is worth it. If you want a debate based on “established fact,” then why do you cite such piss-poor Hindu propaganda? I will repeat again, yes, people in ancient India did produce some noteworthy intellectual achievements, but it has not been proven that these were the dark inhabitants of India, and this does nothing to undermine massive evidence that the average Indian IQ today is below the threshold required to maintain a First World nation. I went through the thread you cited in reference to my assertion that the British benefited India in many ways. It is clear from the thread that the American, Iwarmonger, is better informed than the Indian, Monk, and has provided better arguments that prove my assertion. Monk operates under the following assumption (his passage):
This claim is clearly false, as the brief discussion of Hindu propaganda shows. The fact is that India could not have industrialized itself to compete with the Europeans, as assessed by IQ studies, the global picture of the correlation between predominant population skin color and IQ, the impressive correlation between GDP and average population IQ, and the achievements of similarly dark nations in the long term. Monk suggests that India could have bought industrial equipment to compete with the Europeans when industrialization started occurring given that it was resource-rich, but if parts of the world are industrializing, then the advantage is with the population(s) responsible for the inventions and innovations leading to industrialization, and these populations will always be one step ahead, indeed ensure that they remain a step ahead, of nations that they are trading with or selling technology to. As already pointed above, economic productivity is only partly related to natural resources, as the success of resource-poor Japan and failure of resource-rich African nations shows. You have also argued that the British looted the current equivalent of 1 trillion pounds from India! Citation? How can you believe this absurdity? To sum up, the British gave to India 1) its political system, a democracy that India wasn’t headed toward; 2) infrastructure for industrialized production, helping it enter the industrialized world system of trade; 3) modern education, including the concept of a nation state and nationalism, which gave the elite enough knowhow to run a democracy and maintain whatever industrial production the nation is capable of; and 4) political unity, i.e., fewer nation states in the South Asian subcontinent than what would have been otherwise; fewer nation states reducing the likelihood of internecine warfare and barriers to trade between geographic regions, as well as helping pool the intellectual capital from a broad region. Iwarmonger states that the aforementioned benefits were incidental. Indeed, the British were motivated by personal gain and would not harm themselves to benefit India, but regardless of their intentions, what happened was that they benefited India in many ways, and overall benefited it more than harmed it. On the other hand, the British did intervene to abolish heinous practices such as widow burning in India (suttee), i.e., some of their actions were intended to help Indians. In other words, the behavior of the British wasn’t callous and hell-bent on exploiting the people, and nobody can be justified in blaming colonialism for India’s intellectual shortcomings in recent centuries. Monk goes on to blame the British for some ills of the present state of affairs in India, but a closer examination will reveal all these problems to be indigenous, and reflective of an inherently more nepotistic, crime-prone and low IQ people. You have cited Koenraad Elst in reference to your claim that Muslims killed 100 million Hindus. Elst’s writings reveal numerous historical errors and it is obvious that he is a propagandist for Hindu supremacism, i.e., one should approach his arguments with skepticism. He himself cites an estimate by K. S. Lal for the 100 million figure, which I am positive would turn out to be dubious on closer examination. Look at it this way. Muslims killed Hindus in the process of conquering them, forcibly converting some to Islam and for other reasons related to their being infidels. Muslims have multiple options as far as dealing with infidels goes, and they are supposed to pick the most appropriate one. On several occasions it has been within Muslim power to forcibly convert all people under their control to Islam, but Muslims have not done so because Islam allows them to tax non-Muslims more than Muslims. Surely, a subjugated infidel being fleeced with high taxes is better than a dead infidel in many scenarios. This is the reason why one should be skeptical of a number like 100 million, even over the time period of a millennium. You are mistaken about Alexander being defeated in India. I have already acknowledged that his soldiers were tired of constant fighting and they had gone too far from home, which prompted Alexander to turn back. A defeat would have meant being beaten in battle and turning back to save their lives, which did not happen. Nobody could rival Alexander’s army’s might. 494
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:18 | # Inés, Your inference that Americans are stingy based upon eating with Americans is remarkable, and is another example of a Malcolm-style argument, namely extrapolating from too few cases. You discount the possibilities that the people you dined with did not have enough money to buy food for other people or that they came from upper class backgrounds where people have enough money to pay for their own expenses and hence have never needed to subsidize the expenses of friends or acquaintances. Your example of students being glad that their parents were coming because they would buy groceries implies that these people did not have much money and hence were glad to not part with their money for necessities once in a while. Besides, the great majority of adult/near-adult Americans maintain cordial relationships with their parents. I don’t believe that you encountered many upper class white college students who believed that Spain is in South America. You dismiss my citation of evidence that most mainstream American media and Hollywood are under Jewish control as anti-Semitic. The evidence that I cited mentions names, provides photographs and other details. You have not bothered to address any of this evidence and called me anti-Semitic! This is yet another example of a Malcolm-style argument; ignore inconvenient facts; Malcolm repeatedly ignored my citations about the phylogeographic criteria for race assignment, proof of outbreeding depression with respect to human races, etc.. You didn’t like the evangelical Christians while you were in the U.S.? I am not fond of them either, but they are not Catholic, i.e., you needn’t have gone into an anti-Catholic rant. Young evangelical/born-again Christian women, of whom there is no dearth in the U.S., usually take a vow to remain chaste till marriage, and a good number of them honor this pledge even though they have boyfriends. This partly refutes your contention about American women willing to have sex on the first date; only very few of them are like this. If American women were lascivious, why is the Mardi Gras event in New Orleans not held all over the U.S., with virtually all young white women participating? You have to understand that in any given population some people are inclined toward lewd and immoral behaviors, and if there is sufficient freedom, then these individuals will indulge themselves. This, however, does not reflect negatively on the population at-large, which is not inclined toward immorality. Your experience in an American residence hall should not lead you to draw your conclusions; in many cases where you came across sexual activity, you could not have known whether the pair had not dated for a while prior to having sex, and of cases known to you personally, you would have only come across a handful of examples, not sufficient to extrapolate to American women in general. Besides, men often brag about made up sexual adventures and it is likely that some men that you encountered gave you false information, and also that you could not possibly have heard from a representative sample of American males. Therefore, your conclusion regarding the sexual impropriety of American women is incorrect. After I stated that “if one were to make a list of the most beautiful European women, whereas Northern Europeans will be overrepresented, there will be plenty of Spanish women in the list,” you wrote “If you are the judge in deciding who will form part in the list of the most beautiful women of Europe, they will evidently look like blond blue eyed clones.” How can you write something like this immediately after quoting me? Malcolm has done this repeatedly, namely misrepresent my argument right below a quote from me! Read again; I have written that there will plenty of Spanish women in the list. In addition, the woman shown on top of the page is not supposed to be an ideal; she is just one example of a Nordic woman. I had not deleted any of Malcolm’s comments till the time you left your comment accusing me of deleting his comment. A few days later, Malcolm came back and spammed us again, once again talking about widely accepted three races among humans, with no proof, in spite of cited literature showing no agreement ever about the number of races among humans. This is spam and I deleted it. Malcolm has been thoroughly trashed with respect to his “scientific arguments”; read Jonassen’s posts if you don’t believe me or show how the scientific data that I have cited is flawed. You have asked whether “spam” constitutes scientific arguments that one cannot counter because one has run out of material to copy from. Well, see if you can cite a single unrefuted scientific argument by Malcolm A—who has been commenting here for months—that is relevant to this entry and has been provided to counter my arguments. Note the italicized parts of my response to you, describing Malcolm-style arguments; Malcolm has been a lot worse, and his spam will no longer be allowed here. I still have to respond to Malcolm’s last couple of posts, but this will have to wait. Lastly, this site is not run by Americans. 495
Posted by markus on Wed, 23 Aug 2006 05:16 | # why bother arguing with the likes of jr. its all you against him on this website, and it will be like that in the real world as well. thankfully there are relatively few people like him in real life. he can say all he wants about preserving the european utopia he has built in his head, we will have the last laugh when his kids marry non-euro’s. besides we know that he is wrong to start with, why bring yourselves to his level by arguing with him? 496
Posted by Inés on Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:57 | # Markus, you are right. JR does not deserve that anyone talk to him, let alone debate him. He is too full of shit. Sorry JR, but your version of history is completely different from what the rest of the world studied. Like Reingold said: next you will bring forth arguments to say that Einstein was Swede and Jesus was German. You probably believe it to be true. What I dont understand is why you are so hell bent on defending the Europeans, when you are as far away as possible from European mentality, mindset and certainly what our concept of freedom and equality is. You should speak for yourself. I think if the Scandi and Germans need to speak, they can speak for themselves. They certainly dont need uninformed Americans like you to be their mouthpiece. They probably laugh so hard if they read what you wrote here. I dont have the time to read the whole thread. Specially since your posts make up most of it with the ridiculous versions of history and genetic science, that you have surely pulled out of your rear end. If at all I may read Malcom´s informative posts. To tell you the truth, I was looking for information about Indian actresses when I stumbled onto this unfortunate site. And I think I have wasted enough time here. Adiós 497
Posted by Elizabeth on Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:21 | # Dude, it strikes me as more than a little odd you are using Hindus as your basis of comparison (Nordic vs. mixed race.) If you were going to be fair by any stretch, you’d use Latinas. In my part of the world (the U.S.) men fantasize about Adriana Lima and other Latina hotties, not Indian chicks. Maybe this is some kind of east coast vs. west coast thing? Latinos, on average, I’d say are just way better looking than any other ethnicity (including Nords). This is something not just I perceive myself, but hear repeated (ad nauseum) by the men around me. Which makes me think there is something to race mixing (on the Latino/Caucasian side). I have never ONCE thought Indians were really a good basis for comparison, and if you’re trying to convince that because Nords > Indians on the attractiveness scale, there’sfore race mixing < pure stock, you’ve taken the WRONG path. Why don’t you be fair, for godsakes, and show us a real competition between Nords and Latinas? Or even Nords and Filipinas? All you’ve done is shown us you’re afraid to disprove your own hypothesis by sticking with (sorry, my lovely Hindus) women with a tendency towards hairiness and manliness. By the way, Scarlett Johannson. is self-admittedly a HUGE plastic surgery whore. What’s up with the lip injections? I thought fuller lips was an African thing… Hope you’ll take up a real challenge, and not stick with this shameful Nord vs. Indian business. (I just don’t know many guys who admit jacking off to pics of Indian women, at least not in the U.S.) And to date, I have never seen a more beautiful woman than Christy Turlington. Ever. Sorry, but no “pure” Nord I’ve ever seen comes close. 498
Posted by observer on Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:14 | # Scarlett Johansson is half-Jewish. The assertion that mestizos (“brown stubbies” in the words of one commentator) are the most attractive race in the world is so absurd it requires no response. BTW: “Elizabeth” here is about as female as “Malcolm” is Northern European. Inés is a better effort, but “she” sets of my hindoo troll meter. Having interacted with both hindoos and Spaniards, Inés’s brand of imperfect English (along with quoting made up statistics/history from desi sites) gives a strong impression of the former (with a few Spanish touches that don’t ring true). 499
Posted by Elizabeth on Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:01 | # Golly, what’s up your butt, “observer”? I’m female, as far as I can tell. I’d send you my used feminine supplies as proof, but you’d have to pay me for that privilege, you twit. And as far as my assertion being too absurd for a response…that’s a good way to slap down opinions you don’t agree with. And by the way, you techinically responded, so I guess it’s not TOO absurd! Why is it absurd to consider Latinas (and Latinos) to be the hottest of all ethnicities? (I’m not sure they’re a ‘race’, so I wouldn’t use that word in this context.) Non-latinos admit this regularly. I’m Korean, myself, by the way. Chinky eyes, round face, yellow skin and all that, and quite happy with how I look. I guess I just don’t need to have other people validate my attractiveness in any case. I’m very happy to appreciate how good looking Latinos/Latinas are. Being in California, I get just a sense of how much better looking they are (on average) than the average black, white, or east asian Californian (with the exception of Filipinos and some Vietnamese…but again! more mixed race ethnicities that in my experience are more attractive than pure Nords! And are considered as such by those around me!) I’m just puzzled, again, why Indians are used as the “sample” mixed race, instead of Latinos/Latinas. I’m just saying that the fair way compare pit pure Nords vs. mixed race would have been to compare with Nords vs. Latinos/as, or even Filipinos or Vietnamese. I’m not saying there are no beautiful Indian women—there are plenty—but around here, no one sees them as the pinnacle of hotness (as they do Latinos/Latinas.) 500
Posted by observer on Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:05 | # Looking over the thread again, Inés could be a genuine, anti-white Spanish hag—the type of ugly, smelly feminist that is probably painting herself with henna as I type this. If the the posts originate from a genuine (non-proxy) Spanish IP address, I lean toward Inés being what she claims. Otherwise, I still say it’s a hindoo. 501
Posted by flat faced Korean on Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:34 | # “I guess I just don’t need to have other people validate my attractiveness in any case.” Whew! How convenient, for you. You’d have a long wait, complete with significant disappointment, if it were otherwise. Go back to Korea (regardless of where you were born). That nation- the world’s most racially homogenous - would surely welcome you. 502
Posted by observer on Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:38 | # Dude, how old are you? I seem to recall an extremely obese Korean that used to post on northern-European preservationist sites asking for classifications of her fat boyfriend. Is that you? I’m guessing the only males you are able to spend appreciable time around are, frankly, losers. The only males I ever hear say “____ women are hot” are the ones whose only exposure to “hot” women comes from the internet and/or movies. You’ll hear these types say mestizo women are hot. You’ll also hear even dumber things, such as “Indian women are hot” or “Halle Berry is hot”. 503
Posted by Elizabeth on Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:54 | # “The only males I ever hear say “____ women are hot” are the ones whose only exposure to “hot” women comes from the internet and/or movies.” I guess this is most of America then, like it or not. You need to calm down, observer. You’re becoming a bit unhinged. And maybe stop posting under different user names? Sorry if I offended you, though it seems like you’re determined to be offended regardless of what anyone’s going to say. 504
Posted by observer on Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:51 | # Asexual yellow blob: I post under a single user name per thread. I take it I’m remembering your background correctly. “I guess this is most of America then, like it or not.” No. In the parts of America that are predominantly white (most of the country, for now), a normal (young) man regularly comes into contact with actual, living attractive women. Believe me, males interested in discussing their preferences in jack off material with someone of your background and dimensions are not representative of American men in general. 505
Posted by rustymason on Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:50 | # OK, time for a break in the chatter. And this blue text is messing up my eyes. It’s time for a break, time for more pics of beautiful women. 506
Posted by Dave Kersting on Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:26 | # — I also want to note that the facial expressions of the Nordic women in the photos convey a generally more refined level of emotional expression; there is also much greater diversity of expression among their photos, suggesting that each individual may possess a broader range of fine consciousness, or at least that such consciousness is an aspect of their beauty. Every photographer knows that facial expression is essential to beauty, even in the prettiest faces. And the expressions that enhance beauty most are those of kindness, elegance, self-confidence, also happiness, of course, but not just wild smiles, rather happiness conveyed lavishly yet within a distinct intelligence. A side-point: has anyone ever seen a movie or music video wherein a Black man was interested in a Black woman whose skin was NOT LIGHTER than his? I have never seen such a thing, and my Black male friends are quite aware of the preference. And how many are aware of the racist abuse that is heaped on Black girls, by other Black girls, for possessing what they call “n++++r” features: kinky hair, big lips, very dark skin, etc. In some parts of the US, at least, this is quite common. 507
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:39 | # Dave Kersting, You have eloquently described what Peter Frost has made a case for using molecular evidence. There is indeed an ethereal element to the beauty of some blonde Nordic women, which by itself makes a strong case for stronger sexual selection among Northern Europeans over thousands of years. Those seeking trophy wives most extensively seek blonde Nordic women. Yet retards like the Hindu signing off as “Malcolm A” argue that the best looking women—as far as the world’s preference goes—are found among East Indians! 508
Posted by Abhi on Fri, 25 Aug 2006 16:06 | # To J Richards, plz post the link of the website from where u got that anti hindu shit about ayurveda not being aryan and hindus not having invented the decimal system. is it dalitstan.org?? am i right? lol. that is false anti hindu propoganda. everybody knows that. bring up some scholarly proof to back up ur claim. also the aryan invasion theory is on its last legs. read up. 509
Posted by bjorn on Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:19 | # Im a white man of german/swedish- and english/irish descent, living in toronto canada I am exposed to all the racial types in the world, and although I am attracted to the fine figure of any women, the noric womens face stands head and shoulders above all others, any white man who prefers a non white face is obviously psychotic. While living In las vegas I found the meztizo women flirting with me, they liked my pale skin (im brown hair , green eyes 6-2 tall 190 lbs lean muscular), I had many comments about how nice my pale skin was, yes im goodlooking tall and muscled, but mostly these latinas commented on my pale skin, back in toronto white women often commented on my pale skin as well sometimes negatively, other times they just pointed out how pale I was and didnt say whether they liked it or not, but I got the feeling they did not. Since tanning and maintaining a bronzed complexion even throughout the winter, I get more positive comments about my looks from white women. I believe white women like a slight bronzing of the skin as it shows that the man is an outdoors type, thus active (more healthy) and not a house hermit. Why the non white women like my pale skin, I can only guess that it is there desire to mate with a whiter race then there own and have whiter offspring. So if the non white want what we have, doesnt that tell you that what we have is worth preserving! I for one will be mating with my own white women. 510
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:23 | # Abhi, The ancient Egyptians had developed a [non-positional] decimal system way before the Hindus did, although the Hindu combination of the decimal system, a positional system and the zero was what was adopted throughout the world much later. If the Ayurvedic system were Aryan in origin, similar beliefs/practices would have been reported among other Indo-European populations, most notably those in Iran, but where is this evidence? A lot of what passes as Ayurveda is a 20th century formulation by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. See if you can find recipes for Ayurvedic medicine in the Vedas. You ask me for evidence, but where is your evidence from sources other than Hindu supremacists that there was no Aryan migration toward India? Don’t bother citing propagandists like Koenraad Elst or Frawley. The Aryans, with their horse-driven chariots , better physical build and military technology would have hardly needed to fight the natives in order to conquer them, i.e., one should conceptualize the issue in terms of migration rather than some violent invasion. The evidence for Aryan migration toward India has been provided by linguistics, archaeology and genetics; this idea is part of mainstream scholarship, and is by no means on its last legs unless you are referring to the beliefs of Hindu supremacists. 511
Posted by chick on Fri, 25 Aug 2006 22:43 | # The indian chicks looked better 9/10, does a hooked nose really matter, not necesarily, its about symmetry 512
Posted by Danielle Dubois on Fri, 25 Aug 2006 23:40 | # Hi J.R., 1. You laid out maps about the diversity of hair and eye color amongst the nordic women, but I find think there’s plenty diversity amongst mongoloids and negroids that makes them interesting and attractive. Although I can see your point on preserving european features. However, I think it depends on how one is cultured to see beauty. Dani 513
Posted by Roy on Sat, 26 Aug 2006 01:30 | # “However someone posted pictures of indian women next to nordic women, an on the contrary, I found that most of the indian women were actually better looking then the nordics.”
“Of course, there are even better looking Hindus as shown below, but guess who they owe their good looks to? Shown clockwise from top: Aditi Govitrikar, Hritik Roshan and Arun Nair.” With the exception of Arun Nair the other 2 people you have mentioned are pure Indians with no mixed parentage…. guess the other 2 owe their look to the Indians then.Arun Nair is clearly the least attractive among the three(so maybe the pure indians are better looking than those with a mixed lineage like Arun)...You ironically seem to have strengthened “Malcomn’s” views on here on the mixed features of Indians by posting those photos. 514
Posted by rachid on Sat, 26 Aug 2006 07:41 | # helloo all people im rachid ihave 22 yers old im a man im from moroocooooooooooo 515
Posted by Jr on Sat, 26 Aug 2006 08:57 | # this site is just utta racism u fuckin ugly shit i fink all this white women are ugly n its coming from a male. have u considered wat indian male fink of white women, well we think they are ugly pinkish skined like ghost colour, lets just say we wouldnt like 2 bump into them at night lol. indian women are voted 2 b the prettist women as they have won miss world the most then any other. inidan women have lovely golden skin unlike ur ugly white pale skin. n y u think every pale white women wants a indian glow tan. u probably think white men will not like inidan women but i can my slef do a site sayin how inidan male wil never even give a white women a second look. n all the women u campared 2 with the white women i think all the indian women are sooo much more sexy and great looking ask any indian man they will never pick a pale cheap looking tart 516
Posted by Elizabeth on Sat, 26 Aug 2006 09:09 | # “In the parts of America that are predominantly white (most of the country, for now), a normal (young) man regularly comes into contact with actual, living attractive women.” I guess you don’t live in California. Maybe that explains it? Latinas (and Filipinas) are sought after here. Maybe it’s a fad, but they’re the first choice of the strapping young white men I know. These are generally chiselled 6 foot something Nordic boys, who I would have expected to see dating their blue-eyed female counterparts. But these guys say white women are either fat or batshit crazy. Which is funny, because I thought Latinas were known for being psychotic and getting big asses later in life, but I digress. Now, if the white man is on the nerdier and bookish side, the tendency is to go East Asian. I have no idea why Asian chicks are so popular right now, but that’s the trend. Damn sneaky Asians. I swear, it’s a jew conspiracy. And white women? White women will be his first choice only if the white man is FAT. I don’t know why this is, as I don’t see a direct correlation between being fat and wanting white women, but these are merely my observations. In any case, white women ARE batshit crazy, but I think this is solely a U.S. phenomenon. The white women I’ve met from Europe seem quite sane. 517
Posted by Minority Rights on Sat, 26 Aug 2006 10:18 | # I see that this thread is developing in the intellectual and productive manner that one could have predicted. It’s great that “Majority Rights” is fulfilling its potential so well. 518
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 26 Aug 2006 15:04 | # Danielle Dubois, The maps show that non-white adults do not have the hair and eye color diversity that northern Europeans have; the maps are not concerned with other forms of diversity. I have no idea where you got the impression about “so many white girls” being infatuated with non-white men; such infatuation is uncommon. You have boring dirty blond hair? Bond hair will get you a lot more male attention in the U.S. than other kinds of hair. Why do you think that sorority girls overwhelmingly dye their hair blonde? To attract less male attention? You have mentioned some dark women as having faces more distinguishable and more alluring—if refined—than Nordic women. The distinguishability issue is generally characteristic of non-whites; people often tend to think that those of another race tend to look alike. What is alluring is to some extent a matter of personal preference, but refined/finer facial features are most extensively characteristic of northern Europeans. I have never known a white person who found Halle Berry attractive. Besides, some pictures of her were posted a while back within this thread. Even after a nose job, she hardly looks decent. ———————- Roy, Your comment does not at all suggest that you are a white person. Paleness can easily be taken care of by a natural or fake tan. Northern European women have sharper facial features than non-white women, as common observation should suggest; Europeans have more angular facial features than non-Europeans. As far as Indian women having more feminine physiques goes, this is a grossly mistaken notion. You have ignored tha citations about waist-to-hip ratios (WHRs). East Indian women have some of the highest WHRs (least feminine) in the world. Aditi Govitrikar and Hritik Roshan are of pure Indian parentage, with no other-population admixture? You have missed extensive discussion of multiple population mixtures in India, mostly in the past. The mixed ancestry of most East Indians is not a recent event. As to who among Nordic and non-Nordic women are generally perceived to be better looking, what kind of women are most sought after as trophy wives by men of all races? Blonde Nordic women, and only liars or ignormauses would claim otherwise. ———————— Elizabeth, The reason that this thread addresses Hindu women is that Hindus are an excellent choice for examining the possible aesthetic benefits of race mixing, given that one can find various combinations of European, east asian, Australoid/aboriginal and African elements in India. I could address Latinas, too. I have no idea where you got the impression that Latinas are considered particularly hot by white males. Native American women, along with East Indian women, have some of the highest waist-to-hip ratios in the world, and also possess shorter legs, broader noses, wider faces and larger cheekbones than Nordic women. Do you seriously believe that Native American/black admixture would make white women look better? You, too, have mentioned Scarlett Johansson. I have not named this woman as attractive, and do not find her to be attractive. Your comments also reveal contempt for American white women (e.g., calling them batshit crazy), but it is understandable if you are jealous of them for taking away the best men. White men who generally end up with non-white women are, with few exceptions, mostly those who are not successful with white women (loser types); white men who are somewhat but not very successful with white women may also date non-white women because non-white women often admire white men, and attractive non-white women are easier to get for white men than attractive white women. You have mentioned two Latinas that are supposedly really good looking: Adriana Lima and Christy Turlington. First, these women are mostly white in appearance. Second, these women are not especially good looking, and whatever good looks they have, they owe it to their white ancestry. I will come up with pictures of these women to clarify my points. 519
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 26 Aug 2006 16:21 | # Elizabeth, Here is Christy Turlington; see some masculinization in her face? She mostly leans toward looking white, but is she very attractive?
Adriana Lima is shown below; if she avoids the sun for a while then she leans more toward whites in looks. However, notice her masculine face, fake breasts and weakly developed legs. Very attractive? Hardly!
520
Posted by Abhi on Sat, 26 Aug 2006 16:35 | # to J Richards, thank you for admitting that there was no aryan invasion. at the most there was a migration of the aryans towards india and even that is debatable. u see thats why its called a “theory” cuz it hasnt been proved yet. ‘horse driven chariots”??? along the hindukush mountains?? u must be insane. Mr. Richards, u need a listen in history and maybe even geography. “military technology”??? do u know how advanced the indus valley civilisation was??
so, r u telling us that the BBC is ruled by hindu supremacists cuz even it has questioned the invasion theory. “Brian E. Hemphill and Alexander F. Christensen’s study (1994) of the migration of genetic traits does not support a movement of Aryan speakers into the Indus Valley around 1500 BC. According to Hemphill’s study, “Gene flow from Bactria occurs much later, and does not impact Indus Valley gene pools until the dawn of the Christian era.” In a more recent study, Hemphill concludes that “the data provide no support for any model of massive migration and gene flow between the oases of Bactria and the Indus Valley. Rather, patterns of phenetic affinity best conform to a pattern of long-standing, but low-level bidirectional mutual exchange.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration
“Common sense might suggest that here was a striking example of a refutable hypothesis that had in fact been refuted. Indo-European scholars should have scrapped all their historical reconstructions and started again from scratch. But that is not what happened. Vested interests and academic posts were involved. Almost without exception the scholars in question managed to persuade themselves that despite appearances, the theories of the philologists and the hard evidence of archeology could be made to fit together. The trick was to think of the horse-riding Aryans as conquerors of the cities of the Indus civilization in the same way the Spanish conquistadores were conquerors of the cities of Mexico and Peru or the Israelites of the Exodus were conquerors of Jericho.”—————-British anthropologist Edmund Leach About ayurveda, “The Charaka Samhita is an ancient Indian manuscript, originating partly from early as 1000 BCE, on Ayurvedic internal medicine. It is believed to be the oldest of the three ancient treatises of Ayurveda. It is central to the modern-day practice of Ayurvedic medicine; and, along with the Sushruta Samhita it is now identified worldwide as an important early source of medical understanding and practice, independent of ancient Greece.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charaka_Samhita am not sure how could anyone confuse 1000BCE with the 20th century??? Last but not the least, “YOU ARE A RACIST BASTARD.” 521
Posted by observer on Sat, 26 Aug 2006 17:18 | # Let me repeat: a morbidly obese korean does not interact with a representative cross-section of young white men. “Strapping Nordic boys” are not swarming this porpoise to tell it they prefer non-white women to “crazy” or “fat” white women. Even in a minority white hell-hole like California, about 85% of (non-Hispanic) white fathers fathered their children with (non-Hispanic) white mothers. Nearly 95% of non-Hispanic white men reproduced with “white” (including “Hispanic white”) women. 0.19% of white men reproduced with a Vietnamese (and not because of a shortage of Vietnamese women: only 5.17% of Vietnamese women gave birth to children by white men). To put that in perspective, 0.92% of white men mated with black women (4.45% of black women mated with white men). Corresponding percentages for white men and filipinas: 1.42, 17.87; Koreans: 0.22, 10.10; Chinese: 0.67, 11.20; Japanese: 0.6, 32.94; American Indian: 0.62, 37.95; Asian Indian: 0.06, 2.97; Hawaiian (including part Hawaiian): 0.11, 33.33. White men prefer white women. Some settle for Mongoloid women, but this is not the norm. I suspect the percentages mixing with Hawaiian and Japanese women are elevated because these women are more likely to already be mixed with white (the Japanese and Hawaiians have been in contact with whites in California and Hawaii for several generations). Apropos this thread, white men seem to be positively repulsed by Asian Indian women. These numbers are from 1995. Race mixing is probably worse today, but not dramatically so. Source: http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/dapr/da/clap/casamp.html 522
Posted by Lurker on Sat, 26 Aug 2006 19:31 | # First of all can someone cancel this blue font - it originated in Ines post. Second its all about averages isnt it. Some people of all races will find some people of other races attractive. Some black women are more attractive (to some white men) than some white women etc. But on average white women are more attractive to non-white men than non-white women are to white men. Most white women who have cosmetic surgery dont opt to look less white though some may do that hardly undermines the argument, its just a warning not to make sweeping statements. Many non-white women opt to take on more euro characteristics (though some presumably do not). 523
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:56 | # Abhi, I have not said that there was no Aryan invasion; what I said was that “one should conceptualize the issue in terms of migration rather than some violent invasion” given that the natives could not possibly have posed much of a challenge to the Aryans. If a militarily much more powerful tribe comes uninvited to your homeland and easily subjugates the natives, then this qualifies as an invasion, though not a violent invasion. To dispute the idea of a foreign origin of Aryans, you have cited the BBC and wikipedia! Great academic references, aren’t they? Lately, the Indian community in America has started showing its presence by demanding that history textbooks be changed in favor of the beliefs of Hindu nationalists, and the much greater presence of Hindus in Britain implies that the BBC will give at least a passing reference to the claims of Hindu nationalists in order to appear objective; the BBC links doesn’t cite any evidence. Similarly, wikipedia is a public-edited site, which leads to loss of quality control as in opposing absurd ideas being rendered equal legitimacy as mainstream academics. The link labeled as “mainstream scholarship” in my previous response to you leads to a 93-page pdf file titled “Autochthonous Aryans?”, and has been written by a Harvard academic and published in a peer-reviewed journal. This article extensively cites evidence in favor of an Aryan origin outside India, comprehensively debunks Hindu nationalist claims and shows that the Hindu nationalist claims are based on religious/nationalist beliefs and are outside the domain of scholarship. Regarding Ayurveda, I did not say that it is of 20th century origin; it has ancient origins, but the ancient texts describe causes of disease in terms of absurdities such as possession by female demons, etc. What passes as Ayurvedic medicine now are concoctions, a lot of which happen to be a 20th century formulation by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Besides, the following journal reference dates the Charaka Samhita to the first century A.D., a millennium later than the uncited date estimate in the wikipedia article that you linked to.
You have described me as a racist bastard. What word describes you, namely someone who claims the achievements of others (Aryans) to be one’s own? 524
Posted by Anon Ymus on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:29 | # I would first and foremost like to assess that after reading portions of various postings on this page (the entire page was too boring to read) i was apalled by the uneducated seeming nature of the comments. Whoever is the biologist here should know very well that environment can often have a profound effect on gene expression. Photographs displayed on this page of various indian women living in the slums of India do not indicate by any means that the gene pool of india is inferior to that of European countries. Anyone can be made up to meet a certain standard of beauty. If those women whom you ligthly use the word untouchable for were not living in such harsh conditions, would their appearances be the same? If a 250 pound white woman was up in your face with her blonde hair in a frizzy mess and clear eyes but no eyelashes to frame them i think you would reconsider your superficial views about women. Try putting brown hair and brown eyes on the same faces of “nordic” women you have displayed here. WOuld you be able to tell so easily what their origins are? And since when can biologists conclude that certain jawlines are attributes of masculinity? Have you ever visited countries outside Europe including India and seen women without makeup who are more beautiful than any woman posted on your site? Perhaps not and even if you were to, I doubt you would find them beautiful because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Just because you believe that hook noses make a person’s entire face look unappealing doesnt mean everyone should agree. Your views are burdened by extreme bias and I feel pity that you should have been infuenced by such sources It is due to people like you that beauty can be judged by such shallow means turning it into nothing more than a commodity. Let me remind you that it is not a man’s world anymore. Thank God or science or whatever you believe in that not every human being holds the same views as you. 525
Posted by Fassi on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:14 | # Ha! Do you people honestly think that beauty can be categorised; there is no universal criterion for beauty, it is different for each person. Obviously the Europeans prefer certain attributes that’s why those attributes are still around today. Everyone has there opinion about beauty and no one is right. !!!! Moroccans are the most beautiful individuals!!!! That’s my opinion for instance; contrasting features works well e.g. light eyes dark skin etc. I think Europeans look dreadfully pale and if there not pale they are pink which is worst. Hey that is my opinion, am I right?
526
Posted by Abhi on Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:01 | # To J Richards, well Mr. richards. have u tried travelling over the hindukush mountains on horse driven chariots lately?? lol. If u take the AIT into consideration it only means that aryans destroyed the resident indian population. i .e the dravidians. the problem is if the aryans were simply barbarians who used to destroy entire populations on the whim they wudnt be able to write such logical and beautiful philosophy as the vedas and the upanisheds which finally resulted from them. not a single line in the vedas is dedicated to this invasion or for that matter even migration. why? i dont need to remind u that scholars sumtimes refuse to let go of a popular theory even if its wrong since that wud be risking their professional career. lol, am a very fair skinned brahmin from northwest india. am as close as it gets to aryan blood here in india. so i guess i can safely claim the achievements of aryans to myself. hahahha!!! 527
Posted by Anon Ymus on Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:49 | # There is no one single race, thats prettier than any other. Beauty cannot be determined on the basis of race. By being a Brahmin or an Aryan who arent proving status. Those things are of the past. If you’re educated you’ll know that after so much cultural diffusion you cant really call yourself a true Aryan and if you choose to it doesnt make a difference. You’re not better than anyone else. Also skin color is influenced more by environment than by genes. The distinctive features of any culture make the individual of the culture unique and attractive in their own way. Human beings can’t judge other human beings. If you sit down carefully and examine every feature no matter how gorgeous you think you are, you’re bound to find some flaw. You people are wasting your time trying to prove who’s prettier needless to say some of you people’s comments make you sound like total complete morons. So I suggest you get a life and learn to appreciate the beauty thats around you. 528
Posted by Fassi Moroccan Berber on Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:51 | # Ha! It always amuses me when Indians long to be white and worship white attributes (especially those Brahmins). White people are not superior to anyone, the ones that say that are insecure about themselves. Remember that Aryans don’t see you as Aryan Indians they see you as Dravidians!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 530
Posted by Anon Ymus on Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:02 | # It is an insult for indians to want to be white. Be happy with what God gave you or what genes gave you and learn to appreciate others for who they are not what they look like. And i am sick of men going around judging women as though they were mannequins. And remember beauty doesnt remain with age. Once a person is old they count for who they are bc beauty is superficial and bound to fade. 531
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:10 | # Anon Ymus, Yes, environment does influence gene expression, but some forms of gene expression remain invariant across a broad range of the environment. For instance, the non-Caucasoid facial features of the slum dwellers shown would not change even if they were born and raised in well-off households in Belgium, though their skin would not be prematurely aged. In addition, the great majority of the variance in skin color between geographic populations is determined by genes, not the environment. Not all Nordic women shown here have blonde hair, and plenty of Nordics have brown hair and brown eyes. Similarly, there are non-Nordic European adults with blonde hair and blue eyes. Northern Europeans are distinguished from others by facial features, which is what the focus is on as far as the comparisons go; note that I have asked the reader not to compare Nordic and Hindu women with respect to color. We are not addressing perfection here, but for every flaw in the white women featured in the comparisons, there are multiple flaws in the non-white women addressed. It does not take a biologist to figure out that men and women, on average, differ with respect to jaw shape, and therefore manly-looking jawlines in women can be identified and attributed to masculinity if the woman has a more manly than average face. I am not judging beauty in a shallow manner. Beauty does not lie in one or two attributes, but in the entire package, and if one had to identify why one is less beautiful, then individual attributes such as hooked noses need to be pointed out, which certainly doesn’t mean that one is judging beauty in terms of individual features. Yes, I have traveled to India and gotten the impression that most white men couldn’t possibly be interested in the vast majority of Indian women and would almost never prefer an attractive Indian woman to an attractive white woman. ——————— Farsi, Please read the thread prior to commenting. Some universal criteria for beauty have been repeatedly shown, and the following citation has been mentioned previously:
This paper cited above is sound except for its mention of research on the attractiveness of mixed-race people, which is faulty (see here and here). More importantly, the paper cited does not mention one find that is observed around the world, namely that facial features closer to the white average are preferred by non-whites around the world. For instance, Hindu women considered more attractive by most Hindus are closer than average to having Caucasoid facial features. Nature has not decided to remove blondes from the human gene pool. Blondes are doing well by themselves, and what threatens them is continued mass immigration of more crime prone and lower IQ non-whites into their homelands, not nature. ——————— Abhi, There were no horses in the Indus valley civilization. The Rig Veda itself describes horse-driven chariots that the Aryans used in sport and warfare. The Rig Veda also provides evidence for the origin of the Aryans outside of India as it contains several “reminiscences of former habitats, that is, of the Bactria-Margiana area, situated to the north of Iran and Afghanistan, and even from further afield.” This evidence is documented in the paper that I cited. If you are not even going to read it prior to commenting, then it is not possible to have a discussion. You have made the absurd point that the Aryans could not have come up with logical and beautiful philosophy if they were barbarians who had no problems destroying other populations. Well, classical Greece had no parallel—during the time of its existence—with respect to intellectual achievements, and in terms of intellectual achievements per capita, it probably has never had any equal, yet Alexander the Great, who flourished within this period in Macedonia, conquered most of the then-known world. Fighting prowess closely correlates with sporting prowess, and it is well known that whites dominate both the intellectual domain and most sports. On the other hand, the intellectual achievements of black Africans have been miniscule and certainly less than those of South Asians, yet South Asians have less sporting prowess than black Africans. There is simply no simple relationship between ability and willingness to fight and intellectual capability. The ability and willingness to fight would not automatically make one a barbarian. Once again, the Aryans would not have needed to engage themselves in prolonged warfare with drastic consequences to the natives in order to subjugate them. You may be a very light-skinned person in an Indian context, but may still be dark in a European context. Look at the genetic information on light-skinned people from the northwest part of South Asia, cited earlier within this thread; you will see black African and East Asian contribution to an extent much greater than in Europeans. Therefore, it is probably a stretch for you to claim the achievements of the Aryans as those of your own [undiluted] ancestors. 532
Posted by rustymason on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:40 | # Yesyesyes, the White invaders from the Steppes kicked some ass. Enough talk, let’s have some more pictures of beautiful White womens! 533
Posted by Anon Ymus on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:53 | # J Richards, You sound like a very educated and informed critic. I am glad to see that you backed your views by strong convictions. However, I would like to know who you are to decide what the ideal form of beauty is. Fine I agree with you that certain jawlines may be indeed considered masculine. However that does not mean that the person is unattractive because of that! Just like many Nordics dont have blonde hair and blue eyes many nordics dont have the perfect angles that you are talking about. Let me clearly state where I am going with this. First of all it is quite degrading to both cultures that you should compare women who are made up to highest level possible. And also the features which you are pointing out in Indian actresses as being masculine or unsightly are present in the white women as well! Anybody who looks at just features would know what I’m talking about. As you yourself stated that beauty comes as a “package” I have seen many white and indian couples. Men are critical but there are some who are not that critical. The person’s inner beauty has something to do with it as well. Also the women you spoke about in the slums, what I meant by bringing that up is that for generations they have lived in such places and their genes would not change now but over time environment did have an impact which made them this way. It is degrading to them that pictures of them should be put up on a site for the sole purpose of defining what beauty is and isnt. This thread isnt just about genes. It’s become a questions of which race is more attractive. And if white men wouldnt choose an attractive indian woman over an attractive white woman then its their loss. As i said, there is a lot of beuty being wasted out there due to lack of appreciation. You have to have it in your eyes to see the beauty in someone’s face and apparently trying to find which face has more flaws distracts you from seeing the whole package. Let me also state that an Indian man looking at this would find every Indian actress more attractive next to the white women. This is only to show that by saying ———— Women are not items on display to be drooled over. Posting pictures of them to your prefence is insulting to their womanhood and if you think what I’m saying is BS then don’t forget that you were in a woman’s womb for nine months! Have some respect! 534
Posted by Anon Ymus on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:15 | # Oh yeah and after reading some previous comments I feel the need to explain to people that Hindu is spelled “H-I-N-D-U” 535
Posted by Fassi on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:29 | # Richards I think I need to refresh your memory regarding humanity, civilisation was not born in Europe; the Cradle of civilisation is the Middle East! Farming, ordered society, religion (yes Christianity the religion that European civilization is built upon was proposed by brown people) Philosophy and Literature was being written centuries before Europeans gave up there savage ways. So do not even attempt to claim that white people have a higher IQ. I see no pyramids in Sweden; this period of economic prosperity for Europe is bound not to last. The only reason why white features are admired in the world is because at this point in time white people dominate the media: movies, songs etc. Things are changing!!!!! It is not my intention to offend anyone. 536
Posted by Anon Ymus on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:45 | # YOU ROCK FASSI! yeah i was beginning to have an issue with the IQ claim as well Europeans would not be what they are today if it werent for the “brownies” Also in the U.S., next time you visit a doctor look around, you’ll see a lot more brown docs than white ones bc unlike in western states where education is mostly free in middle eastern countries you have to pay till there’s holes in your pockets to educate yourselves! That develops within them an appreciation not to be found so abundant in western countries for education. Indians invented the sytem of zero, decimals and much more that you use today! 537
Posted by rustymason on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:13 | # Anon Ymus, get real—women love being oogled. And don’t talk about my momma again. Now, more pics, please. 538
Posted by Anon Ymus on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:43 | # who’s tlking about your mama you dork. Im tlking about women in general. I don’t intend to offend anyone. I probably respect your mamma more than you do considering your comments. If you had any respect for yourself or your mamma you would understand what I was saying instead of bringing your mamma into this and asking for more pics to drool over. And trust me no self respecting woman wants to be “oogled” by a horny git like you. 539
Posted by bnrocks on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:01 | # I would just like to add that agree 100% with Anon Ymus because if it weren’t for Anon Ymus the board would be dominated by shallow, ingnorant, horny gits (no names necessary) who enjoy making offensive comments and determine being attractive or good-looking by race. 540
Posted by jamie on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:21 | # “As for someone’s comment saying that white men prefer to date Nordic women over other races, please tell me where, I am a very attractive Nordic woman and get plenty of attention and admiration, however my friend who is half nordic and half asian of some sort, as soon as any man or woman sees her, its as if I or anyone else does not exist!! We have traveled all over the world, and no matter where we go, whatever race we encounter, the girl seems to hold some sort of spell over people because as long as she is around, its as if men who love nordic women forget that they do. So to say that most white men prefer a nordic woman is based on my experience and many other people’s experience absolutely wrong!! I wonder where are you based that such an argument can be made??”
The trend may seem little more than an effect of 21st century globalization. As more individuals of mixed descent achieve fame (think Norah Jones and Tiger Woods), it seems natural that society would embrace the mixed look. Media exposure, however, doesn’t fully explain the perception of hapa beauty. Eurasians may possess genetic advantages that lead to greater health and, as a result, enhanced attractiveness. That’s according to a study, the first to find that hapa faces are rated as more beautiful than European or Japanese faces. Researchers say the finding may extend to other racial mixes as well. The experiment by Gillian Rhodes, a psychologist at the University of Western Australia, found that when Caucasian and Japanese volunteers looked at photos of Caucasian, Japanese and Eurasian faces, both groups rated the Eurasian faces as most attractive. These visages were created by first digitally blending a series of faces from each race into “composites” to create average, middle-of-the-road features typical of each race. Past studies show that “average” features are consistently rated as more attractive than exaggerated features—such as an unusually wide forehead or a small chin. The finding that Japanese and white subjects preferred mixed-race faces was surprising because, earlier in the same study, most volunteers rated their own race as more beautiful than others. That is, white people typically prefer whites when choosing an ideal image of beauty; blacks prefer blacks; etc. So why might hapas be considered particularly beautiful? Evolutionary psychologists say it’s because Eurasians and other mixed race individuals appear healthier. Humans, like other animals, look for markers of good genetic health in their quest for a reproductive partner. Take facial symmetry, for example: Studies show that, whether they know it or not, people prefer individuals with evenly spaced eyes and other signs of congruence. In evolutionary terms, these markers are associated with healthy conditions in the womb. Infants exposed prenatally to toxins or pathogens may develop facial irregularities and asymmetry. The human brain may be wired to avoid these overt cues of lackluster health, says R. Elisabeth Cornwell, a psychologist at the University of Colorado. “The signs of beauty are the signs of health,” she says. Rhodes’ findings seem to fit this paradigm: Participants in her study said the Eurasian faces appeared healthier, too. Similarly, evidence suggests that half-Asians’ diverse genetic ancestry would enhance health. According to evolutionary psychologist Randy Thornhill, at the University of New Mexico, “If you hybridize two genetically diverse populations—another way of saying you cross races—then you create more genetic diversity in the offspring.” Genetic diversity, or heterozygosity, is associated with a lower incidence of some diseases. Genetic diseases, such as hemophilia and Tay-Sachs, occur when a person inherits two copies of a defective gene. This is more likely to happen in isolated populations with little genetic diversity. In 2004, Craig Roberts, professor of biology at the University of Newcastle in the U.K., found the first direct link between diverse genes and facial attractiveness. He examined genes of the major histocompatability complex (MHC)—a set of genes crucial to a well-functioning immune system. Photos of people with the greatest MHC diversity were rated more attractive than individuals with less MHC diversity. Here, actual health—the ability to resist infection—was linked to perceptions of attractiveness. Roberts believes this preference helps humans pick healthy mates. Which features radiate both health and beauty? One may be the appearance of the skin. In a second experiment, Roberts found that women rated close-up photos of heterozygous males’ skin as healthier than close-ups of homozygous males’ skin, and these judgments correlated with ratings of overall attractiveness. Ostensibly, evidence that Caucasians and Asians prefer mixed race faces counters a major tenet of mating theory: that we are drawn to partners who resemble ourselves, such as those with similar hair and eye color. So does this new research explain the popularity of Brazilians, who frequently have blended racial heritage, as fashion models? That remains to be seen. Says Rhodes: “If a preference for mixed-race faces occurs for many different mixes, we could be more confident that it is tapping into something fundamental about human perceptions of attractiveness.” 541
Posted by jamie on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:43 | # “Your comment does not at all suggest that you are a white person. Paleness can easily be taken care of by a natural or fake tan. Northern European women have sharper facial features than non-white women, as common observation should suggest; Europeans have more angular facial features than non-Europeans. As far as Indian women having more feminine physiques goes, this is a grossly mistaken notion. You have ignored tha citations about waist-to-hip ratios (WHRs). East Indian women have some of the highest WHRs (least feminine) in the world. Aditi Govitrikar and Hritik Roshan are of pure Indian parentage, with no other-population admixture? You have missed extensive discussion of multiple population mixtures in India, mostly in the past. The mixed ancestry of most East Indians is not a recent event. “
it’s the reason for natural selection favoring brown eyes. the lighter the eyes the more problems a person has seeing.
i do remember a friend telling me something similar aobut blonde ahir and blue eyes in whites before even reading that article. 542
Posted by jamie on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:50 | # sorry let me make that clear…its not jsut having a large buttocks but having a potruding buttcks as well that’s considered a feminine feature. On average white women jsut dont have portruding buttocks even alot of the oens who claim they have big butts. With indian women, native american women and of course those form africa on the other hand this is very common. 543
Posted by jamie on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:54 | # another feminie attribute is that women ahve larger thighs than men. but on average whites have thinner thighs than the darker races. So to claim indian women are masculine when compared to white women is simply ridiculous and proves how desperate some can be to prove they are a member of a superior race. 544
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:22 | # Anon Ymus, I don’t have to be anybody to describe beauty. The typical white person should be in agreement with what I have pointed out or could easily be made to prefer white facial features over other facial features. If color is ignored, white norms with respect to facial features are generally appreciated by non-whites, too, but the reverse is not true. As far as masculine jawlines in women go, most people prefer feminine looks in women, and therefore a masculine jawline will typically reduce a woman’s attractiveness as far as most people are concerned. Once again, if two populations are to be compared with respect to attractiveness, one needs to compare either central tendency or individuals with above average attractiveness. One shouldn’t bother comparing manly, unattractive or deformed women. I have a sketch of the central tendency among American white women, but not one for South Asian women. This is the reason that I resorted to pictures of women with above average attractiveness rather than women with multiple shortcomings from the perspective of beauty. The comparisons in the comments thread are in response to the women pointed out by the Hindu signing off as “Malcolm A.” It is true that some undesirable features present in Indian women are also present in Nordic women, but the frequency is lower. For instance, most people do not find broad noses attractive, but the narrower noses of Nordic women implies that a greater proportion of Indian women will have bad-looking noses. The untouchable women were selected for the purposes of pointing out their racial characteristics and for showing that the handful of East Indian women that I selected from India’s movie industry are indeed better looking in an Indian context. You are saying that the racial characteristics of the untouchables are a response to centuries of living in slums? These untouchables have facial features closer to those of ancestral humans. South Asians, on average, have facial features shifted toward ancestral traits compared to whites. Whites in general and Northern Europeans in particular have shifted away from ancestral features faster than other populations because they switched to eating cooked food before other humans did, and also as a result of stronger sexual selection (would select for greater attractiveness). The looks of the untouchables shown here are not being flattered, but there are not a whole lot of ways to point out what whites stand to lose from a beauty perspective if they absorb non-whites among them. Once again, an attempt to seek flaws is not distracting me from seeing the whole package, but if the whole package is found wanting, then I am simply describing why, in terms of individual attributes. Indian men going through this thread will find the Indian women better looking in all cases? This may be true for some, but it is not true for the majority. It is clear from the brisk sales of skin bleachers and marriage ads in India that fair skin is preferred there, but more importantly, Caucasoid facial features are preferred, too. Most Indian men honest about their preferences would agree that Nordic women have better looking facial features; color is a different matter, though a greater proportion would prefer white skin compared to those who find white skin disagreeable. Hindoo is an archaic, though valid, variant of Hindu. Besides, I have mentioned previously that I have used Hindu within this thread as a proxy for East Asian, notwithstanding non-Hindu-religion people in India. I have no idea where you got the impression that there are more brown than white physicians in the U.S.; the reverse is true. And no, medical education is not free in the U.S.; it is very expensive. —————— Anon Ymus and Fassi, As far as IQ is concerned, the results are unambiguous; the statement that the darker the population, the dumber it is is quite s true (correlation = -0.92), and there are numerous biological and other real world correlates of IQ for skeptics. The roots of civilization do not lie in Scandinavia, but do they lie among brown people? Present inhabitants of a region that boasted a civilization thousands of years ago cannot be assumed to be the undiluted descendents of the people responsible for the civilization. Ancient Middle Eastern civilizations were the products of whites, and as these people started becoming brown, their civilizations declined and eventually collapsed. For instance, in a comparison of skulls from ancient Egypt with modern human skulls, these skulls clustered with Europeans prior to joining the North African cluster:
Similarly, skulls from Bronze age North Iran are similar to Nordic skulls, and a blonde Scythian mummy was recently unearthed as far as Mongolia. There is a lot more that could be said in this regard. On a related note, fake Hindu claims about their intellectual contributions have been previously addressed, and the genuine ones cannot be assumed to have been the products of the dark natives there. Regarding the claim that ‘Europeans would not be what they are today if it werent for the “brownies,”’ the following excerpt from another thread should suffice:
A minor note on Christianity: Christianity is indeed non-European in origin, but European civilization predates Christianity and is certainly not built upon it; Christianity, in fact, retarded civilizational advancement in Europe for centuries until Europeans broke away from the grip of the Church, starting from the Renaissance. Fassi, do you believe that if blacks dominated the media, their facial features would be admired around the globe? White facial features are admired because of intrinsic value, not value rendered by media domination. 545
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:25 | # Jamie, The paper you cited by Gillian Rhodes has multiple flaws that I have pointed out previously in an entry, and after posting this entry, I came across a new study showing that Rhodes’ assumption that the facial features of mixed-race individuals will be the average of their parental races is far from true. The average white people, especially the average white woman, in Rhodes’ study were unattractive, and this is the reason why the mixed-race people looked better. There is no way attractive white people will look better if you were to Asianize them. For any attractive white-Asian mix, it would be easy to find several much better-looking white people. Buttock protrusion contributes to the waist-to-hip ratio, and if this ratio is the most feminine among Nordic women, then the waist and hips, taken together, are the most feminine among Nordic women. Buttocks protrude the most in black women, but they also have narrower hips and thicker waists if you see them from the front. Is this more feminine? Similarly, for a given hip measurement, Indian women have wider waists and for a given waist measurement, Indian women have narrower hips than white women. Is this more feminine? More protruding buttocks in black and Indian women are racial characteristics, not manifestations of greater femininity. Thicker lips are more feminine? Do the super-thick lips in some black women look very feminine and attractive to you? Lips thickness varies as a function of both race and feminization. Thicker lips in Indian and black women are a function of their racial characteristics, not their greater femininity. Fact checks about albinos: Albinos do not have red hair; true albinos do not have blue eyes but pink eyes instead, and most whites are not albinos and are darker than albinos. Within a population, women are lighter than men, i.e., femininity is associated with lesser pigmentation, not greater pigmentation. People with light eyes do indeed tend to have a harder time seeing in very bright sunlight, but whites generally do a good job when it comes to seeing, and your pointer is completely irrelevant to this thread. Men have larger thighs than women, not the other way around as you have implied. Women deposit more fat on their upper thighs than men though. It is true that black and Indian women have relatively thicker thighs than white women, but they also have thinner lower legs, making their legs look out of proportion. This makes it more attractive for you? Who is really making desperate arguments? 546
Posted by jamie on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:28 | # plus if whites are more feminine then where does that leave white men? LOL saying white women are the msot feminine wouod mean that white men are the most fmeinine men. 547
Posted by jamie on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:56 | # so if we are to go along wiht your theory that women have lgihter ksin than men then you’re compleely contradicting yourself.
you’re completely contradicting yourself. and if they’re coutning in buttocks with the waist to hip ratio and still claiming white women and asian women ahve the smallest waist to hip ratio…then im very suspscious of those studies….how can they be counting the buttocks size and length in with the waist to hip ratio when indian and blakc women ahve larger buttcokks and are mroe likely to store fat in the buttocks area?
plus butt isn’t the same as hips so i dont see how they can count it in with the waist to hip ratio…i would ahve to see evidence of that before i beleive it. 548
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:58 | # Jamie, Ever heard of sexual selection and sexual dimorphism? Selection for feminine women does not necessarily select for feminine men because there is corresponding selection for masculine men, too. The result is that some women are very feminine and some men very masculine. 549
Posted by jamie on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 01:02 | # and about the albinos,,,there are several forms of albanism
this is why it amazes me how you can ahve people who claim those with blue eyes and blonde ahir are superior in looks. the people who claim that in my opinion have simply allowed their midns to be taken over by long held western beleifs
My point is not all albinos are the extreemely pale type. 550
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 01:23 | # Jamie, I am not contradicting myself with respect to the skin color issue. I have not said that lighter skin makes white women more feminine; just pointed out that within a population (not between races) women are lighter than men and therefore femininity (within a population) is associated with lighter pigmentation. True albinos have pink eyes, though you are correct that this is not typical because there are many types of albinism, but absence of melanin in skin is a characteristic of albinism, and a pink tone, if present, is due to the hemoglobin in blood, not a skin pigment. In studies measuring waist-to-hip ratios, how do you think they assess hip measurements? They measure the circumference at the hips, which means that buttock protrusion is taken into account. The reason that Indian women have lower waist-to-hip ratios, on average, than white women is because they have thicker waists for a given hip size. Some black women in south Africa (Bushwomen, Hottentots) have extremely protruding buttocks, which make their waist-to-hip ratios lower than white women, but these look bizarre and are associated with race, not greater femininity. 551
Posted by Brian on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 05:37 | # I have to say… You people are the biggest retards I’ve ever seen in my life. Did you guys ride the short yellow bus in school? 1.White men perfer non white women? The woman that said that is obviousally retarded. 2.White women are the most overrated “race” there is. Attractive? Please. Most are ugly without makeup. 3.White women rank last on my list because they’re the biggest whores of any race of women. They strip, do porno’s, mess around with underaged teen boys, beastiality, and just about everything else. If the majority of men is attracted to american white women this is the reason why.
It’s people like the ones posted here that have made me lose faith in people. I no longer have faith in american’s. Sometimes I want to even root for the so called “terrorist”. 552
Posted by Brian on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 05:48 | # I guess j.Richards view of femine is stripping or getting buttf8cked. That’s white women for ya=) 553
Posted by Brian on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 06:38 | # Jamie, You’re wasting your time with Richards. He thinks white people are the greatest, they do little wrong. Everyone wants to be like them. He forgets that a ton of american whites have spent decades leeching off other cultures. Sort of like Elvis that stole from those black churchs. Probably the most overrated “artist” in music history. I’m a white guy and I find the averagewhite person unattractive and rather generic and boring. Maybe white women were lady like at one time. However, there’s alot fewer of those nowdays. I suspect that you’ll dissagree… Your taste in women reflect your boring and generic self important personality. 554
Posted by Brian on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 06:53 | # As for what I prefer… I like the look of a Rosaino Dawson (The actress from Sin City and Clerks II) or a Meagan Good
Good looks ALOT better than that manly looking blonde at the top of this page. I’d like to see that blonde without makeup. She resembles that of Camron Diaz… If any of you have ever seen her without makeup, it isn’t very pleasent at all. 555
Posted by rustymason on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 08:19 | # All men prefer White women. Anyone who says they don’t is either a fool or a liar. 556
Posted by rustymason on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 08:23 | # Brian says: “Manly”? You really prefer the monkey girl over the White babe at the top of the page? You poor fish. 557
Posted by Anon Ymus on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 09:28 | # J Richards Once again you contradict yourself. What I meant by education being free in western states is that from Kindergarten to 12th grade you dont pay and whether you make it to med school depends on how you do in high school. I did not say med school and college is cheap. But the talents in America are universal. Developing world countries pay for their education throughout. And reality check for for you, if you look a bit far and see tommorrow’s generation you’re not gonna be seeing as many American docs as you do today. I am not in any kind of clash with the Western world. I am a westerner myself and I really appreciate and value the country which I was raised in. But I see a lot of values and morals slipping away in the Western world. There may be a million bad things in other countries but there are bad things in Western countries too which shouldnt be undermined. By turning a blind eye towards the flaws of “your people” and constantly criticising others doesn’t show any courtesy on your part. In my opinion you sound too educated to be wasting your knowlegde trying to prove a matter of opinion. Im not saying white women arent as pretty as Indian women. I am trying to say that comparisons cannot be made. ALso all of these women have makeup on. Have you seen them without makeup before you start jumping to conclusions? And also get another reality check. Indian guys are seriously not gonna prefer any of the white women posted on YOUR site even if they do prefer non-Indian women. Do you notice that you have posted alot of skanky pics on this site which our friend rustymason apparently enjoys. Are you trying to say that they are more beautiful than the pic of madhuri dixit you have on ur site. And let me remind you, westerners themselves have claimed Aishwarya Rai to be the prettiest woman in the world. I dont agree with that but if the West has claimed it then she definetely cannot be unattractive Also Paris Hilton, Jennifer Aniston and many other white American actresses have your version of a “masculine” jawline. I dont see any pics of them for comparison’s sake I suppose you too believe women are nothing more than something to be oogled over. But it doesnt look good on your part let me tell you that much. All this knowledge of yours can be put to a better purpose. Also you cannot impose your opinions on others on the matter of IQ level until you get a survey of every white and nonwhite person in the world’s IQ results. You cant deny the fact that the cradle of civilization is the middle east. As for the women in Indian slums, remember that no matter how ancient looking they are each and every woman is a human being. They have a life. Whatever you say you are neglecting to pay respect to humanity. 558
Posted by Anon Ymus on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 09:31 | # Rustymason Who are you calling monkeygirl dweeb. Maybe you should take a good long look at yourself in the mirror. And you kno what, you don’t deserve a DECENT girl from any race you little racist bastard! 559
Posted by Anon Ymus on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 09:42 | # Brian, I wouldn’t go as far as to agree with you on terrorists bc they poop view the entire world with contempt but as I said decency is slipping away among white girls. I dont say that non whites dont behave the same way but the numbers are much fewer. It’s good to know at least that someone doesn’t jugde women solely on the basis of looks. Ha! in your face J Richards. Not all white men prefer white women. So your claim might just be invalid. Sigh! J Richards, I agree has a distorted perception of the world. 560
Posted by innerspace on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 11:38 | # All men prefer White women. Anyone who says they don’t is either a fool or a liar. Ha! You sound a little threatened there, monkey-boy! And what if it weren’t the case that all men prefer the type of women you prefer? That would be intolerable, wouldn’t it? The thought that some people might have preferences different than your own? 561
Posted by jason kirk on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 13:24 | # “Some black women in south Africa (Bushwomen, Hottentots) have extremely protruding buttocks, which make their waist-to-hip ratios lower than white women, but these look bizarre”
one could very well argue that white womens wide hips in the front but being flat as a board in the back or having little to no ass looks bizarre as well. I know alot of men who would agree with me oin that one, my dad included. when those chicks turn to the side its almost like they become invisible.
562
Posted by jason kirk on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 13:34 | # If you ask me, these girls look far better than all the women you posted, especially the white ones 563
Posted by Anon Ymus on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 13:36 | # between monkey-boy (LoL well said innerspace) and jason kirk i have trouble figuring out who’s better. I have to give it to you mr. kirk at least you show some respect but the whole point here is to put aside the race issue bc saying white women are better is the same as saying brazilans are. ANd also you’re in no position to make a derogatory conclusion about indian women. However….each individual is entitled to their own opinion so thats mine. As far as monkey boy goes he’s probably dealing with a little insecurity which he should resolve before calling other people fools. 564
Posted by jason kirk on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 13:36 | # i dont know how to post pictures on here but if people go to this link they will see the women i was talking about. 566
Posted by jason kirk on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:03 | # im sorry if i came off offensive towards indian women and there are some of them that ive found highly attractive in the face but the majority of them just dont do it for me (especially once you move past the face) and look at the body. if that sounds offensive then im sorry but its jsut a personal preference 567
Posted by Fassi Moroccan realist on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:52 | # Richards, “Ancient Middle Eastern civilizations were the products of whites” Are you crazy, this is the DESERT I find it difficult to accept the idea that white populations could survive in such conditions Have you heard of skin cancer! The idea of white middle easterners is preposterous as is the idea that brown people lived in Scandinavia thousands of years ago. Come let’s be realistic here. If Middle Eastern and Sub-Continental Indian civilisations where created by white populations how is it that there were no such great civilisations in Europe simultaneously flourishing. Oh and I guess whites are also responsible for pre Columbus civilisation in the Americas; Aztecs, Maya, Inca etc. lol Let me see some evidence of this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am sitting here perplexed at your response. I want to laugh but I also have this uneasy feeling that you actually believe what you are saying.
I will admit the ubove statement has mertin, but my intentions were to highlight that white people are not the most intellegent organisms on earth (which is a fact) The populations in and around the cradle of civilisation where darker people even darker than the present day inhabitants, somewhat similar to the dravidians of Inida. The only reason why some arabs persians and turks seem light is a result of the crusades the influx of white populations with no females. Come to your senses. One more thing the Blonde on the top of this page has a huge chin oh my days that’s huge!!! Is things like that aesthetically pleasing to persons who I will not name *cough* Richards *cough* She looks like she is about to melt. 568
Posted by Fassi Moroccan realist on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:58 | # Richards I only wish that you live to a thousand. You will then witness the fall of white administered civilisations, which is inevitable. Then what will you say in regard to the so-called inherently smart whites? 569
Posted by JD on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:24 | # May be Mr. Richards, Besides South Asians, Middle-Easterners and North Africans, South East Asians, Pacific Islanders and Hispanics are not races as such but mixed breed populations. Cannot compare them to Europeans, North East Asians, Africans and Aboriginal Australians who are races formed from isolation, just like the primary colours in colorimetry. Most people in mix breed populations tend to be ugly as they loose morphological integrity or in layman’s terms, there is mismatch of features. We inherit our features and our organs independently from our parents. Six parts of the nose itself are inherited independently. Thus interracial liaisons lead to on average uglier and unhealthier populations. Only in those cases where the mixing (due to good fortune alone) has been good and harmony achieved that we see attractiveness in mixed breed populations. A mismatch can occur within pure races as well but the chances are lesser. In India’s case the original people to enter the land were Austroloids, who carried their journey through South East Asian onto Australia and the Pacific region from Africa via the Middle East. Some Negroids may have entered as well. After that there has only been invasions of mixed Caucasians from the Middle East or pure Caucasians from Europe and North Asia. Also mixed mongoloids from South East Asia and pure Mongoloids from central Asia and the Far East enters the country spreading their genes. In the north and the central parts of South Asia the Australoid components have been subdued to a greater extent (but it still exists to a good extent) thanks to constant infusion of mongoloid and Caucasoid blood. In the south the influence of Caucasoid and mongoloid blood has been lesser. This explains the dearth of attractive men and women in the south. Indeed the Tamil movie industry tends to use north Indian actresses as their own women are butt ugly. Even their actors who are local tend to be the butt of the typical North Indian’s jokes (with some exceptions of course). For example Aiswarya Rai is a south Indian. Thus the Punjabis, However many upper castes tend to look more Europid and thus are more attractive. Some of the few attractive people from the south tend to come from the brahmin or other upper castes like the Nayars. Upper castes like the Brahmins and Kayastas/Kshatriyas etc… tend to be fairer and better looking. Some Brahmin groups such as the Kokanastha Brahmins of the Maharastra/Goa coastline of Western India and Maithili Brahmins of Bihar in north India are famous for their attractiveness in both their genders. Many have green/hazel eyes and Northern European features. I have seen many myself but they too are a mixed race and cannot be considered pure Europeans though many of them may pass as Northern Europeans. On the other hand Muslims can be attractive as many have Iranian, Arab, Afghan, Turkish or Mughal blood. Thus you see more Caucasoid looking the south Asian is more attractive he is considered. 570
Posted by JD on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:43 | # Mr JR, It could be possible that European like populations may have created most of the civilizations in the Middle East and South Asia. You see thousands of years ago, the brown mix breed race (which BTW I belong to) probably did not exist. There were Whites in Europe, Mongoloids in northern Asia, Blacks in Africa, Middle East and South Asia. A lot of the deserts in the Middle East were probably forested with primitive Low IQ Negroids living there. At the same time the Europeans (along with the Mongoloids) lived in Ice age Eurasia where nature chose them for high IQ, but the ice age conditions in Northern Eurasia was just to survive as savages. But when these peoples came to the more habitable parts of the middle East and North Africa the easy conditions along with their superior IQ, mental toughness and other good qualities lead to a double whammy and great civilizations were immediately built up in there places. Earlier they must have murdered the stupid blacks, but foolishly they started intermarrying with them. It could also happen as just as the Spanish in the Americas, they would be all men groups who arrived and then eloped with the local women. Lack of sex for a long time can even make a 60 year old bitch attractive. Thus the new races formed would have half the abilities of the Europids on average and thus civilisation started decaying but were still maintained by the half castes. This is exactly what is happening in many western nations now. 571
Posted by JD on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:47 | # The Arabs may have been formed from the mixture of Europeans and negroids. While the South Asians like me were formed by the mixture of Caucasoid, mongoloid and Ausroloid. Less Negroid in my part of the world. Its mostly Caucasoid and Australoid. In south East asia it is mostly a mixture of mongoloids and Australoids with very little caucasoid and negroid thrown in. 572
Posted by jason kirk on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:54 | # Richards, i also find that blacks and latinas tend to on average have larger breasts than whites. Hence, the reason you have far more white women than black women getting breast implants whereas black women when they go and get plastic surgery done they’re more likely to get breast REDUCTION surgery.
So, what wasa that you were saying aobut white women being the most attractive and most feminine again? 573
Posted by jason kirk on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:59 | # you all are crazy, arabs are jsut THAT arabs. Their hair and skin color and nose shape is the way it is because of the DESERT. there is nothing about them that says they are half black and half whites that’s just stupid. If they were half black and half white then they would look similar to racially mixed people in america or in spanish speaking countries. Come on yall.
574
Posted by jason kirk on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:05 | # if you all actually believe race exists according to nature then it would be even MORE foolish of you to assume that black white and asian are the only three races. anybody wiuth eyes can tell that this isnt true. 575
Posted by jason kirk on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:22 | # you all are actually trying to tell me that those white women you posted are more attractive than miss universe 2006 from puerto rico? 578
Posted by Lakeisha (oops, I mean Brian) on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:51 | # I found this interesting video that proves white culture makes black children prefer white dolls. Eurocentric culture forces blacks to use skin bleaching creams and hair relaxers by forcing them to make fun of each others nappy hair and forcing the mothers of black girls to make disparaging comments about their “Africanness” when their daughters let their hair go “natural”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17fEy0q6yqc Oh, and I’m a white guy. It’s a total coincidence that I write exactly like an uneducated black female in the above posts. Does everybody agree with me that the black female is a paragon of sexual restraint and virtue? Haven’t you seen those girls gone wild ads that prove white girls are tramps? It’s only because of Eurocentric Amerikkkan culture that our Black women become unwed teenage mothers and crack smoking streetwalkers in large numbers. 579
Posted by Brian on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:01 | # Brian, I wouldn’t go as far as to agree with you on terrorists bc they poop view the entire world with contempt but as I said decency is slipping away among white girls. I dont say that non whites dont behave the same way but the numbers are much fewer. It’s good to know at least that someone doesn’t jugde women solely on the basis of looks. Ha! in your face J Richards. Not all white men prefer white women. So your claim might just be invalid. Sigh! J Richards, I agree has a distorted perception of the world. “ lol Sometimes I go overboard. So the terrorist comment really wasn’t needed. but it’s easy to see why non americans often hate americans. Now, I’m not going to respond to that Rusty dude because he’s obviousally just troll bait. Often I’ve found that tastes in women often reflect a persons personality. Going by my experiences anyway. As I said above, j.Richards seems to like bland looking women and also seems to have a very bland personality. He’s the guy that always believes the majority is right without questions. Afterall, how could the majority be wrong? It’s a sign that one doesn’t think for his self. This isn’t about how much college experience you have… How much you know about science.. All that doesn’t mean you have good taste. Sorry… it doesn’t.
I’m sure you will note Nicoles “white facial features” but the black woman is way better looking. NaRain isn’t really my type, but she just looks better. 580
Posted by jason kirk on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:15 | # brian how are you posting pictures can you tell me how to post pictures on ehre 581
Posted by Brian on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:20 | # Btw, that blonde is going to age very poorly… She’ll have those digusting look bags under her eyes. She looks like a man with long blonde hair. I mean, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). If your going to try and build up white women… Atleast post better looking ones than her. I wouldn’t do her with someone elses dick. 582
Posted by jason kirk on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:30 | # brian did you see my post to you?
583
Posted by Brian on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:36 | # Here is what you do: That’s how it works. “Oh, and I’m a white guy. It’s a total coincidence that I write exactly like an uneducated black female in the above posts. Does everybody agree with me that the black female is a paragon of sexual restraint and virtue? Haven’t you seen those girls gone wild ads that prove white girls are tramps? It’s only because of Eurocentric Amerikkkan culture that our Black women become unwed teenage mothers and crack smoking streetwalkers in large numbers” Nice try… But it doesn’t work. The so called educated people on here totally lack common sense… Which is often found in self important jack@sses that believe the world starts and finishes with how college knowledge you claim to have. Your attempts to be sarcastic have failed. College or books will never teach you common sense. You either have it, or you don’t. IF you have to be a blind racist person without common sense to be educated, I’ll be happy to not be educated. Have a nice day Hitler. 584
Posted by brian on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:40 | # jason: you to do this: img “COPY AND PASTE PICTURE” IRL img
585
Posted by jason kirk on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:48 | # (img)http://www.escaner.cl/escaner10/xica2.jpg(img) 586
Posted by jason kirk on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:53 | # {img}http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/norrita1984/zuleyka2.jpg{img} 587
Posted by jason kirk on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 20:06 | # never mind i give up i dont know hwo to do this 588
Posted by Brian on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 20:16 | # You almost got it… Only one thing left! On the second img….Put a / ahead of img [/img] like that. 589
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 03:33 | # Brian, Stupid, lowbrow comments such as yours are not welcome here. With rare exceptions, non-whites such as yourself can only either ogle at white women, look at white women in porn or have sex with a white woman only if she is a prostitute. Of course, you do not have the education or intelligence to figure out that the vast majority of white women would not have anything to do with the outrageous behaviors you have associated white women with, but then your comments also appear to be an example of sour grapes. A “girls gone wild” video featuring too many non-white women will not sell to a broad audience, and this is why these videos focus on white women, since white women are appreciated for their looks by all races, but there are some videos focusing on black women, and they are sold to black men. Your stupidity shows in the claim that you have lost faith in people and America, and are even prompted to root for terrorists [acting against America], because of some comments within this thread. Several people associated with this site and also many commentators here are not American, and only a handful among hundreds of millions of Americans have commented here. Non-whites like you [and also Malcolm A plus equivalent assorted subcons within this thread] are so ignorant about whites that you cannot even pull off a half-decent pretence to being white. I gather that you are a black person given your choices of women since non-black men are almost never interested in black women, and when they are, the woman is typically a mulatto. As I have mentioned previously, the blonde woman on top of this page is not shown in the context of an attractive woman; she is just an example of a Northern European, who would undoubtedly be preferred over a black woman by the great majority of men, but you have ignored the white women used for the purposes of contrasting with Indian women, and chosen this woman instead for nitpicking. This woman is not very feminine, but let us see how she compares with the black/mulatto women you have cited. The blonde vs. Rosario Dawson; who looks more feminine?
The blonde vs. Nicole Narain (half black, one-fourth Chinese, one fourth East Indian).
The blonde vs. Megan Good
The blonde has a more feminine waist and hip region than Megan Good (left) and Rosario Dawson (right), and I don’t know if the breasts of Megan are real (they look fake).
The blonde has a feminine backside, which is a lot more feminine than what you see in Nicole Narain.
Some more pictures of the blonde.
Once again, the blonde is not very feminine and was not selected for the purposes of representing a very attractive woman, but she is not manly and will attract far more men of all races than the non-white women she is compared to will in several lifetimes. Cameron Diaz is not blonde; she is not even Nordic, but a non-white such as yourself couldn’t generally tell this; she is a Hispanic, and I agree that she is unattractive. America was not built by leeching off of other nations; it attracts leeches in droves though. The video you linked to proves nothing along the lines of white culture making black girls prefer white dolls or want to straighten their hair and bleach their skin. People easily recognize better looking persons, and black children have long been known to prefer blonde dolls to black dolls, but black adults almost never have the honesty to admit how attractive they are in comparison to others. Are black women a paragon of sexual restraint and virtue? Before letting others answer this question, you have been quick to blame the high prevalence among American blacks of “unwed teenage mothers and crack smoking streetwalkers” on “Eurocentric Amerikkkan culture.” Talk about incredible delusion! This is standard “blame whitey” drivel. Black women in Africa have a very high prevalence of HIV, easily exceeding that among American homosexual men. Is this because of sexual restraint? 590
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 03:38 | # Jason Kirk, Even East Asian women do not have buttocks that are flat like a board. White women, on average, have buttocks that protrude just about right, in between East Asian and black women. Here is a picture from a webpage you linked to:
Non-blacks would typically find the mulatto women above highly unattractive and disproportionate: huge backsides, thick upper thighs, disproportionately thinner lower thighs and much leaner lower legs. You are probably a black person. What you need to consider is that if you were to ask non-white men to name the most beautiful women other than their own, they will generally name white women and several would name white women as the most beautiful per se, but if you were to ask non-black men to name the most beautiful women other than their own, they would rarely name black women. You believe that the current Miss universe is a really attractive woman, better than the white women shown here in the context of women with above average attractiveness? All the pictures that you linked to are very small, which has often been the case with Malcolm A, too. Here are some bigger pictures of Zuleyka Mendoza; only blacks or mulattos would find this woman (is she?) attractive.
You have raised the issue of breast size. Black women have larger breasts than white women, but they also have a much higher prevalence of obesity, and obese women have larger breasts than normal women. If you were to control for body fat, the breast size discrepancy would diminish. However, within any population, there is a great range of breast size, from near-flat to humongous, and there are plenty of masculine-looking women with large breasts. Therefore, breast size by itself does not help one infer femininity, and other physical features need to be taken into account, and when one considers overall appearance, white women appear overall more feminine. It is not difficult at all to come across non-obese white women with naturally huge breasts.
You pointed out Tais Arujo as a beautiful Brazilian woman, but white men, especially Northern Europeans, live among the likes of the blonde next to Tais. Do you think that white men or for that matter any non-black/non-mulatto man would give Tais a second look?
591
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 03:45 | # Anon Ymus, Okay, K-12 public education is free in the U.S., but it is also of low quality given the huge underclass in America. Decent school education is usually provided by private schools (expensive) or by parents homeschooling their children. You are mistaken that medical school education in the U.S. depends upon how well one does in high school since you need a Bachelor’s degree in order to be accepted to medical school. Four years of college education in the U.S. translates to a big expense. With the rapid massive increase in the non-white population in the U.S., there will be relatively fewer white physicians in the U.S., but among the ranks of the best physicians, you can bet that white physicians would be overrepresented in proportion to their numbers. Yes there are shortcomings in white societies, but we don’t need to add the shortcomings of non-whites to Western societies. Regarding the make-up issue, make-up camouflages skin blemishes, but it does not camouflage gross face shape variables such as face breadth, nose width, straightness of nose, etc. Therefore, gross face shape variables can be compared, notwithstanding make-up. There are some pictures that I have used of ordinary white women with little to no make-up (for instance, you can see freckles in some cases) next to made-up Indian women. Therefore, the advantage is with the Indian women. Regarding the skanky pictures, there are few such examples, but then these cannot be avoided if the physique is to be addressed. Regarding women such as Paris Hilton, Jennifer Aniston, etc., the reason that their pictures have not been shown here is because these are masculine and unattractive women; the comparisons within this thread are not about actresses, but about women with above average attractiveness, regardless of where they have been sourced from; Malcolm A apparently has decided to focus on actresses. Besides, Jennifer Aniston is Greek, not Nordic. I appreciate your concerns about women being reduced to objects, but red-blooded heterosexual men can’t help but appreciate the beauty of attractive women, and this should not be construed as the belief that women are nothing more than things to be ogled at. It is not feasible to test the IQ of every individual, but multiple lines of evidence portray the IQ picture that I have summarized. Once again, even if we assume that brown people in the Middle East gave birth to civilization, whites have shown their capability of maintaining and advancing a technological society, and hence their ancestors within the past few thousand years were surely capable of producing early civilizations indigenously. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence, including skeletal evidence, that Chalcolithic (3rd millennium B.C.) Palestinians, Bronze age North Iranians, ancient Libyans, Mesopotamians, upper Egyptians of prehistoric and early dynasties, etc. were types of white people. Their legacy is still evident in the Middle East as it is not uncommon to see white-looking natives there. —————- Fassi, I have already cited two sources about the Bronze-age North Iranians and ancient Egyptians being white in a previous comment; I am not going to waste my time digging up more references until you go through the citations and either acknowledge them or refute them. Not all of the Middle East is a desert and not all desertified regions there were deserts a few thousand years ago, and don’t assume that white people there in the past were going around naked for sunburn to be a problem. There are plenty of examples of early civilizational achievements in Europe, too: read about finely crafted Bulgarian treasure dating to the third millennium B.C. and early achievements in Northern Europe. Regarding the sustenance of white-built societies, some of these are on their way to ruin, thanks to unchecked non-white immigration, but the only thing that would destroy all white societies in the long-term would be some huge calamity such as a comet strike, nuclear warfare or something of the sort. Non-white immigration into the West is highly asymmetric. Some Western societies will be ruined before there are a large number of non-whites in many parts of Eastern Europe to pose a serious threat, and the ruins would be a powerful motive for remaining white societies to ban non-white immigration. —————- JD, Your honesty stands in sharp contrast to “Malcolm A’s.” Anyway, I have traveled through New Delhi and Bombay, but never came across any local woman with stereotypical Northern European facial features. 592
Posted by Huge Heifer on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 06:23 | # Nice picture there of a white woman sticking her naked rear end into the reader’s face. Another for the Majority Rights porno file. I’d appreciate it though if you stop giving away for free what I need to sell from Playboy. Cuts down on the inventory flow, and all that. 593
Posted by Brian on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 10:54 | # Stupid, lowbrow comments such as yours are not welcome here. With rare exceptions, non-whites such as yourself can only either ogle at white women, look at white women in porn or have sex with a white woman only if she is a prostitute. Of course, you do not have the education or intelligence to figure out that the vast majority of white women would not have anything to do with the outrageous behaviors you have associated white women with, but then your comments also appear to be an example of sour grapes. A “girls gone wild” video featuring too many non-white women will not sell to a broad audience, and this is why these videos focus on white women, since white women are appreciated for their looks by all races, but there are some videos focusing on black women, and they are sold to black men.” The major of americans are retards. The Whole worlds knew that when white people voted George Bush into the white house. Bad taste runs all through this entire country. However, it’s ashame that good people died on 9/11 and guys like you get a chance to live. That isn’t what I’d call fair. Since we know life isn’t fair, I guess we have to live with no personality honkey people like yourself. As far as Dawson goes, she’s an aging woman… But her attractiveness goes well with her personality. Oh, and you do know one of our fellow “white men” Colin Ferrell seemed to like her pretty good. What’s your thoughts on that? What? He isn’t white either? “The blonde vs. Nicole Narain (half black, one-fourth Chinese, one fourth East Indian).” HAHA I figured you’d do that. Nicole isn’t truly my type, but she’s more exotic than than the white women. It goes back to what I said… Most white men have bland pesonalities… Tastesin women reflect that same thing. The blonde is generic looking. There’s nothing that stands out face wise.
Nice job of showing an extreme close up picture to TRY and pass this woman off as having a sizeable @ss. If you take a picture of your d!ck that close up it will look alot bigger than it really is. But you know that, and don’t need me to tell you that. Most of the rest of what your saying (women wise) is clearly non sense. “Are black women a paragon of sexual restraint and virtue? Before letting others answer this question, you have been quick to blame the high prevalence among American blacks of “unwed teenage mothers and crack smoking streetwalkers” on “Eurocentric Amerikkkan culture.” Talk about incredible delusion! This is standard “blame whitey” drivel. Black women in Africa have a very high prevalence of HIV, easily exceeding that among American homosexual men. Is this because of sexual restraint?” Go find me a link to where a black women is arrested for molesting an underaged kid. It might exsist, but I doubt it and it would be hard to find. However, it’s growing more and more common among white women. Why is that? I think it’s because they get so desperate with boring burbs white dudes like yourself that’d stoop that far for something different. I’ll say this, I’m glad I have taste and you don’t. The more differences between us, the better it is. Sadly, because of people like you, alot of non whites want to wipe us off the map entirely. Thanks @sshole. Don’t like my comments? Too bad. Ban me. Makes no difference. It wouldn’t be the first time a middle aged white man would try and take freedoms away… It happens all the time coming from the white house.=) 594
Posted by Brian on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 11:14 | # People are wasting their time here. These two guys (Richards and that other dude) are obviousally just troll bait. They actually believe I’m a black person. LOL If you seen me, you’d be shocked. I’m probably the whitest person on the planet (skin tone wise). Is there anyone here that is not racist and believe that I’m not white? Anyway, these two guys are just looking for attention. They use a bunch of bloated words to do it, but that’s their goal just the same. We shouldn’t allow them to be successful. 595
Posted by Brian on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 11:47 | # One last comment: Even my 20 year old nephew who is a racist redneck and pretty much hates black people admitted that Narin is hotter than the blonde posted besides her. Just one more thing that proves your full of it. Lastly, I love how you found one of Narins more unflattering pictures (poorly done makeup) to attempt to prove your point… Which you failed at doing. The problem is simply is that you don’t really understand exotic beauty. Probably because it goes againest your bland personality. 596
Posted by Anon Ymus on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 11:53 | # J Richards, I thought your site discusses important social issues in an educated manner. Instead your site has nothing more than porno flashes and other obscene images of women. The only reason I commented on this site is because i am a women’s rights advocate and i cannot stand to see you objectify women in this crude obscene undignified manner. I don’t know where you learn your history and where you get the notion that everything you say must be accepted as fact. As a former commenter Ines said, this is definetely not the history we all learned and god knows what claims you;ll make next. This site gets more and more obscene by the day. Have you noticed that you were able to post such obscene pics of white women because they are will to shed their clothes on a camera and have the pics displayed before millions of people. DO these pics represent the quality of western lifestyle because then I’m sorry to say that the Western world may one day diminish in decadence due to this. I’m sorry I ever called you educated because you don’t even deserve to be called educated. You’re just a horny bastard perhaps like million of others out there trying to act smart to cover up you skankiness. I want you to know that I dont believe most of the crack you said on this site and a whole lot of people feel the same. I hope you learn a lesson one day BEFORE falling flat on your face because I guarantee thats what happens to ppl like you. You know what you are probably the unluckiest person I’ve met. You probably missed out on true beauty all your life and will continue to. The world is dying and all the beauty is being wasted due to ppl like you. Yes i did call you a HORNY RACIST BASTARD because thats what you are coming from a true feminist. You can write all this crapp and display distorted images of women on your site but I bet you can’t look a self respecting woman in the eye and say to her face what you have written. I don’t know what your aiming at but sorry the world wont allow another Hitler at large. If your so historically accurate then you should learn something from history rather than making youself look like a downright fool. You also are a fine example of how weak the minds of men are. You exemplify that men allow their testosterone levels to direct every thought and emotion in their bodies which absolutely is repulsive. How could it be that women give birth to little boys who one day grow up to be total bastards. I don’t have anything to clarify to you because as i said I dont believe the crack u write on this site. Instead of rebutting every other person on this site maybe you should see the truth in their words and relearn your facts. DOnt bother writing a comment in response to mine explaining anything and dont bother thinking of a comeback bc you make absolutely no sense whatsoever and make yourself only look more foolish each time. Your opinion alone wouldn’t be so bad if you hadn’t chosen to post such images on a site where everyone is free to comment. Even if you do feel the impulse to look smart again Im not gonna be reading any of the garbage you come up with in respeonse to this comment of mine. 597
Posted by Anon Ymus on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 12:02 | # Hey Brian And Jason Kirk, You know at least you guys don’t hide behind the facade of being educated while you degrade women. AFter reading Mr. J Richards comments I am disgusted at men. Mr. Kirk thanks for having the courtesy to apologize. And it would help Brian not to reiterate other people comments and twist their words around in your own comments because thats called going overboard as well. And we dont need to see obscene pics more than once. Terrorism is an issue apart from any other and needs to be carefully examined and understood before joking about it. The point is you guys are wasting your time with this Richards dude bc he thinks he can never be wrong even if he tries to claim that “Jesus was German”. As for me being concerned Im only commenting because I dont’ respect womanizers and I am a feminist. IDC whatever’s up ur butts as far as thats concerned but i have to give it to you that at least you not racist bastards. 598
Posted by jason kirk on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 13:57 | # Ok Richards,
“but if you were to ask non-black men to name the most beautiful women other than their own, they would rarely name black women.”
Another thing I notice you didn’t link that first picture with those 3 brazilian women on it. That one is pretty large and the women look very sexy on that picture.
“You have raised the issue of breast size. Black women have larger breasts than white women, but they also have a much higher prevalence of obesity, and obese women have larger breasts than normal women.”
599
Posted by jason kirk on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:00 | # also, you will find that in certain parts of africa black is associated with FEMININITY. I will find you the evidence in their artwork that this is true. I read it in a link aobut african art. 600
Posted by jason kirk on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:11 | # plus i hope you know that amongst arabs, greeks and amongst egyptians, before western anglo saxon influence, the DARKEST hair was praised. In fact women use to try to make their hair look even darker. Red hair in egypt was looked down upon and blonde hair in china was once looked down upon before the influience of western civilization.
601
Posted by jason kirk on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:15 | # i would also liek to point out that in arab countries it was the women wiht the DARKEST eyes that were hailed as the most attractive as well In other words back then they would take a woman wiht black-looking eyes over one with brown or light brown eyes 602
Posted by jason kirk on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:25 | # in your attempt to claim that blacks wish they looked white you fale to come to terms with the idea of why white women tan and have been wearing lipstick to make their lips look larger for quite a while now. back in the 50s they wore red lipstick to make their lips larger, now they have upgraded and can wear anyt color lipstick but they have special enhancers in them that make the lips look larger. Not oly do they use lipstick for this purpose, some go as far as getting lip implants.
603
Posted by jason kirk on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:01 | # {/img}http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/norrita1984/tn_bomb_074.jpg {/img} 604
Posted by jason kirk on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:28 | # look at these pictures and try to convince me that these women are either fat or masculine looking.
what would really be hilarious is if you actually tried to convince me that THESE women look masculine. 605
Posted by jason kirk on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:35 | # “The point is you guys are wasting your time with this Richards dude bc he thinks he can never be wrong even if he tries to claim that “Jesus was German”.”
606
Posted by jason kirk on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:44 | # also, please attempt to convince me that these pictures of melissa ford are masculine
607
Posted by JD on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:06 | # I think jason is getting frustrated as he knows he has no valid point against JR. Thus he brings out irrelevant points. I have already explained that most people of one race will find women of their own type attractive in general. Finding men and women of other people attractive shows some kind of mental disease in that person. Such race mixing can hradly lead to any good. thus the ancient writers of the Vedas warned against inbreeding by banning marriages between close relatives (choose a spouse from a different gotra) but at the same time warned agianst outbreeding by banning marriages between different castes or ethnic groups (Thou must choose a spouse from your own jati). These are the rules of the wise Manu. Most of my indian freinds during my stay in Britain found European women as well as Indian women attractive. They however found black women ugly. A few however found East Asian women attractive. But most Indians I knew went crazy on the blonder chicks. Many Indian women found white men more attractive as well but many were afraid that white men would not find them attractive in return. Thus it is only the most attractive Indian chicks who went around with white guys (or in a very few cases East Asian guys). That does not mean that all the attractive South Asians went around with white guys, many went around with South Asian guys as well. But the ugly or plain Indian chicks rarely went out with whites. I personally think (and many indian guys thought that as well) white men were more handsomer than the average Indian men. they had better physique and better looks. but this is only average. there were many sexy and handsome Indian men as well and many ugly White men. I personally know two Arab guys who have admitted that Europeans are more attractive than Arabs (on average). However Indian guys had this attitude towards white chicks that they were sluts and no good for marriage. they only wanted to marry an Indian women, a Achi Desi Nari. 608
Posted by jason kirk on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 17:25 | # “I think jason is getting frustrated as he knows he has no valid point against JR. Thus he brings out irrelevant points. “
609
Posted by jason kirk on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 18:12 | # “They however found black women ugly”
But i myself have known quite a few indian men to be attracted to black women just as there are alot of indian women attracted to black men (more attracted to black men than their own indian men). I’ve seen a few cases where an indian was interested in a black woman and the black woman wouldnt give him the time of day. However I admit that the majority of indians dont find black women attractive however as i pointed out this has more to do with the influence of western culture than it has to do with them finding white women more attractive by NATURE. I bet if the tables were turned and blacks had dominated india for as long as the british dominated india, it would be the other way around. They would find blacks mroe attractive than whites. its all about who has the power and control and influence on a culture. 610
Posted by jason kirk on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 18:29 | # another thing i noticed though aobut indians was that they may not have thought full black black women to be attractive, however most of the ones i’ve known would agree that beyonce is attractive. i once went on one of their messageboards where they were dissing on black women, however the oens who claimed to find black women unattractive admitted to finding the racially mixed black women to be quite appealing once pictures were posted. And quite a few of them commented that ethiopian women were nice looking because you do have ehtiopians who look similar to indians, so the only black women that they found unattractive were the ones who appeared more african in their features.
611
Posted by JD on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 19:16 | # The attitude that indian men find black women unattractive in general has nothing to do with the imposition of western values. You overestimate the influence the west has in India. This is just inate preference. And trust me, most indians care a hoot about the fact that black women find us unattractive. Their minds are filled with Indian, Arab, White and upto some extent East Asian women. In India both men and women prefer fairer spouses. That has nothing to do with the British empire as the empire and the west in general has had a very small influence on hindu or islamic matrimonial preferences. This is just how we are. Fairness is considered superior in terms of beauty in our great and ancient civilisation in both men and women. This explains why most of our actors and actresses originate from the northern ethnic groups such as the Jats, Punjabis etc… Raj Kapoor one of the Bollywood’s greats was admired for his blue eyes. The Kokanastha/ Chitpawan Brahmins (who tend to look Nordic) were considered attractive much before the British took a hold over India and when Maratha power was at it’s peak. 612
Posted by JD on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 19:31 | # As far as the attractiveness Indian women may feel about blacks could be due to the fact that blacks tend to have very good physiques and not because they are dark. Indeed most Indian women born and brought up India may not find black men attractive at all. In India, I have seen many black students from Africa, but not once did I see a black guy with an Indian girl. But I had a German freind in my city and he had not trouble having an attractive Indian (she was a Brahmin BTW) girlfreind. Indeed she was one of the hottest chick in that college. The attractiveness Indian women feel toward black guys in the west has more to do with the imposition of artificial values on our youth by the corrupt western media where black guys are always shown as more masculine, good by nature etc.. Most women are exposed to a very favorable image of blacks as rap stars, sportstars etc.. I am not saying that blacks do not have good physiques or they have good personalities. But a traditional Indian women would never in her dreams think of being with a black guy. Intermarriage with outsiders being hard as it is for Indians, a marriage between an European or an East Asian with an Indian is still tolerated by our civilised society, but a marriage between a black person and and Indian would bring great shame upon the puritcular Indian family. I do not know why that is so, I have come across many intelligent and civilised blacks myself but that is how it is in India. 613
Posted by JD on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 19:43 | # Well I found out that great brave Peshwa, whose deeds are honoured by millions in Maharastra state of India. he is none other than Peshwe Vilasrao. “How to tell a Chitpavan 614
Posted by JD on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:30 | # I wonder if the unattractiveness of non black guys to black women may be due to the fear of rejection black women have vis a vis other men. I spoke about non attractive Indian women afraid of having relationships with white men who were obviously on average more attractive due to fear of lack of reciprocation. Indeed I knew a not so attractive Indian chick who took a liking for a handsome blue eyed blond mutual friend of ours who was Slovak. She intimated this fact to me and I asked if she needed any help in pataoing (getting) my Slovak friend. but I could sense the fear that it is just a fairy tale dream and he would not find her attractive in return. However that Indian friend of mine was really really rich and had that Slovak friend of mine ended up marrying the woman he would be very rich, rich even by Western standards. I remember talking to one hot lebanese chick and asked her about love marriage in lebanon. She said love marriage is quite common there unlike in India where arranged marriage is still the norm. Her family was quite modern. So I asked her if her family would accept a white son in law. She said “yes why not?” I asked an Indian or Chinese “she said no problem”. I asked her if her family would accept a black son in law. her whole mood changed. She said “why do I need to go to black guy if there are so many handsome Arab and white guys around”. What I am trying to illustrate is not that lebanese chicks find blacks unattractive. She is just one person. But even in her case her “forward” parents would accept an Indian or white guy as a son in law but not blacks. 615
Posted by JD on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:51 | # Check out this matrimonail site and see how much importance fairness is given in them. Fairness is something girls and guys both seek in their spouse in the holy land of India. 616
Posted by jason kirk on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:52 | # heres an interesting article that you all should read…it pertains greatly to this topic and addresses the last comments “The Arab World ———————————————————————————————————————— Modern Arab attitudes towards blacks and whites Many modern Egyptians view being black as an insult. Poe narrates in Black Spark White Fire: In 1984, Columbia Pictures released a television mini-series on the life of the late Egyptian president Anwar Sadat. The title role was given to the distinguished black actor Loius Gossett, Jr… With makeup and costume, he was a dead ringer for Sadat.. But the Egyptians did not see it that way. The mini-series Sadat was banned in Egypt. Indeed, so deeply were the Egyptians offended that all films produced or distributed by Columbia Pictures were similarly banned. ... prominent among the stated objections was a strong revulsion against the idea of a black actor playing Sadat. 1 Ann Macy Roth, a professor of Egyptology, once said, “I’ve been told by most of the modern Egyptians with whom I’ve discussed the question, that, if they had to use the categories of the modern Western world, they would describe themselves as whites. (There are some exceptions, but few would describe themselves as black).“2 Pre-modern Arab ideas on race Geographer and philologist al-Bakri (d 1094 CE) says of the Galatians: “They are treacherous, dirty, and bathe once or twice a year, then with cold water. They never wash their clothes until they are worn out because they claim the dirt accumulated as the result of the sweat softens their body.“3 Official and Historian Usamah Ibn Munqidh described Crusaders in the Holy Land: “I saw Franks as like animals possessing courage and fighting prowess though their character is rude. Their medical knowledge is in a crude state for I saw a Frankish physician cut off a leg on which an abscess has grown, causing the man’s death. A woman afflicted with imbecility was diagnosed as possessed by the devil, the physician recommended for her the shaving of her head, and as her case worsened, he made a deep cruciform incision on her head, to chase the devil away, but the woman died in the process.“4 Arab Scholar Sa’id Al-Andalusi’s opinion on whites: “Their temperaments are frigid, their humors raw. They lack keenness of understanding and clarity of intelligence, and are overcome by ignorance and dullness, lack of discernment and stupidity.“5 White slaves fetched higher prices than black slaves in Arab slave markets, which would indicate that medieval Arabs thought more lowly of blacks than they did of whites.6 Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that the gap in black/white status in Arab opinion has been magnified by modern Western influence on Arab world views. Medieval Arabs, unlike slavery-era Euro-Americans, often accepted the children they had with black slaves as their own heirs. A famous example is Al-Mustansir, the 18th Imam-Caliph of the Fatimid dynasty. His father was the previous Caliph and his mother was a Nubian concubine.7 And one of the most famous of Arab writers, Ibn Battuta, has repeatedly expressed favorable opinions of black Africans in his writings. He rates the women of Mali as being of “surpassing beauty”.8 The medieval North African globetrotter traveled subSaharan Africa, Europe and Asia (as far as China) and never failed to record his observations of the women of various nations. This high praise for the beauty of West African women came from a man who has seen many races. “
617
Posted by jason kirk on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:55 | # ———————————————————————————————————————— Asia (outside the Arab World) ———————————————————————————————————————— Modern Asian attitudes towards black and white Koreans and Japanese have similar attitudes towards blacks and whites. Japanese animation is full of beautiful, sexy and heroic white characters. A European woman who saw Sailor Moon noted with much amusement, “If this is Japanese animation, why do none of the characters look Japanese?” The few black characters in other works of Japanese animation are mostly negative or marginal. The recent LA riots in the US testify to the damaging effects of Korean attitudes towards blacks. Generally, white consumers are treated better than black consumers in Korean establishments. Many Koreans and Japanese dye their hair blonde, brown or red. Blue and green contact lenses are also popular among young East Asians. Southeast Asians, wherever they’re living in the world, also express similar white-is-better-than-black attitudes. A black Amerasian living in Vietnam said he wished he was a white Amerasian instead. A Filipino American woman who ran an Asian social group allowed white friends and partners of members to attend but came up with an excuse (“Asians only”) when a group member wanted to bring a black friend. A South Asian woman recalled with horror a stranger knocking on her door, expressly noting it was “an African American man”. Race is almost never tagged onto descriptions of white strangers. Pre-modern Asian ideas on ‘race’ Standards of beauty in South and Southeast Asia: “It is a fact that in this country when a child is born they anoint him once a week with oil of sesame, and this makes him grow much darker than when he was born. For I assure you that the darkest man is here the most highly esteemed and considered better than those who are not so dark. Let me add that in very truth these people portray and depict their gods and idols black and their devils white as snow. For they say that God and all the saints are black and the devils are all white…” 9 In the Chinese record Nan Tsi Chou, a Chinese traveler to Southeast Asia wrote that the local people “consider black the most beautiful.” 10 Although modern Filipinos prize the ‘high-nosed’, oval-faced European-blooded individual as beautiful, some even going as far as to pinch their children’s nose bridges in the hopes of achieving a higher nose, this has not always been the case. Prior to European colonization, the ancient Visayans of the Philippines considered the very opposite of high noses and oval faces handsome. Visayans, as well as some other Austronesian peoples in Malaysia and Indonesia, compressed their babies’ skulls to achieve broad faces with receding foreheads and flat noses . The Minahasa of Celebes even restricted binding with a forehead board to the nobility.11 Old Chinese views on Caucasians: Huihui are shaggy with big noses, and Qipchags have light hair and blue eyes. Their appearance is vile and peculiar, so there are those (Chinese) who do not wish to marry them. 12 This distaste for blondes is a stark contrast to the worship of European standards of beauty so prevalent among modern Asians. Today’s Chinese boast about their Caucasian sons-in-law or husbands. Instead of attributing the worship of whites, or the vilification of whites, for that matter, to “natural” percaptions of racial hierarchy, it should be remembered that standards of beauty shift through time.
America ———————————————————————————————————————— In the 1980s and 1990s, the Cherokee nation has seen a couple of lawsuits involving the denial of citizenship to Cherokee Freedmen (African descendants living in the Cherokee nation). The Cherokee leaders denied that the Freedmen had any Cherokee blood. But most of them did. A Black Indian was typically descended from a Cherokee man and a black woman. Faced with evidence of Cherokee blood in plaintiffs, the Cherokee nation came up with the argument that the matrilineal Cherokee were not required to extend Cherokee identity to the Freedmen. But this strict requirement for matriliny does not apply to descendants of Cherokee men and white women.13 Other nations too had similar lawsuits involving the alleged denial of membership to Freedmen.14 But is this modern preference for whites over blacks characteristic of traditional Native American views? Native Americans initially prefer blacks to whites “Those who had been brave and fearless, the victorious ones in battle, painted themselves in charcoal. So the black man, they thought, had been the bravest of the party.” 15 Colonel Hames Stevenson of the Bureau of American Ethnology spent thirty years living among and studying Native Americans. In 1888 he wrote: “... the old fur traders always got a Negro if possible to negotiate for them with the Indians, because of their ‘pacifying effect.’ They could manage them better than the white men, with less friction.” In 1738, Nantucket, Rhode Island, residents uncovered an Indian plot to attack their city at night and spare only Africans. 16 These are only a few examples of Indians killing Europeans and rescuing their African slaves. The idea of white superiority/black inferiority a European import?
Europe ———————————————————————————————————————— Ancient Romans disdain all non-Romans regardless of color “Now while the southern peoples are of acute intelligence and infinite resource, they give way when courage is demanded because their strength is drained away by the sun, but those who are born in colder regions by their fearless courage are better equipped for the clash of arms, yet by their slowness of mind they rush on without reflection, and through lack of tactics are balked of their purpose… Italy presents good qualities which are tempered by admixture from either side both north and south, and are consequently unsurpassed. And so, by its policy, it curbs the courage of the northern barbarians, by its strength, the imaginative south. Thu the divine mind has allotted to the Roman state an excellent and temperate region in order to rule the world.” 18 The character and beauty of Ethiopians admired by ancient Europeans Greek writer Diodoros wrote of the Ethiopians: “their piety has been published abroad among all men, and it is generally held that the sacrifices practised among the Ethiopians are those which are the most pleasing to heaven.” 19 continuing article 618
Posted by jason kirk on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:56 | # ———————————————————————————————————————— Pre-Modern Encounters between Europeans and non-whites ———————————————————————————————————————— Roman army defeats all nations encountered except the Ethiopians Poe describes in Black Spark, White Fire: “From the moment Augustus occupied Egypt in 30 B.C, the Romans had nothing but trouble from their southern frontier… the Ethiopians ... attacked the Thebais… took Syene and Elephantine and Philae, and enslaved the inhabitants, and also pulled down the statues of Caesar…The Emperor Diocletian was obliged, at the end of the third century A.D, to pay tribute to two Ethiopian tribes called the Nobatae and the Blemyes in order to stop their raids. These tribes continued collecting Roman tribute for the next two hundred years.“20 White Slavery in Asia and Africa Europeans continued to be slaves in the Arab world for centuries to come. When the Mongols conquered large parts of Russia in the 13th century, they sold their new subjects in the slave markets of West Asia and North Africa. One Russian chronicler, describing the enslavement of his people by the Mongols, wrote, “The (Mongols) ... learn warfare from their youth. Therefore, they are stern, fearless and fierce towards us ... We cannot oppose them, but humiliate ourselves before them…” 21 The Mongol’s Slavic slave trade filled the harems of Turkish sultans with Slavic women. Slavic men did hard labor for Muslim masters, while Slavic children were sold in slave auctions from Cairo to Baghdad. While Eastern Europeans comprised of the bulk of European slaves, Scandinavians captured by marauding pirates were also trafficked to Arab lands.22 Contrary to the common belief that sub-Saharan Africa had a strictly one-sided role in the slave trade - only exporting slaves and not importing them - medieval writings show it is not so. When 14th century North African travel writer Ibn Battuta journeyed to West Africa, he noted without any surprise that a black governor he visited owned an Arab slave girl from Syria.23 When the the 60,000-strong entourage of Emperor Musa of the Mali empire passed through Cairo on their way to Mecca in 1324, Cairo-born historian al-Maqurizi reported that the West Africans purchased Turkish slave girls, in addition to slaves of other ethnicities.24 In fact, the Mandingoes spent so much gold on slaves and goods in the markets of Cairo that they caused an inflation which lasted more than 12 years.25 ————————————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————————————
619
Posted by jason kirk on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:57 | # the above article talks about india as well if you read through it and how whiteness wasnt always the symbol of beauty in india 620
Posted by jason kirk on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:02 | # those above articles i noted also back up what i was saying about if blacks ruled the world then blacks would be the ones looked up to….because during those times that peole were trying to look blacker, blacks ruled in those areas…so as i said its all a matter of power. 621
Posted by jason kirk on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:05 | # “Huihui are shaggy with big noses, and Qipchags have light hair and blue eyes. Their appearance is vile and peculiar, so there are those (Chinese) who do not wish to marry them. 12 “
622
Posted by jason kirk on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:10 | # this is also a very important quote form the article Standards of beauty in South and Southeast Asia: “It is a fact that in this country when a child is born they anoint him once a week with oil of sesame, and this makes him grow much darker than when he was born. For I assure you that the darkest man is here the most highly esteemed and considered better than those who are not so dark. Let me add that in very truth these people portray and depict their gods and idols black and their devils white as snow. For they say that God and all the saints are black and the devils are all white…” 9 In the Chinese record Nan Tsi Chou, a Chinese traveler to Southeast Asia wrote that the local people “consider black the most beautiful.” 10 Although modern Filipinos prize the ‘high-nosed’, oval-faced European-blooded individual as beautiful, some even going as far as to pinch their children’s nose bridges in the hopes of achieving a higher nose, this has not always been the case. Prior to European colonization, the ancient Visayans of the Philippines considered the very opposite of high noses and oval faces handsome. Visayans, as well as some other Austronesian peoples in Malaysia and Indonesia, compressed their babies’ skulls to achieve broad faces with receding foreheads and flat noses . The Minahasa of Celebes even restricted binding with a forehead board to the nobility.11 623
Posted by jason kirk on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:22 | # more interesting quotes that disclaim the idea of whiteness being naturally more beautiful. “The indigenous peoples of the Congo,” he wrote, “are all black in color, some more so, some less so. Many are to be seen who are the color of chestnut and some tend to be more olive-colored. But the one who is of the deepest black in color is held by them to be the most beautiful. Some are born somewhat light-skinned, but as they grow older they become darker and darker. This occurs because their mothers make use of the artifice of an ointment… with which they anoint their infants, exposing them once they have been anointed, to the rays of the sun, then leaving them there for long periods, and repeating this action over and over… There are some children who although their parents are black, are born white skinned and although they anoint them and use all manners of artifice they can never be transformed into blackskinned people. And these are regarded by the Congolese as monsters. They have the same features and the same tightly curled hair as the black Congolese, but their skin is white and they are short-sighted….As a result, children in those areas, where a white has never been seen before, would become terrified, fleeing in horror from us, no less than our children here are terrified by the sight of a black also fleeing in horror for them.But they do not want us to call them Negroes (negros) but Blacks (Prietos); amongst them only slaves are called Negroes and thus amongst them it is the same things to say negro as to say slave.”
Iman Al-Jazairi says “Looking at Arabic poetry and novels, it is interesting to see that pre-Islamic poetry up until western colonization at the eighteenth century, women were always described as having long, wavy, black hair, brown skin, black eyes with the white of the eyes very white. The body proportions were also bigger. During the later part of the nineteenth century and until very recently, light skinned, blond women have usurped the beauty standard in modern Arabic literature.”
“Mende, Sierre Leone and Liberia Wood. This mask is worn over the head of a female elder who dances for the Sande women’s society. The mask displays and celebrates Mende ideals of female beauty and virtue: elaborately braided hair (cosmetic skills, sexuality); neck creases (full-bodied, good health); smooth, broad forehead (nobility, intelligence); lowered eyes (contemplativeness, restraint); well shaped ears; small nose; small mouth (not given to gossip); composed [removed]inner serenity), smooth skin (youthfulness). All these features are exaggerated in the mask, its three thick rows of braided hair, large neck folds, wide forehead, diminutive nose and mouth, and polished surface. The bird figure (missing its head & tail) perched on top of the coiffure has many meanings: clairvoyance, love, fertility, power, danger, discipline, prudence, and laughter. The mask’s shining blackness connotes the essence of female beauty and moral purity.”
http://www.montana.edu/cybertour…2/haugens/
624
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:23 | # </b>
You’re a “women’s rights advocate”? So, not much to do then? Or, do you crusade outside the west? For your online part, do you police, say, black sites, brown sites, yellow sites, etc.; you know, do you go where needed? Or, do you just police dead white male sites? Just curious. Btw, does the fact that men are relentlessly profiled vis-a-vis violent crime concern you? It doesn’t concern me, but then I haven’t swallowed the “gender war” bait, either. 625
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:25 | # Oh, as far as “who’s more beautiful” goes, bah, whatever. All I know is, there’s some compulsion to follow white people around that is irresistible to hordes of non-whites, a compulsion that isn’t reciprocated. 626
Posted by JD on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:25 | # Do not stuff that afro centric b.s on me. The fact remains in India atleast, fairness has always been considered attractive since time immemorial. the fact that Indian students in britian who came from villages of Bihar where western influence is nearly zero, still go ga ga on white chicks but makes fun of black chicks as monkeys prooves the fact that Western influence has nothing to do with it. Indeed western media tends to show black men in “the epitome of manhood”. This is B.S and many an Indian women have been fooled by that. You cannot explain that fairer brahmins and the fairer people’s of the north have always been considered more attractive to most indians. 627
Posted by JD on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:31 | # I have not found much reference to the so called Nan Tsi Chou. It is used in colorq a website which makes up ancient scholars. 628
Posted by JD on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:36 | # Dear Jason I suspect that Africans will find Africans attractive. i believe no race will find it’s own people ugly even if others may find it so. maybe the different races think differently. I remember one Pakistani saying that Indians look like monkeys and showed the picture of some dark ugly Indians to proove it in her messageboard. the Indian guy could not find out the problem with those people. Maybe we are all wired differently. Thus I have no problem with Africans finding themselves attractive, You have all the right. But Indians on average will always find the average European way more attractive than the average African and western influence has nothing to do with it. Fact. Capice. And if you ask me, you should not give a hoot about this fact of nature. 629
Posted by JD on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:49 | # Remember that India was ruled before the coming of the British and other Europeans by the Mughals who were the descendants of the rulers of the mighty Mongol empire. Indeed Babar (the Mughal invader from central asia who established the mughal empire) was a descendant of Genghis Khan himself. The empires of the Mughals (Mongol in Persian) ruled India for a much longer time than the British. Bahadur Shah Zafar was the last of the Mughal rulers ousted by Major Hodson. Thus we should find East Asians more attractive than Europeans but that is not the case. Thought many indians do find East Asians attractive (atleast on average more attractive than Africans) they are still stuck with Euroes I am afriad. 630
Posted by JB on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 22:25 | # J.Richards:
it’s not difficult to find anything on the internet. But I’ve seen in person only one woman with Dolly Parton like breasts 631
Posted by Lurker on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 23:31 | # I think you are clutching at straws mate. There always going to be outliers in any group, who find different features attractive, what counts in the bigger picture is the feeling of the majority. Numerous high status black/non-white males have blonde trophy wives yet they could have the pick of black/non-white women. OTOH Here is Robert De Niro as an a high status white male, here is a picture of the mrs:
Ill bet she has a few white ancestors though. Mrs Michael Caine, Asian but very fair:
But these are the exceptions, you wouldnt try and build a theory on just two examples would you. You mentioned Beyonce being attractive to Indians, fine, but Ill bet a poke about in her genes would show she was @ 50% white, doesnt really help your argument does it. Surprised you havnt thrown in Halle Berry, British mother/black American dad, making her well over 50% white, never mind the nose job. The Ottoman emperors were all the sons of slaves, the harem was full of slave girls from the empire but my understanding is most were Euro. As for Indians getting their sense of beauty from Britons, for most of the British Imperial period there were no films, TV & photos and even then not much that the average rural Indian would get to see in the form of drawings & paintings. There were never more than a few thousand Brits in India and not many outside the larger cities. I dont know for sure but I wouldnt be surprised if many Indians went their whole life in the Raj period and never saw a Brit. 632
Posted by jason kirk on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 00:33 | # actually there are more celebrity white men wiht black wives than you know of. The reason you dont know of them is because the media hides them and wants to keep perpetuating the idea that few to no men find black women attractive. I’ll also note that most of the white men who ive seen who are interested in black women prefer to date or marry the darker ones. also, you all should understand your facts better because most celebrity black men ar ewiht black women, this even goes for NBA players (80% of whom are married to black women). the media attempts to make it seem that there are more famous black males with white women than with black women in order to cause dissention amongst blacks as well as to promote the idea that black women are unattractive. They do this on purpose. anyway here are jsut a few famous white males who could have any white female they want yet choose to date or marry interracial. I dont care how unattractive you think these men are their money is what counts. Women go more for power and money than looks.
justin chambers from Greys anatomy and his wife
fred durst had a relationship with nicole narian. phil marr from politically incorrect exclusively dates black women
congressman dewine also cheated on his wife with a black woman and he is currently engaged to the woman he cheated on ehr with. 633
Posted by jason kirk on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 00:59 | # “Do not stuff that afro centric b.s on me. The fact remains in India atleast, fairness has always been considered attractive since time immemorial. the fact that Indian students in britian who came from villages of Bihar where western influence is nearly zero, still go ga ga on white chicks but makes fun of black chicks as monkeys prooves the fact that Western influence has nothing to do with it.”
“Dravidian, in addition to its ethnic component, however, is an important family of languages spoken by more than a hundred million people, primarily in South India. These languages include Tamil (the largest element), Kannada, Malayalam (from which the name of the Asian country Malaya is derived), Telegu and Tulu. The term “Dravidian” itself is apparently an Aryan corruption of Tamil.” “The decline and fall of the Indus Valley civilization has been linked to several factors, the most important of which were the increasingly frequent incursions of the White people known in history as Aryans—violent Indo-European tribes initially from central Eurasia and later Iran. Indeed, the name Iran means the “land of the Aryan.”“
“It is also important to note that in the kingdom of the Pandyas women seem to have enjoyed a high status. This is the exact opposite of the regions of India where the Whites ruled. In these lands of Aryan domination it is said that a woman was never independent. “When she is a child she belongs to her father. As an adult when she marries she belongs to her husband. If she outlives her husband she belongs to her sons.”
“You know very well that acamedia in the west is anti-white and they will go to any lenghts to make up all kinds of b.s of that sort.”
This is just such a ridiculous claim its really not even worth a response. You are completely delusional if you believe ANYTHING in western text books are anti-white. If anything they’re anti-black. Those texts have a deep HISTORY of excluding the contributions that Africans made to the world BEFORE European colonialism and enslavement. You are really desperate and grasping for straws on that one. In NONE of my history classes that i took in college did they mention anything about the African influence on the world before slavery and colonialism. I had to take an Africana studies course and do internet research to learn more about actual history.
634
Posted by jason kirk on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 01:04 | # oh yes and i forgot to mention arabs had and STILL have a good number of african concubines although i dont doubt one second that they presently treat thier white concubines better.
635
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 01:07 | # I never mentioned these guys looks, Im taking it as a given that their power/fame/money is what pulls in the girls. Of course if they look better than doesnt hurt. Of the subset of men (ie the high status ones) who get to choose from the best women, most (not all) choose the women that most other men would choose too. And lets take note of who settles down and marries whom. Colin Farrel gets women thrown at him 24/7 and he sees with black as well as white girls, lets wait and see who he ends up having kids with. You seem to implying that dating is completely colour blind, which it isnt on the whole, or even that secretly a large subset of white men want black women. Well some of them do, but I dont see whats holding the rest of them back, there are plenty of available black girls around. 636
Posted by jason kirk on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 01:17 | # well from what ive seen black women dont sem to be that attracted to white men or either they prefer black men. Even amongst black men msot of them want the darker black men. i’m not saying there are no black girls attracted to white men (because there ARE some) but for the most part i havent noticed it. But there ARE more and more black girls starting to say theyre attracted to white guys than ever before.
637
Posted by jason kirk on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 01:30 | # another reason i think you dont see too many white men wiht black women is because its more acceptable according to society for a man to be interested in and seen with a white woman than it is for a man to be interested in a black woman. 638
Posted by jason kirk on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 01:33 | # you also have white men who may be attracted to black women but still carry on racist, negative stereotypes about them and therefore refuse to ahve a true relationship wiht them. this is why i dont see why a black woman would want a most white men even if they were attracted to black women…white men stillt end to be very racist regardless of their attraction 639
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 01:41 | # Jason Kirk, STOP spamming us! The comments facility is not provided for commentators to paste essays lifted off of other sites. If you need to cite an essay, post the link to it; don’t post the essay. Why are you flooding us with very short comments? I will respond to your comments later, but stop the spam. 640
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:50 | # Brian, What is up with retards like you badmouthing America if you encounter something disagreeable written in English? America is not the only English-speaking nation, and this site is not run by Americans. So what if Colin Ferrell likes Dawson? The vast majority of white men as well as non-white men would prefer the blonde to Dawson, and it is clear from the comparison that the blonde has a more feminine face. You have critiqued the close up of the blonde’s backside in terms of such close-ups making the object appear bigger, but ignored another picture of the blonde’s backside proportions above it, where it is clear that she has sufficiently wide and rounded hips in addition to adequately prominent buttocks to qualify as a woman with a feminine backside. A stupid person like you has extrapolated some high profile cases of white women having sex with teenage boys to a propensity for underage boys on the part of white women! Why should I expect you to understand the basics of newsworthy items? What is newsworthy? Something uncommon, sensational, attention grabbing and politically correct. Only a small minority of people are sexually interested in children, and among them, most are men. Now, if you have attractive white women such as Mary Kay LeTourneau and Debra Lafave have sex with underage boys, then given the rarity and sensationalistic nature of such behavior, and the fact that attractive white women sell well, you have major headline news around the country. However, when black women indulge in similar behaviors, the acts are not newsworthy because few people have an interest in black women, and the mainstream media would typically avoid publicizing cases where the perpetrator is black or some other minority. A self-professed white male has not been able to figure this out? Regarding Narain and the make-up issue, make-up is not relevant to comparing gross face/body shape variables, and my point is well-proven by the pictures: the blonde, although not very feminine, is not manly, and she is more feminine than Dawson and Narain by a very comfortable margin. You are right, I don’t like your stupid comments; just leave. Besides, I am not a middle-aged; I am 30-years-old. —————— Anon Ymus, We have thousands of entries discussing social issues in an educated manner, and the rare display of semi-nudity in some of my entries, which has been necessary given the context of the discussion, does not detract from the site’s purpose. Some historical issues that I have addressed are not consistent with what you were taught in school, but a school education should have at least imparted to you that one should not blindly believe in what one is taught. Go through the references that I have cited and see if there is any merit to the claims. It is not just some white women who pose scantily clad or nude; some women of all races do so, with some exceptions, as in Arab countries, but then the latter is not due to unwillingness but fear of brutal punishment. Nude modeling on the part of some women does not reflect upon the lifestyle of a society; most women do not pose nude and most people do not have a special interest in nude women except for heterosexual men for whom a strong interest in nude women is typically limited to a few years at most. Although you may regard nude modeling as crass and degrading, it is a special case of generic freedom in the West, and I sincerely hope that you do not wish for generic freedom to be undermined. Large-scale immigration of non-whites into the West threatens generic freedom, and if there is one thing that I would like you to get from going through this site, it is that undermining of generic freedom, if it ensures that some practices one considers mildly unacceptable are abolished, is not worth it. —————— JB, Dolly Parton has breast implants, unlike the brunette that I have shown. Humongous breasts are not an uncommon sight, but they are usually possessed by obese women; what is uncommon is to see them among non-overweight women, but finding several such white women will not be difficult for any big breasts fan. 641
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:56 | # Jason Kirk, One does not assess femininity in terms of single variables such as lip thickness, buttock protrusion, breast size, etc. One looks at the overall package. For instance, black women have thicker lips than white women, a racial difference, and this means that a manly black woman could easily have thicker lips than a feminine white woman. Race differences need to be distinguished from feminization. If you compare the face shape of Dawson with the blonde, it is obvious that Dawson is more masculine. White women with feminine backsides are the norm, not exceptional finds unless one is using your definition of a feminine backside, which is grotesquely protruding buttocks; grotesque from the perspective of whites and most non-black people. I asked the reader to compare who between Dawson and the blonde looks more feminine, but nowhere have I implied that the blonde is more feminine than Megan Good or that Megan has masculine features; I just want the reader to compare the appeal of Megan Good and the blonde for himself, but then someone with your poor comprehension would not easily understand this. Regarding your mention of the negative attitudes toward albinos in Africa, even among whites there exist negative attitudes toward albinos, who are viewed as freaks, even though white-albino differences are much smaller than black-albino differences. You asked, “If this is true about white and blonde hair representing femininity, why were albino women and lighter skinned Africans treated this way?” Well, I never said that white skin and blonde hair represent femininity. What I said was that within a population, women tend to be lighter than men, and as per a citation by Peter Frost, among Northern Europeans, blonder women tend to be more feminine. I have already explained why plenty of white women tan and make their lips thicker using lipstick; you must go through the entire thread prior to commenting. Since most jobs moved indoors, poor whites, needing to work most of the time, ended up being pale, and paleness became a sign of low status. Hence, plenty of whites tan to give an impression of high status; they don’t tan because they have a preference for darker skin. A few centuries ago when poor people labored in the sun, a tan was associated with lower status and people tried to be as pale as possible to convey an impression of high status. To address the lipstick issue, within a population, more feminine women have thicker lips, and during sexual arousal, the lips swell somewhat. Hence, some women enhance their lip thickness to be more seductive, but don’t fool this for an innate preference for thick lips. Thick lips typical of blacks are generally considered repulsive by whites. Your question, “Why do so many of them [white women] go crazy over black men and want to have biracial chldren if white skin is supposedly more evolved?” reflects your incredible delusion and piss-poor comprehension. Most white women wouldn’t think about touching a black man, let alone having mulatto children, and nowhere have I implied that white skin is more evolved. A lot of what you have written about color preferences in various populations is unverifiable, apparently taken from Afrocentrist sources and/or false. For instance, you mentioned that the darkest hair was praised among the Greeks in the past. In a book titled “On blondes,” Joanna Pitman has detailed the Greek preference for blondes during the classical period; see here for excerpts. An essay posted by you cites the admiration of Ethiopians by ancient Europeans! The essay also mentions the Romans disdaining all non-Romans regardless of color. Well, people in Rome generally admired the blonde hair of the northern people, and several Roman women used blonde wigs/dyes. The essay mentions the mighty Roman army being unable to subdue the Ethiopians! To the best of my knowledge, the Romans had no special interest in conquering Nubia; it wasn’t worth it, but the Roman prefect of Egypt, Cornelius Gallus, went against the Nubians and in search of Yemen, and lost many soldiers to hunger and disease, whereupon the Nubians took advantage of the situation and attacked Gallus’ forces, forcing Gallus to retreat (23 B.C.), but a year later, the Roman governer of Egypt, Gaius Petronius, attacked and destroyed the Nubian city of Napata. You have attempted to argue that brainwashing by white-controlled media is responsible for the worldwide preference for white women. This idea is nonsensical. The notion of brainwashing is part of the blank-slate leftist argument that has not been backed up by evidence. People cannot be manipulated in just about any manner. People have a fundamental aesthetic sense and recognize better-looking people when they come across them. If you have a non-white population not exposed to whites, then its people will obviously be capable of judging attractiveness among themselves and will have high regard for some of their racial characteristics, which may include high regard for very dark skin, a very flat nose, a wide face and so on. Some such people may also resort to distorting skull shape in various ways, but it cannot be assumed that such distortion originated for aesthetic reasons; an influential crazy shaman could have believed that a given type of skull distortion would bring good luck or was demanded by a diety, and his followers resorted to the distortion. On the other hand, when these people come across whites, does one expect them to mindlessly absorb what whitey tells them is attractive or to recognize better looking people when they come across them? The important issue pertaining to this question is face shape, not color, which much of your comments deal with. There is no universal preference for blonde hair or pale skin, but people generally prefer faces closer to white norms. Even the black women that you have pointed out are mostly mulatto types and do not have stereotypically black African faces (think of the likes of Alek Wek). The following summary from Joanna Pitman’s book, referenced above, is well worth quoting in this regard:
Why would the ruling group want to emulate the characteristics of the subjugated and enslaved people unless they had some innate preference for the features of the northern people? JD has already done a decent job of explaining that the East Indian preference for lighter skin and Caucasoid facial features reflects intrinsic taste. My argument that white women, on average, appear to be more feminine than black women has apparently been misconstrued by you to mean that black women are masculine. There are masculine white women and feminine black women, but the average difference is clear; Peter Frost’s paper above even cites evidence for higher testosterone-to-estrogen ratios in black women. You cited two women to counter my assumed contention that black women are masculine, and it is well worth addressing these women. Neshelle is shown below.
I am going to contrast Neshelle with a blonde that is deliberately chosen for not being that feminine and for having small breasts and buttocks that are not too prominent.
If men around the world were asked to choose between Neshelle and the blonde, what outcome would one expect? Men of non-black races will overwhelmingly choose the blonde, and those who choose Neshelle will almost certainly be black; I have a difficult time imagining any white man choosing Neshelle. Neshelle has much bigger breasts and buttocks, but she is also a lot more muscular, and her buttocks will typically be seen as repulsive rather than feminine by non-black men, and her greater muscularity will make her appear less feminine to most non-black men, notwithstanding her greater curves. Next we consider Melissa Ford.
Melissa Ford looks like she has breast implants.
Nobody would call Melissa’s backside masculine, but she clearly has well-developed muscularity.
This time I will contrast Melissa with a fairly typical feminine Northern European woman.
The choice between Melissa Ford and the brunette will be a no brainer for the typical non-black man. Overall looks are important; non-blacks will typically find not-so-feminine white women more appealing than black women with ample curves, and if the white female choice is normally feminine, then black women do not stand a chance of attracting the favors of non-black men. If you cannot understand this, then give up on this topic. By the way, if you are going to disparage the blonde next to Tais Arujo for having crooked teeth, then don’t comment here again; you may prefer the broad and flat noses of black women, but the blonde does not have crooked teeth. If you reply, I don’t want you to spam this site with essays, especially from unverifiable sources and your yahoo mail inbox. Be brief; write what you need to write in a single comment, summarize quotes, and link to lengthy excerpts. 642
Posted by Anon Ymus on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 12:12 | # Igorevich, Don’t try to doubt other people’s credibility. AT least I bother to stand up and bother to explain to hard headed ppl why women should be respected. I am concerned about much more than women’s rights but I don’t need to explain that to you. If this site truly is what you’re telling me it is (which by now i figured myself) then I have no place here. _______________ generic freedom my foot. You should be embarrassed but u arent. ANd if you’re so proud of ur country u’d kno that they don’t teach in this country what isn’t a generally accepted truth. You should know not to believe everything you read on websites. Thank you very much for your wonderful and meaningful comments. _______________ actually the Jesus is German accusation was said b4 by a former commenter Ines so I put it in quotes. Yeah I thought that was hilarious as well. And I think after all this we should all stick to the history we learned. I think I’ve had enough of looking at crass and degrading images of women and prefer not to return to this site. 643
Posted by Darijastani on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 12:44 | # First if all I would like to thank Fassi a fellow Moroccan for his/her comments. Richards, All I have to say is this, if white people are on the decline due to immigration or whatever wouldn’t it mean that non whites are superior. Nature removes the inferior and replaces it with the superior. 644
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 14:57 | # Darijastani, what is “natural” about said “selection” when immigration policy is designed by people (not to mention the vehicles that transport them, the agriculture that supports them and the houses that protect them from climates to which their ancestors never adapted)? 645
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:28 | #
It’s Prince Maximilian von und zu Liechtenstein, who in 2000 married a Negro woman he met in New York City, an immigrant to the U.S. from Panama who was employed in the New York fashion industry. The couple have a son, Prince Alfons. Maximilian isn’t the heir to the throne of the principality of Liechtenstein, his elder brother Alois is. Had it been Alois who brought home a Negro bride I’d assume the princely family and advisors of that country would have the sense to tell him, as the English royal family and advisors told King Edward and Mrs. Simpson, that for the union to go forward he’d have to abdicate. What Maximilian did was very wrong. That his family either approved or was unable to prevent it is shocking: a man in his position cannot choose just any woman he fancies for a bride. He has a responsibility to history to choose appropriately—a responsibility to the history, both past and future, of his nation which naturally includes his race and ethnoculture, and a wider responsibility to the history of Europe as a whole. That he obviously couldn’t appreciate that responsibility, or be forced by advisors and relatives to live up to it, indicates a degree of degenerateness in the family. Fortunately for Liechtenstein he’s not the heir to the throne. But his progeny may well become mixed with Europe’s royalty. One can only hope they leave no lasting racial imprint on it. It’s a potential disaster, what he and that family have now done. 646
Posted by Mansingh on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 21:15 | # Europe’s royalty is already in bad shape. In England most of the aristocrats have jewish blood allready. They are useless. Many of the aristocrats and royal families of Europe are ugly to look and utterly useless in their abilities. 647
Posted by Jessica on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 21:57 | # Do you guya have nothing better than to be so racist. There is a limit to everything. So what if you think they don’t belong in that group….go get a lie cause you’re not going to change it. Gosh this really is the most racist country on earth! Way to show people the true face of America. 648
Posted by Mansingh on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 22:07 | # Dear Jessica, being racist is is a part of human nature. Only shallow people are not racist. 649
Posted by Brian on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 22:13 | # So what if Colin Ferrell likes Dawson? The vast majority of white men as well as non-white men would prefer the blonde to Dawson, and it is clear from the comparison that the blonde has a more feminine face. “ Let’s get one thing out of the way… Who cares what the majority do or think? Why is that so important? Do you have your own mind? Can you think for yourself? When you go around chanting “The Majority The Majority The Majority” it says to me that you can’t think for yourself. I swear, I’ve never seen people that consider what the majority do to be so important. Most people I know actually live for themselves. You should try it someone.
Your idea of feminine is generic. With your bland personality I guess it’s fitting. What more can I expect. Your a dull white man with dull tastes. That’s the start and the finish of it. I however am and interesting white man with good tastes. I wouldn’t trade places with ya=} “However, when black women indulge in similar behaviors, the acts are not newsworthy because few people have an interest in black women” lol How much time do you spend manufacturing stuff like this just to draw attention on the computer? People like you don’t really exsist… You say outlandish stuff on the net to try and get attention. I said, show me some backup. Show me some cases. You can’t do it, so you come out with flismy excuses that hold no weight. Like Denzel said in Inside Man Stop trying to bullshyt a bullsh!tter. Reply back with someone reasonable and not manufactured nonsense. 650
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 22:17 | # Jessica “Gosh this really is the most racist country on earth!” Sorry, which country are you referring to exactly? I take it that you are arrogantly referring to the USA. You assume that any online discussion must originate in the US. That, dare I say it, is a rather racist assumption, you should be ashamed of yourself. So anyhow which is more racist, a)America for allowing millions of immigrants of all races or b)China for not letting anybody in (except those of Chinese origin)? There, thats an easy one for you and Id like you to explain your reasoning. 651
Posted by Brian on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 22:22 | # Oh, this country has alot of racist people. The thing is though is that I don’t know any like these people here. That’s why I believe alot of these “racists” are manufacturing things to get attention. Living in the countryside of GA, I’ve seen racists. And NONE ofthem are as stupid as Richards character. None of them. They’ve said so many things that don’t make sense that they aren’t even believable to me as racists now. Most of these ‘racists” would go for Narin in a heartbeat. I’m sure they’ll deny it. But men think often think a certain way, when it comes to women….And that doesn’t really change despite what they say otherwise. Keep in mind, just because they say it… Doesn;t make it true, or even that they really believe it. Anybody can say anything on the internet. Truly, I was shocked when I first came here… but after you really so much extreme stuff, it starts to come off as very unbelievable.
652
Posted by jamie on Mon, 04 Sep 2006 12:46 | # “Jamie, Ever heard of sexual selection and sexual dimorphism? Selection for feminine women does not necessarily select for feminine men because there is corresponding selection for masculine men, too. The result is that some women are very feminine and some men very masculine.” yes ive heard of them but this still doesnt address my point. I dont know where you got it from that i beleived sexual selection selected for feminine men. Accordign to the sexual selection theory women want the most masculine men and men want the most feminine women by nature. again your point faiuls to answer the question about “where does that leave white men?” if white women are more feminine because of their whiter and lighter skin and waist to hip ratio then this would men that white men ar emore feminine than men of other races because they on average have wider hips than other men, less muscle mass, less bone density and are lgither. that is if we go by this theory of sexual selection. 653
Posted by jamie on Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:35 | # Jason, it’s a waiste of time to debate with richards because he tries to go around the point and tries to misinterpret what’s being said (pretending he doesnt get the point being made) so that people can’t see that he doesn’t prove his point well. He did it to me when i was trying to get him to see the flaws and contradictions in his argument. He keeps saying dont mistake the thicker klips of black women (and indian women) as proof that they’re more feminine but then turns around and uses white skin and the fact that women on average lighter as proof that white women are more feminine. he fails to admit that if you add up all the feminine attributes of black women and those of white women then both black women and white women rate about the same on the feminine scale. lets do a comparison here
2. thicker calves 3.less muscularity 4. higher waist to hip ratio 5. less dense bone structure
1. thicker lips 2. thicker upper thighs 3. smaller heads (since women on average have smaller heads than men) 4. more protruding buttocks 5. less long strands of body hair (since men ahve mroe bodily hair and the strands of body hair are longer on men) but i dont completely agree with the theory that nature picks its mates based simply on the idea of how feminine or masculine they are. I dont agree with the idea that the msot feminine woman by nature is the most attractive because the most feminine attributes arent always the best attributes to have. For instance other races are less likely to age as quick as whites because of bone density, darker skin and having more muscularity. Indians and blacks age at a much slower rate than whites because of the melanine in their skin whereas white skin is more lilely to start wrinckling by the age of 30. is the skin of a 35 to 40 year old white person really as attractive as the skin of a 35 to 40 year old black person rather male or female? If we would just remove our westwern glasses for a second this question is very easy to answer.
So is having less muscularity more attractive when white women age quicker and are more liekly to suffer from osteoperosis because of it? The fact that blacks have denser bone structure and more muscularity is what allows black male atheletes to not have to retire as eary as white athelets. White athelets simly break down at earlier ag because they age quicker.
654
Posted by jamie on Mon, 04 Sep 2006 14:25 | # “Well, people in Rome generally admired the blonde hair of the northern people, and several Roman women used blonde wigs/dyes“……
I think that where jason messes up is that he says the greeks preferred blonde hair but it wasnt the greeks it was the romans. 655
Posted by jamie on Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:01 | # jason kirk,
“Wealthy women usually wore
“The Romans made their eyes very dark and used a dangerous cream to remove all hair and wore wigs.” http://www.persiadesign.com/-/artists/farhang/
656
Posted by jason kirk on Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:19 | # richards,
Jason Kirk,
And who are you to label what the differences are between race and feminization? Nature is just that NATURE, if big lips are more feminine by nature and they run more often in the black race what does this say about the lips of black women?
Really? How so? Most white women who ive kown who have a “feminine” backside had to go to the gym to build it up that way and make it stick out a bit….if not that then they ride bikes and walk everywhere they go (as the women in france do). Pont is, this “feminine” backside doesn’t come naturally in most white women like it does in black women. Most who have it are involved in some form of physical activity whereas black women don’t have to do a thing, they‘re just born with it. Now this is not to deny that there are a few white women who have these feminine backsides by nature (without being overweight) but again they’re in the minority.
Refer to jamie’s comments that’s all im going to say…I’ll post pictures of African albinos a little later. “and as per a citation by Peter Frost, among Northern Europeans, blonder women tend to be more feminine.” But AGAIN, if this is true, why are the blue eyes and blonde hair of albino African women still dreaded by other africans? And why do many African children in secluded villages (with little to no contact with whites) tend to RUN at the site of white people?????? You never addressed that one. If they white skin and blue eys and blonde hair were naturaly more attractive wouldn’t they be running TO them trying to TOUCH them instead of running FROM them trying NOT to be touched by them? “I have already explained why plenty of white women tan and make their lips thicker using lipstick; you must go through the entire thread prior to commenting. Since most jobs moved indoors, poor whites, needing to work most of the time, ended up being pale, and paleness became a sign of low status. Hence, plenty of whites tan to give an impression of high status; they don’t tan because they have a preference for darker skin. “ I think that has to do with global warming and a biological need within human beings to protect themselves. Human being behave according to nature. The world is becoming more sunny and warmer and by nature whites deep down inside know it will be harder to survive and withstand the heat if they don’t tan or mix with others. It also has to do with Josephine baker going to Europe and cocoa shanel liking the way her skin color looked (dressed in white) so much she got a tan…THIS is how tans amongst whites became popular. They took a liking to Josephine bakers skin and wanted to tan. In fact one of my literature professors (who is in fact white) explained all of this to us in class. And that idea about tans having to do with working class whites is bs because you still had tons of poor white sharecroppers working outdoors during the time when more and more jobs were moving indoors. In fact the POOREST whites still worked outdoors during the times of industrialization.
“Thick lips typical of blacks are generally considered repulsive by whites.” Yeah and whites have always PRETENDED to be repulsed by blackas all the time attempting to COPY everything blacks do. Just as they did with our music…they complained that our music was too vulgar and that it was jungle music all the time TRYING to mimic it (although most of them never could pull it off). Whites teased blacks for thick lips yet they find angelina jolie’s lips so attractive while there are tons of black women with the same type lips as her, the same can be said of cameron diaz. White men pee in their pants when they see her lips yet tons of black women have lips similar to hers. Whites told it on themselves when they started ranting on and on about how attractive jolie’s lips were. Plus, my sister gets told all the time by WHITE yes white men how nice her lips are so this is a bunch of BS you’re making up out of your ass. “Your question, “Why do so many of them [white women] go crazy over black men and want to have biracial chldren if white skin is supposedly more evolved?” reflects your incredible delusion and piss-poor comprehension. Most white women wouldn’t think about touching a black man, let alone having mulatto children, and nowhere have I implied that white skin is more evolved. “ Please stop deluding your ignorant self. There are tons of white women who go crazy over biracial children saying that they’re fortunate to not have to tan and that they have the perfect skin because they don’t have to tan. Also ask yourself this, why do so many white women got to the Caribbean as sex tourists? Also, why do you think so many white men come to white female/black male dating sites trying to get a black man to please their white wifes featish for having sex with black men? The only reason there arent more white women married to black men is because white men have the MONEY and POWER. White women know that if they marry a black man they are less likely to get hired for certain job positions. As I said a black man can have any white woman he wants. Ive noticed that white chicks even go crazy over UNATTRACTIVE black men. “A lot of what you have written about color preferences in various populations is unverifiable, apparently taken from Afrocentrist sources and/or false.”
Refer to jamie’s post, I dotn feel like explaining this much myself since its already been explained. “The essay mentions the mighty Roman army being unable to subdue the Ethiopians! To the best of my knowledge, the Romans had no special interest in conquering Nubia; it wasn’t worth it, but the Roman prefect of Egypt, Cornelius Gallus, went against the Nubians and in search of Yemen, and lost many soldiers to hunger and disease, whereupon the Nubians took advantage of the situation and attacked Gallus’ forces, forcing Gallus to retreat (23 B.C.), but a year later, the Roman governer of Egypt, Gaius Petronius, attacked and destroyed the Nubian city of Napata.” All I need to say is you should do better internet research because there are even articles written by white shcolors that show where romans IDOLIZED the ethiops (as they called them) as great fighters and strategizers.
“Some such people may also resort to distorting skull shape in various ways, but it cannot be assumed that such distortion originated for aesthetic reasons; an influential crazy shaman could have believed that a given type of skull distortion would bring good luck or was demanded by a diety, and his followers resorted to the distortion. “
“On the other hand, when these people come across whites, does one expect them to mindlessly absorb what whitey tells them is attractive or to recognize better looking people when they come across them?”
Actually this is NOT true, blacks are the most imitated (yet down trodden) group in the world, however, we’re also the most despised. Maybe talot of the hatred is coming form envy of the black race. People immitate our music, our clothes, our looks are often imitated . It seems we’re imitated way more than we should be when given the attempts by western culture to make us out to be the worst and msot inferior people on the face of the earth. The only people who imitate whites are brainwashed. Also if you don’t believe in brainwashing then why are you agreeing , your friend JD sure does because according to himt he only reason Indian women in america are attracted to black men is because western culture is brainwashing them against whites….how stupid and delusional does he sound? If anything western culture is brainwashing people AGAINST blacks
657
Posted by jason kirk on Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:20 | # jamie, thanks by the way for providing those links and for correcting me. those are very intelligent and well thought out posts you made. 658
Posted by JD on Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:06 | # kirk, 659
Posted by JD on Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:18 | # Richard, Being an Indian i do find something about Whites quite despicable. If they were genuinely superior, they would not have sunk down to such a level where the vast majority of them listen to hip-hop, rap and all the modern crap which passes as music nowadays. Why do so many white like that crap? European classical music is a truly superior type of art well liked and respected by many Carnatic and Hindustani classical musicians such as Ravi Shankar. East Asian classical (Shamisen, Erhu etc…) is respected as well. Many Indians complain about the ugly b.s American culture we see on MTV (MTV India and Channel [V] here) and the bad influence it has on our youths. Howver many assume it to be of white origin. They do not realise that they are negroid in origin. Indeed many traditional Indians make fun of rap music videos and do not consider them music in the first place. But when exposed to European classical they agree that it is good to listen to. Even though we belong to a different race (We however have some European compnent in our genepool) we can realise the superiority of the music of Geoge Frederic Handel, Bach etc… It is hard to believe that Europeans have sunk so low as to find Negro music like rap, hip hop, and whatnot attractive. 660
Posted by JD on Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:31 | # And sunk so low as to marry black people. But I suspect that has to do with the media bias in favour of black men. The media always potrays black men as more masculine, morally superior etc… Women tend to take this b.s more seriously. All that would be Ok if that did not reach india, but now channels like star world, AXN etc… show us the disgusting modern culture of the west which corrupts our youth. But in India I have seen that Indian women find black men to be very unattractive and though there are many black guys from Africa here as students, but not once have I seen a Indian woman with a black. Most black guys just hang around with other blacks. Comparatively white guys and girls find it easier to find local partners (East Asians as well). I doubt it has nothing to do with economics. One girl I knew who had a German boyfriend was a well off girl herself (I suspect her dad who was a thasildar (an important govt addministrative post here)was much richer than the German guy who was a student of Sanskrit). 661
Posted by jason kirk on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 00:22 | # richards
pay very close attention to how there is absolutely no difference between the skin of these albinos and the skin of alot of whites…“that is if we jsut judge the pictures by the naked eye).
judging at face value there is no difference between their skin and a white persons.
Rosario dawson pictures
http://www.eurweb.com/images/articles/200411/rosario_dawson(b&w-face-med).jpg Here’s one of her before she lost the weight…you can also enlarge the picture
662
Posted by jason kirk on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 00:43 | # JD
Nope im not an afrocentrist and never said i was….and i simply linked to the article about aryans coing into india in order to prove the point about people of india being ruled by whites long before the british. But i DO beleive the first people of india were black like that link i showed you and i DO beleive they held a POSITIVE image of themselves. If you look at the pictures of the people in that link i presented aobut aryan invasion of india they look like africans with wavy and NAP/CURLED HAIR. So it should be no surprise that if the first people in india were black that they painted their gods black and their devils white and that they valued dark skin over lighter skin since people generally tend to have a more positive perception of themselves than they do other groups (that is unless they’ve been colonized and brainwashed).
663
Posted by jason kirk on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 00:50 | # sorry for posting this twice but i ahd to add alot of stuff and this board doeasnt have an edit feature. as for your ignorrant comments about music all i have to say is do you have any idea of what “jazz” music is and where it derived from? Do you kow what the blues is? do you know how swing music derived? Do you know about the rhumba and where and how it derived. do you know anything aobut the origins of the beats and dances behind latin music? If not then dont comment
also your post proves that you know VERY little aobut hip hop music because not all hip hop music is bad or has ignorrant lyrics…its jsut the stuff thats promoted the most by whites…that’s the stuff most peole hear…few know of the deep and intelligent rappers because they dont get much publicity. 664
Posted by JD on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 07:24 | # OK, I am sorry, maybe Jazz is good music. But black culture like hiphop, rap etc.. are wrecking havoc on all the civilizations of the world. I am sorry about making such rude comments about black culture. I know black culture is exploited by big media companies, which means the lowest level can be reached in the name of profit. unfortunately similar things are happening in Bollywood. Gone are the days of Mohhamed Rafi, R.D Burman etc… 665
Posted by JD on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 07:36 | # Besides those albinos you showed, I think most indians would find them repulsive as well as they have ugly features. Maybe a combination of fair skin and good features is of the essence. But Indians still find whites an attractive race. i remember, many years back in india, we had seen a posters of David Becham and Victoria Becham wearing Indian cloths like Salwaar Kameez and Chiridaar. You will not believe how both Indian boys and girls were staring at those pics. they were like flies near sugar. Most were commenting how attractive they look. I remember some white freinds (of both genders) of some Indian dude getting married to an indian girl. he had lived for many years in Germany and had acuumalated many white friends. These Germans came wearing traditional Indian clothes (My mom helped one of them with Sari) and soon most people even the elderly were commenting how attractive they looked with those ethnic wear. Some claimed they looked like a ‘jat of paris’ which means ‘a race of angels’. Most of the Indian guys at the marriage ceramony went crazy on the German chicks while the Indian girls went crazy on the German guys. And you will not believe, a very attractive Punjabi school teacher (who taught in the same school I went to) ended up pataoing one of the German dudes and they got married. Two cermonies took place, one in India in the Punjabi style and one in germany in the German style. 666
Posted by JD on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 07:41 | # http://www.fairandhandsome.com/ And check this out, cosmetics promising to make men fair do big business in India. And they are exporting it out to other brown nations in Arabia and in South East Asia. You balcks might be dumb not to appreciate fair skin, not us. http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050626/asp/look/story_4911754.asp 667
Posted by jason kirk on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 12:43 | # “Besides those albinos you showed, I think most indians would find them repulsive as well as they have ugly features.”
Anyway to me those albinos are highly unattractive and they’re NOT as attractive as most Africans who have dark skin and the Africans realize this, that‘s why they have such negative stereotypes associated with albinos. Plus I just picked 3 random pictures of albinos off the internet, not all black albinos look the same of course…there are more attractive ones than them I just didn’t see their pictures on the internet. If you say white skin and the white features makes a whites skin more attractive what do you think about the white albino pictures that that girl posted on the link are they attractive? They have extremely pale skin and blue eyes and blonde hair that you’re going on and on about.
I have no doubt this is true as I’ve pointed out they’ve been colonized by whites so this is understandable. But isn’t it amazing that regardless of the fact that they’ve been brainwashed you still have a few of them who find blacks attractive? There actually ARE some Indian women who are married to African men and some Indian men married to African women. If you were to go to Africa you would notice this. And there are Indian guys as well as a lot of arab, Egyptian and persian guys who hit on black women regardless of the fact that they’ve had years of colonialism or being exposed to western world domination. However, you’re right when you say the majority go for white skin. Too bad most people are not that intelligent and are able to be brainwashed for every one person who thinks for himself there are 100 others who allow the culture to influence them this is what niezche called the herd mentality. Most human being simply arent that smart or that strong minded. So no its no surprise that they find white skin attractive. But to add to jamies findings, there are more articles that explore the reason why the attraction to blonde hair has developed all over the world now. I ran across another article about the Japanese and Chinese viewing lighter hair and lighter eyes as unattractive before the western world took over. The romans also found black hair and dark eyes far more appealing than red hair and light eyes. So you see there is no innate attraction to a certain type of beauty because styles change according to who’s in power. Also, in arab countries before westerners took over there was an attraction to women with very hooked noses , this was considered a standard of beauty in arab countries, however once westerners took control of the world, hooked noses began to be seen as unattractive. So it’s funny, yet not so surprising that before white colonialism and white global domination most countries had a preference for dark eyes and dark hair yet after whites took control blue eyes and blonde hair became the standard of beauty.
Nope, actually there are more blacks than any other group that are INTELLIGENT enough to see this crap for what it really is. We know our history and know HOW this crap came about. Eventhough you have a lot of blacks who have been colonial zed, enslaved and brainwashed today, they STILL represent the group least likely to use skin bleaching cream.
If they truly felt white skin was so much more attractive, white men would just stay home with their wives instead of laying up between the legs of black and African prostitutes. Most black prostitutes johns are actually middle class white men who are married. even in south africa (the most racist country in the world) this is true.
White women prefer men who are “tall dark and handsome” as they say. They even prefer their own white men to be dark and closer to African looking. 668
Posted by jason kirk on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 12:51 | # “But I doubt if Jazz compares with European, Hindustani, Karnatic, East Asian, Arabic or any of the classical traditions created by Eurasians.“ Are you serious? I tend to think hindu and east asian music sounds funny and can in no way compare to jazz music. At takes some kind of a mind to be able to master jazz notes and come up with such brilliant stuff stuff off the top of your head. Also, have you ever heard of scatting? I love classical music but to me jazz just sounds better. “But that post was primarily aimed at J Richards. My point was why do whites stoop down to listen to inferior black culture. why canot they stick to the beautilful music of Bach, Tchaikovsky, Handel or to European folk like Bagpipes, Riverdancing and the host of other musical styles created by the villagers thoughout the lenght and breath of Europe. Hel atleast listen to Far Eastern classical or hindustani but why fall to the level of hip hop, rap, rock etc.…”
669
Posted by jason kirk on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 12:55 | # oh one more thing i left out, it takes quite a mind to be able to come up with lyrics off the top of your head and turn them into poetry while reciting them to a beat AND making it sound good at the same time. that’s what rap and him hop is.
i would like to seee you try that 670
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 14:30 | # Jason - rapping, hip-hop, jazz takes some sort of intelligence, Im sure thats not in doubt. However your argument is based on the assumption that its the same kind of intelligence that UNIX developers or genetic engineers depend upon. Yet people of African origin are notably absent from those fields. Your theory then posits various forms of racism and favouritism to account for this, after all rapping (basketball ability as well?) ability proves intelligence. We can all have a laugh at shortsighted pocket protector wearing nerds attempting to rap. They could be coached and trained to have a go at it. It wouldnt be very good but it would sound something like rap. Now lets get Jay-Z to design a UNIX application… And while we are on the subject of rap/hip hop. You would say it was a black art form yes? There are a few white practitioners of course Eminem and laughably Vanilla Ice (remember him?!). Ive heard it said that whites should stay out of rap, its a black thing. OK lets do that. Lets take out the white elements of hip-hop. No more Eminem, no more Vanilla Ice. Still, hip hop sounds pretty much the same. Now lets really strip the white input right out, lets do it properly. No more microphones, amps, magnetic tape, digital tape, vinyl records, turntables, mixers, cassettes, DVDs, CDs, electricity, radio, computers, recording studios, video, guitars, pianos, brass instruments, in fact brass at all, keyboards, synthesizers, sequencers. So what are you left with? A guy standing on a standing on a stage without any form of amplification, no instrumentation other than traditional African, no airplay, no videos, no recorded material. It might still be rap, but nothing like we know it now. Of course there is one other white input I need to mention. Slavery, a crime and a huge mistake which Im sure we all wish had never happened. 671
Posted by Abhi on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 16:42 | # To J richards, Dear Richards, and about me claiming aryan achievements as my own was humour. Does being a nordic supremacist kills humour too? anyways, till then enjoy sum women from the indian subcontinent…
672
Posted by Abhi on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 16:50 | # can anyone tell me what is it with j richards and sluts? why does he always finds us pics from porn sites? lol. just kidding. <img > <img > 673
Posted by JD on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:37 | # Ah same old b.s paroting, the fact is Indians find their own women and men attractive but compared to Africans who most find as ugly and dumb they find Europeans far more attractive. It has nothing to do with brainwashing. Indeed the media is brainwashing our women by being too pro- black male. You can shove your jazz, rap and crap as far as I am concerned. Hindustani and European classical are far beyond the level of your taste possibility. Leave Eurasia alone. When your ancestors were running around trees wearing twigs my ancestors were making temples of gold and comtemplating the meaning of existance itself. Without the infusion of outside genes and without the influence of outside culture all you would have done is run around trees and rapped, while we Eurasians who make up the vast bulk of mankind make higher art. Eurasia rocks! 674
Posted by JD on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:39 | # Romila to maal hai be. Sala negro chutiya jaise baat karta hai sala. negro jaat hi aesi hai. Bhagwaan ne dimaag to di nahi, chalu kiya bakne. 675
Posted by rustymason on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:57 | # Kirk, I say this with all due respect, you’re a lying piece of doo. White men prefer White women, get over it. All your lying and bobbin’ and weevilin’ don’t change nothin’. That chick in the red dress posted by Abhi don’t look too bad, but only because she’s the whitest in the group. Give it up, Sour Grapes, White women are the best. 676
Posted by rustymason on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:59 | # BTW, we still need more pics of gorgeous White women. This thread is pretty worthless without ‘em. 677
Posted by Abhi on Thu, 07 Sep 2006 05:09 | # oye jd, 678
Posted by bnrocks on Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:37 | # hey abhi and JD if u have stupid comments like that to make go on some FOB thread and write them! 679
Posted by E on Thu, 07 Sep 2006 21:16 | # What a racist, subjective rant, opinions are like assholes, everybody’s gotta have one. 680
Posted by Y on Thu, 07 Sep 2006 21:53 | # It might be true that many men are attracted to the “Nordic” look, that is merely your opinion. If you (the author) are so obsessed about the delicate features of Nordic women than pat yourself on the back and move on, no need to spew your ridiculous rhetoric in an academic-type of essay. The bottom line is, men by nature are not that picky (straight men of course), we dont go around zooming in on women’s faces and deciding whether the look is ‘attractive’. Men are scientifically conditioned to be attracted to an hour-glass figure, and a woman’s body is what causes the instant visual sexual attraction in men, not the face. Only an anal-retentive fool would take your argument straight to the heart, and it is one full of generalizations, backed up by selectively chosen pictures. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, and beauty can come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. Sorry to rain on your parade, but just because women prefer Tall, Dark, and Handsome men (which usually applies to Italians, Latins, Greeks, Mid-Easterners, North Africans, Africans, and Indians) doesn’t mean that you can all of a sudden declare ‘whiteness’ as the supreme standard of beauty and expect people to actually believe it. From my experience, women——attracted to a darker, more masculine mate Even in the times of Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt, women stayed indoors and were depicted in the art work of those periods as having a lighter skin color than the males who were out hunting under the sun, which created a tanned, masculine appearance. Either way, your argument is very subjective and generalizes in such an epic scale that it is a proposterous one, you sir come across as some sort of “Aryan- blue-eyed-blonde-haired-the supreme race-Hitler (cough cough)” type of idiot. 681
Posted by Abhi on Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:28 | #
dear bnrocks, 682
Posted by jamie on Fri, 08 Sep 2006 01:22 | # Y, nice posts, but also remember that in egypt women were depected as lighter than men at one time however this later changed when they started depicting both women and men as brown in order to denote a sort of equality in the status of women and men. so just as women were painted lighter than men for a while they were also depected as the same color as men when a new period began. also remember that most egyptian pharoahs tended to take their wives from nubia and cush so perhaps the paintings didnt fepict a certain preference for women to be lighter it probably jsut depicted things the way they were (sense men went outside alot and womens tayed inside) or maybe it was meant to symbolize something. i also read something aobut egyptian hstory that showed when women rose to excellency they were depicted as darker skinned in the early days of efgypt (if im not mistaken) i need to refresh a bit on all of that stuff. But i do know that the color black in early egypt denoted excellency when they painted people in black. anyway, nice post…any fool knows beauty is in the eye of the beholder, nothing more nothing less. Plus standards of beauty change constantly all the time so why someone would try to claim that simply because a certain type is in right now then that certain type is innately more beautiful i would never know. anyone who actually buys into that is completely insane or simply a drone who cant think for himself. 683
Posted by jamie on Fri, 08 Sep 2006 01:39 | # and whoever is here claiming that africans never had any great civilizations and that our people were climbing in trees that person simply proves himself to be completely ignorrant of history outside india and the white world. timbuktoo was the greatest civilization to ever exist and arabs, and greeks went THERE to learn they went to colleges in timbuktu in order to learn.
heck even west africa had great civilizations of its own.
even diodorus and herodotus note this in their ancient travels and writings. 684
Posted by jamie on Fri, 08 Sep 2006 02:24 | # ok here’s what i meant when i said when people were painted in black in egypt it meant their status was uplfted.
685
Posted by jamie on Fri, 08 Sep 2006 02:57 | # i found another really good link on this and i jsut hadd to post it. this board needs an editing features this is ridiculous
“Nubian nobles Egyptian male (dark) Old Egyptian male (light) Egyptian female (light) Egyptian gods 686
Posted by C.M. on Fri, 08 Sep 2006 09:32 | # This thread is getting boring, it has stray too far off the original topic, i like the pictures of J. Richards more instead of harping who has more attractive women. We men are attracted to beauty of women, especially their figure, while women are more attracted by resources of the male. Of course women are like men too that they are attracted to looks, they will prefer a handsome male like males will prefer a beautiful women. In my opinion the most beautiful women are in north west Europe not just becasue of their blondness or blue eyes, J. richards is indeed right about the good figure of nordic women in general, the sandclock figure is more frequent than in women of other parts of the world. If I have to assign races I would put northern and southern Europe apart, not west and eastern Europe. The truth is simply that nordics are derivatives of Mongoloid mixed with a blend of middle eastern, as they have not have the same huge flow of genes of neolithic middle eastern farmers like southern Europe has, they are more beautifull. Nordic women are longer legged and more slender, they also have smaller breasts than women from africa and middle east but the smaller breast are a phenotype of Mongoloid origin, like Northern Asian women also have small breasts. The straight hair, the high cheekbones, the inverted lips are all derivatives of Mongoloid origin just like the majority of males in Europe are derivatives of Mongoloid origin. While the southern Europeans are more derivatives of neolithic farmers as indicated by haplotype J and E. Both R1b and R1a are branches of M45, the tree that also include North Asians and American Indians. It’s just 15.000 years ago that the males who migrated west into Europe from the area we now call Siberia became Nordics, while those stayed in the areas became Siberian natives or Northern Han, Koreans etc. plus those who migrated across the Bearing strait became Sioux, Inuit or Cherokee. Indeed we have changed but certain phenotypes are still recognizable. It’s also the reason why Nordic men are less hairy than Southern European males becasue male hairyness comes from the middle east. In short Nordics like the Scandinavians are 75% of Mongoloid origin with 25% admixture from the middle east. I like the blondness and the multi coloured eyes because it’s a Mongoloid mutation, because it’s only found in high frequency in Northern European areas where the influences of neolithic middle astern farmers are the least. Why is it Mongoloid in origin? Because it’s extremely rare in middle east, so this could have have been the place where lightness has come from and the people in middle east who have blue eyes are the results of crusaders, Alexander Macedonian soldiers or Christian Slavs robbed from the Balkan (Eastern Europe). 687
Posted by C.M. on Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:01 | # About the phenotying of middle easterners as sandniggers is completely correct. Especially those from northern africa can be clearly seen, the skinny legs, the narrow faces like africans, just look at the narrow face of thiery henry the arsenal player and the faces of arabs and north africans, the curly hair, their big teeth and their tanned skin and you know why i’s insanity to have middle easterners and Europeans to be grouped into a “race"called caucasian. Even genetics proves this as the haplotypes are completely different. The European noses tend to be more straight, finer and medium sized than middle easterners where even the women have big noses, middle easterners also have the most variation in nose type so the European nose type is a blend between Aurignac Mongoloid and neolithic middle easterners. The big nose however is more dominant than the flatter nose, just like dark genes are more dominant over “light” genes. I simply don’t think a tall skinny narrow faced, curly haired is attractive. About hair. curly hair and waved hair are also signs of middle eastern origin (due to their admixture with blacks) so the farther you moved north the straighter hair you will encounter just as the decrease of male body hair. Now what is the function of male body hair? It originates from the middle east and it was not mend to protect the body gainst the cold. It’s a freaking desert in middle east. So why body hair? The body ahir on the chest, legs and arms are mend to prevent perspiration to vapour so the hair will keep the body cooler in a hot climate. Italians and Greeks all are hairier than Swedes, look at it and you you see middle eastern influences. In the frigid cold keeping the body moist has no purpose so Chinese, Swedes and Finns will have smoother bodies, because the last thing you want in minus 17 15000 years ago is that your sweat will stay on your body because you are hairy. 688
Posted by C.M. on Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:46 | # Look at andre Agassi, who is as hairy as a chimp, and you would suspect middle eastern. Indeed he’s half iranian so his hairyness is explained, the hairyness gene is quite dominant when mixed with a recessive gene.
689
Posted by C.M. on Fri, 08 Sep 2006 12:32 | # Yeah I am very political uncorrect, it would be nice if we study racial issues more. I was just wondering why hollywood could not portray the things as they are, in Hollywood movies blacks are doctors and pilots or sonar operators who like listen to classical music. Of course the hollywood jews say it’s just “entertainment” , you don’t want to insult the 35 million latinos by portraying them as the gangs as they are, but instead you say you choose a cuban-Chinese(!) as bad guy. If you portray the bro’s as basketballers or rappers instead of pilots and sonar operators listening to classical music, you are scaring them away from the theaters… It’s great because it’s just “entertainment”, but how come we do not have jews as drug dealers as they are like the tel aviv mafia trafficking XTC to Europe. I have yet to encounter a movie with jews as bad guys despite the fact it’s just “entertainment”...hey relax it’s just “entertainment”. I am not against jews but I have a problem with them how they sell their movies. I have a problem with that, I have also a problem with jewish media like Time and other american media sources. I think they are a bunch of stinking liars! 690
Posted by C.M. on Fri, 08 Sep 2006 12:49 | # So freaking hollywood better portray things as they are, all bros like basketball and rap. The stupid hollywood mafia with their distorted views of how life really is, their classical music listening sonar operating bro I think america is a country of shitty lies! 691
Posted by C.M. on Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:05 | # Blacks have lower IQ, that’s fact. Yet to compensate I think morons have invented “Emotional” Q or something. Or that IQ tests are “unfair”, yeah that’s correct: IQ tests are unfair for dumb people! Just like math and physics is unfair for people who won’t get it. Where morons get preferred out of a skewed policy, where fucking arabs can burn cars in Paris just like that. How Israelis bombed the arabs was really classy. 692
Posted by bnrocks on Fri, 08 Sep 2006 16:18 | # lol white? a hundered percent indian & i can prove it to u not really that i have to but sry to all americans maybe abhi needs to be taught some manners in the language he understands. 693
Posted by tobor on Fri, 08 Sep 2006 16:26 | # You forgot to mention one thing…White Women age the WORST out of EVERY race. So once these women reach 40+ your argument goes to shit. =) 694
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 08 Sep 2006 20:10 | # tobor - yeah and as we know most men are much more attracted to women over 40 than under. Not. So in fact your argument is largely pointless is it not? 695
Posted by tobor on Fri, 08 Sep 2006 21:42 | # Actually, white women age faster than any race on the planet. Even as early as 20-25 years old their face starts to wrinkle and lose youth, showing obvious weathering. So, my argument is definitely relevant. Women from Southern Europe, Asia, Africa, Middle East and Latin America look very youthful even into their 50’s. So the whole “Nordic Woman Superiority” bullshit gets thrown out the window =). 696
Posted by besnier on Sat, 09 Sep 2006 01:07 | # mmm i think that if you find nordic women to be more atractive than other type, any other, is your choice and point of view, perhaps many think or feel that way, i include myself with the ocasional exception, but, as you may know its an opinion and nothing more, if youre trying to convince someone, maybe you will, weak minded persons by the way, but as politics and religion is a lost cause, never the less this long long lon….. review is a great work and it shows your conviccion about the matter, so congratilations, oh and a small heads-up i read most of the tex and at the beginnind had a very neutral tone and as i went down it got a little, i dont want to say racist but it gave me that feeling, that would be all, bye then. 697
Posted by C.M. on Sat, 09 Sep 2006 04:23 | # I made a mistake: “so this could have have been the place where lightness has come from and the people in middle east who have blue eyes are the results of crusaders, Alexander Macedonian soldiers or Christian Slavs robbed from the Balkan (Eastern Europe). “ Of course it should be so this could NOT have been the place where lightness has come from. 698
Posted by joe on Sat, 09 Sep 2006 05:29 | # img {http://cdn.channel.aol.com/channels/08/06/42a6e721-0037c-04a1d-400cb8e1} IRL img 699
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 09 Sep 2006 17:06 | # Darijastani, As James Bowery has pointed out, the non-white immigration issue is not one of natural selection, but a result of social policies. ——————- Jessica, You are yet another person ending up criticizing the U.S. after coming across a thread in English that you don’t like. What is up with this? This site is not run by Americans. Besides, if America were the most racist country on earth, there would have been no 1965 immigration reform, no civil rights movement and all blacks would have been expelled to Africa or the Caribbean a long time ago, among other things. ——————- Brian, I told you to stay away. Your retarded comments are not welcome. The reason I need to point out majority preferences is to show what is normative; I don’t believe that someone is attractive because most people think so; I can judge for myself. You have described the way of my thinking as “We are the best and there’s no wrong in us,” which is nonsensical and a straw man. My taste in women is dull? I would much rather have a “dull” taste than prefer manly women such as Dawson and Narain. In response to my explanation of why some white female sex offenders make it all over the news whereas their black counterparts don’t, you called the explanation outlandish, and wrote the following:
Why should I waste my time looking for black female sex offenders against juveniles? No person in his right mind would believe that there are no such offenders, but I know that you will come back accusing me of being unable to find a single such offender, and therefore consider the following three among a huge number of similar cases; given their looks and their race, nobody would bother making it headline news all over the nation, unlike the case with Mary Kay LeTourneau and Debra Lafave.
Stay off of this thread. ——————- JD, You are mistaken about the vast majority of whites being into hip-hop and rap; only few are. When I was a kid, I remember enjoying MTV for a while, but it shifted more and more toward hip-hop and rap and I stopped watching it. I only know of one white person that likes rap, but he likes Eminem (white guy) and not the black stuff. Similarly, very few whites date blacks and fewer still marry them, and of those that do, most are unattractive. The problem is that black men have very low standards; some have virtually no standards, and obese or manly white women who would normally have a very difficult time attracting a white man will sometimes be showered with attention and flattery by black men. Thus we see that white women with black men are often obese or unattractive in other ways. Some of the problems in the West are also a result of the greater generic freedom here. For instance, although I find whites miscegenating with non-whites very distasteful, I would not support anti-miscegenation laws because I believe that people should have the right to marry whom they want. This freedom works fine if society remains all or overwhelmingly white, but creates problems when the non-white population starts increasing substantially. ——————- Tobor, Whites do not age faster than non-whites, and age slower than most populations except northeast Asian; it is just their skin that acquires fine wrinkles earlier. 20-25-year-old white women typically have youthful skin, and dark women do not have youthful skin into their 50s. As Lurker said, your argument is irrelevant; a beauty comparison needs to involve young adults, not middle-aged or older people. Besides, this thread is poorly characterized as one about “Nordic woman superiority.” The comparisons focus on overall facial features and to a lesser extent the physique, not skin that you and plenty of others have nitpicked on. If one had to choose between a dark-haired woman with an attractive face vs. a light-haired woman with an unattractive face, the obvious choice would be the dark-haired woman. Face and physique shape are more important than color. 700
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 09 Sep 2006 17:12 | # Jamie, So, I try to go around the point, try to misinterpret what’s being said (pretending that I don’t get the point being made) so that people can’t see that I haven’t proven my point well? Well, let us consider you pointers. In response to my question whether you had heard of sexual selection, you said yes, but then argued that your question remains unanswered. You may have heard of sexual selection but have not understood it. If there is selection for women with above average femininity and men with above average masculinity within a population, then one will find at least some very feminine women and some very masculine men in the population. There is no law of sexual selection that says that if the female average is shifted toward the more feminine then the male average must also be shifted toward the more feminine; sexual selection is simultaneously capable of shifting the female average in the feminine direction and the male average in the masculine direction. Therefore, the assertion that white women tend to look overall more feminine does not at all imply that white men also tend to look overall more feminine. Regarding muscularity and bone mass, here is the order of lean body mass (muscle + skeletal mass) for the same height and body fat level: Polynesian > West African > white > East Asian, East African, South Asian. Ref:
You also need to consider that Polynesians and West African blacks have a higher tendency to be obese than whites, and men with excess body fat do not tend to look very manly. Among the most muscular men, i.e., professional male bodybuilders, the top ranks comprise of Northern European-type white men and West African black men, and between these two groups, men with the greatest muscular bulk are disproportionately white. Therefore, it is not true that white men have a less masculine appearance than all the darker races. You have again misrepresented my argument as saying that white women are more feminine because of their lighter skin, something that I have not implied. Like I said previously, within a population, women tend to be lighter and hence lighter skin within a population, not across races, is associated with femininity. Let us consider your comparison of feminine traits in white and black women. What you consider to be more feminine traits in white women: <ul><li>Lighter skin. Skin color is not relevant to a comparison between races because racial differences are overwhelmingly due to genes unrelated to what makes one feminine or masculine.</li><li>Thicker calves. Huh? Men have thicker calves than women, but calf thickness differences between races are not related to sex hormones.</li><li>Less muscularity. Sex hormones are not the only factor behind muscularity, but testosterone-to-estrogen ratios are more masculine in black women, and, within limits, a less muscular appearance would tend to look more feminine.</li><li>Higher waist to hip ratio. Lower waist-to-hip ratio is more feminine, and the ratio is lower in white women.</li><li>Less dense bone structure. White women has lesser bone mass than black women; differences in bone density vary according to location, and the assumption, that I have myself previously held, that bone density is higher among blacks is not certain; within limits, less robust bones would tend to look more feminine.</li></ul> What you consider to be more feminine traits in black women: <ul><li>Thicker lips. Black men, on average, have thicker lips than white women. Does this mean that black men are more feminine than white women? Obviously no. The greater lip thickness of blacks is a racial feature, not a more feminine characteristic.</li><li>Thicker upper thighs. There are three reasons for this, none related to femininity: greater muscularity, greater prevalence of obesity and a higher prevalence of fast-twitch muscle fibers.</li><li>Smaller heads (since women on average have smaller heads than men). The cranial capacity of blacks is less than that of whites, corresponding to their smaller brains, but this has nothing to do with femininity, but is a result of blacks never evolving the intelligence than whites have evolved. On the other hand, black women have larger faces than white women.</li><li>More protruding buttocks. If this resulted from feminization, then black women would also have wider pelves and smaller waists, but their pelves are narrower and waists thicker than in white women. The more protruding buttocks are a racial characteristic.</li><li>Less long strands of body hair. Many black men have less body hair than some white women. Does this make some white women more masculine than many black men? Race differences in prevalence of body hair are not due to the greater or lesser femininity of one race in comparison to another.</li></ul> There is no need for a discussion like you have provided. Just look at real life examples. For instance, consider the comparison between Neshelle and the blonde below her in a previous comment. Neshelle has thicker lips, bigger breasts, more protruding buttocks, thicker upper thighs, less body hair and probably a smaller cranium, but does she look more feminine than the blonde? You have correctly pointed out that femininity is not the only criterion for appeal, but between these two women, who would be more appealing to a typical non-black person? Keep in mind that I deliberately selected a not very feminine blonde. If you compare the feminine appearance of Neshelle or Melissa Ford with the feminine brunette Northern European shown below Ms. Ford, who looks overall more feminine? To address the aging issue, whites age less slowly than blacks, not the other way around. Populations that mature quicker age quicker, and blacks mature quicker than whites, i.e., some of the difference in lifespan of whites and blacks is partly related to the naturally shorter lifespan of blacks. You may have the skin aging issue in mind. It is true that whites acquire fine wrinkles before others do, but by the time wrinkles are an aesthetic problem in whites, they are no longer young. If you had to compare the beauty of adults, you should compare the beauty of young adults as young adulthood is the time period of greatest beauty. Time to address the Roman make-up issue. One of your links mentions the use of wigs made from the black hair of British slave girls. Well, dark women can look too fake if they use a blonde wig. Therefore, if some Roman woman used a black wig whereas some others with naturally dark hair used blonde wigs, it does not imply any preference for black hair unless you have proof that plenty of light-haired Roman woman put on black wigs. Besides, Northern Europeans tend to have finer hair, and it is interesting that dark hair was sometimes sourced from Northern Europeans. A pdf file linked by you also mentions the use of wigs made from the hair of Ethiopians. How prevalent was this compared to the well-known obsession with blondeness? The source does not say this or cite its sources. The source also mentions that a number of Roman women used lead-based crèmes to make their faces whiter. As far as making the eyes darker goes, they were using dark eyeliners. One always uses dark eyeliners to bring more attention to the eyes; the dark outline contrasting strongly with the white of the eyes. The use of dark eyeliners with skin whitening concoctions surely does not imply any kind of preference for dark features. You have said that Roman women early on had a preference for blonde wigs but later on had a preference for black wigs. Source? The Roman Patricians were disproportionately Nordic and elite women back then would often have had light hair themselves, but the blonde obsession is described toward the later period of Italy, especially in the few centuries right before the Roman empire collapsed. You have commended Jason Kirk for making a strong argument about albinos, but ignored my response to him that albinos are mistreated even among whites because they are viewed as freaks, and also my insistence that I have not argued that white skin equals feminine. You need to quit citing Afrocentric absurdities. Can blacks claim the achievements of the ancient Egyptians? The following results reveal the answer.
What does the figure above show? It shows that the ancient Egyptians were related to other populations as follows, from closest to farthest: Europeans, North Africans, Somalis, Nubians, East Indians, Eskimos, Mainland Asians, Jomon-Pacific people, Native Americans, black Africans, aborigines in Australia and Melanesia. In other words, the ancient Egyptians were about as far from black Africans (Negroes) as modern Europeans are. Since the dendogram is based on neutral measurements, it can be taken as a proxy for the genetic relatedness of the groups, except for the Australian aboriginal and Negro association, which by virtue of the large geographical separation, is due to similarities in skull shape rather than any recent genetic relatedness. There are plenty of paintings and sculptures from ancient Egypt showing unmistakably Caucasoid people. Of course, there are depictions of Negroes, too, but what happened to Egypt after absorption of the Negroid and Semitic people? Their civilization went down the drain. From a people that erected impressive pyramids, the Egyptians transformed to a people who couldn’t figure out how earlier people erected the pyramids, let alone being able to build new ones themselves. This is a blog, not a forum where you would expect to be able to edit your comments. We have a forums section, too (see top bar), and I would appreciate it if you register and post off-topic comments in an appropriate category there. 701
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 09 Sep 2006 17:20 | # Jason Kirk, Time for you to stop commenting here. You do not have the education to be debating here. Nowhere have I implied that white skin makes white women more feminine than non-white women, and your insistence about this point in spite of my clear language shows either an inability to understand or unwillingness to read carefully. Jamie has not rebutted my points. I have addressed the lip thickness issue in my reply to Jamie; it is easy to say that the thicker lips of blacks are a racial feature rather than representative of greater femininity because even black men have thicker lips, on average, than white women. Besides, you have ignored the citation [by Peter Frost] of testosterone-to-estrogen ratio being higher in black women, which is clear evidence for their greater masculinity. To compare how feminine two faces are, one need only compare gross face shape variables. One could find pictures of a heavily made up Rosario Dawson without the crow’s feet showing, but it would not change her face shape, which is clearly more masculine than the blonde’s. Dawson’s face’s shape is very clear in the picture. Some of your links to Dawsons’s pictures show small pictures and the clearer pictures unambiguously show a masculine face shape; major difference between your pictures and the one that I have shown is that Dawson is made up well in your pictures and you cannot see any wrinkles, but the focus is on face shape. You have said that white women with feminine backsides that you are aware of have built it in a gym. How ignorant can you be? The only thing that can be built in a gym is more muscle mass, but do female bodybuilders look like they have a feminine backside? For a woman to have feminine-looking buttocks, her pelvic bone needs to have a feminine shape, and this cannot be built in a gym. Trying to make buttocks more protruding by increasing the size of the gluteus muscles doesn’t help much when it comes to a feminine appearance. Much of your comments have focused on color, which is not the issue being focused on. The point of this entry is evidence for stronger sexual selection among Northern Europeans, which has influenced facial features, body shape and also pigmentation. I have not argued that white skin, blue eyes and blonde hair are naturally more attractive, and therefore your examples of a black kid becoming scared of a white man after seeing one for the first time and black albinos being treated unfairly by other blacks is tangential to the discussion. Non-black people would not consider Northern Europeans as attractive if they had the same pigmentation but with Negroid facial features instead. What you need to consider is the package of facial features, physique and pigmentation; in the context of this package, Northern Europeans are disproportionately favored in the beauty department within a European context, and in the facial beauty department on a global basis. In the comparisons that I came up with in response to the women pointed out by Malcolm A, I asked the reader to ignore pigmentation. It is your retarded inference that my argument is based on color. Once again, the black women you pointed out do not have stereotypical black African facial features; they lean toward mulatto looks, i.e., your own choices are helping my argument that a shift toward European face norms are a correlate of beauty. You have tried to explain the reason for whites tanning in terms of a response to global warming, i.e., whites deep down know that it would be harder to survive and withstand the heat if they don’t tan or racially mix with others! You have to be insane, and are definitely ignorant big time. The component of solar radiation that heats up the skin is the infrared part, and the darker the skin, the moiré the amount of infrared radiation absorbed. Therefore, darker skin would be a bad idea when it comes to sun-induced heating of skin. Lighter skin absorbs more ultraviolet radiation, which doesn’t heat the skin, but damages DNA; the natural solution to this problem is reducing skin exposure to the sun, using sun block and living in parts of the world with low levels of UV radiation. You have related the popularity of a tan among whites to Josephine Baker going to Europe and a fashion designer liking her skin? You are retarded. You have dismissed my explanation of the reason for the popularity of tanning among whites by pointing out plenty of poor white outdoor laborers during the beginning of industrialization. That was a long time ago. A preference for really pale skin was the norm among whites well unto the nineteenth century. Tanning started catching on from the 1920s onward and probably didn’t attain its current popularity till the mid-twentieth century. It should be obvious to any reasonable person that since most jobs are indoor jobs now, tanned whites imply that they are wealthy enough to have plenty of free time to spend outdoors, the proof of which lies in their tan. You mention white women preferring men who are “tall, dark and handsome,” but the “dark” part is a Hollywood creation and in real life, the “dark” part refers to a tan, not naturally dark skin, and certainly not the ridiculous claim on your part that white women prefer their “own white men to be dark and closer to African looking.” Regarding the lip thickness issue, I have made it clear that women attempting to make their lips thicker using make-up are trying to make themselves more seductive by virtue of more feminine women within a population having thicker lips and the lips swelling somewhat during sexual arousal, but the preference is to attain slightly thicker lips than the population average, and this among whites would still mean lips thinner than among blacks, i.e., there is no implication here that whites admire the lip thickness of blacks. Angelina Jolie’s lips are too thick for many whites. My friends and I consider her to be bug-lipped. Your reply over the issue of white women being crazy about biracial children and fawning over black men implies that I am dealing with a retard. Time for you to look at census statistics. Most whites marry whites, and of the few that marry non-whites, most of the time it is non-blacks. It is also common observation that most whites who marry blacks are unattractive individuals, the women being disproportionately obese and manly. You have mentioned white female Caribbean sex tourists, but these are old women who cannot get men where they live, and there are very few such women. The latter also shows how low young black men will stoop too: having sex with unattractive and obese middle-aged women and grannies. Where did you get the idea that “so many” white men peruse interracial dating sites to find black men to satisfy the fetish that their white wives have for black men? The very idea is so sick that the vast majority of white men and women would puke at it, let alone indulge in the filthy behavior. I do not know what proportion of couples engage in swinging, but the figure is likely less than 1%, and of these only a minority would involve a married white woman having sex with black men with the consent of her white husband. The problem with you and your incredible delusion about many white women finding black men desirable is that like too many black men you live in an imaginary world thinking that everyone wants black men. However, in real life, the only people after black men in any significant numbers are policemen. Just because some white people adopt hip-hop, listen to rap, sport cornrows or wear loose baggy pants, it hardly follows that blacks are being imitated by a large number of white people. For most whites, cultural characteristics of blacks are anathema. You have again spewed your nonsense about brainwashing without citing any proof that this occurs. If the notion of brainwashing has any validity, then it would have been documented by psychologists, given the historical prominence of the blank slate idea in psychology. Where is the proof? If whitey has been portraying black as inferior for centuries and blacks have apparently been brainwashed by whites, then blacks should have lower self-esteem than whites according to your reasoning, but blacks have higher self-esteem, even higher academic self-esteem, than whites! How is this possible? Better go through the thread cited before replying because chances are that your response has already been addressed. Take your nonsense elsewhere. Besides, on the topic of brainwashing, just because I agree with some points made by JD, who is not my friend, it does not mean that I agree with everything that he has written; I don’t buy into his comment about brainwashing. You mentioned the discomfort that some whites have about the Jewish multicultural agenda, but my discomfort here is not because of fear of brainwashing, but with the fact that the Jews in charge will present selective evidence, distort history and ignore the negative consequences. My concern is therefore with misinformation, not brainwashing. At least some poorly informed people can be made to root for multiculturalism, but then it cannot be said that they have been brainwashed. Again, if you were to insist that blacks have been misinformed about themselves and their contributions to civilization rather than being brainwashed, then how, again, is it possible for them to have higher self-esteem that whites? If white scholars have written that the black Ethiopians were idolized by Romans as great fighters and strategizers, then how come you have not been able to cite these papers? And, where is your link to the source of the essay that you posted? I will comment on your assertion that “the Chinese referred to whites as shaggy and unattractive saying there are those who do not wish to marry them” if you cite the source so that I can gauge how prevalent this attitude was. As far as some people painting their deities black goes, why should it be surprising that some black-skinned people will paint their gods black? I also want you to cite evidence that the Arabs preferred hooked noses to straight noses prior to European influence. You may respond to this comment, but make that your last comment since it is unlikely that you will stop misrepresenting my arguments; stop focusing on color, which is not what the beauty issue is about; or stop repeating nonsense such as your notion of brainwashing without citing any proof. 702
Posted by patel on Sat, 09 Sep 2006 20:08 | # you all must really be crazy if you believe that men dont view women in their 30s as attractive and dont still look to women in their 30s (which is when white women began to age)and 40s for companionship. women are having children in their 30s and 40s these days. you all are living in the old days if you think men are only looking to reproduce wiht 15 year olds and 20 year olds. The last time i checked you werent considered old until 50. 703
Posted by tobor on Sat, 09 Sep 2006 22:52 | # You also have still not addressed the fact that white women age the worst out of every race. In my opinion, the key is to find a woman with good genes. So, look at her mother, if she looks like Sophia Loren then you are in luck. Its rather comical, in order to defeat this aging factor “Nordic” women in the USA rely heavily on plastic surgery in order to preserve what youth they have left on their faces once they pass the age of 25+. And trust me, comparing the aging factor of a golden-tanned Sicilian woman to a pasty Northern European is like comparing a Ferrari to a Ford Escort, a genetic mismatch. 704
Posted by Rukhsana on Sun, 10 Sep 2006 11:06 | # You know after spending the last hour reading your discussion, all I can say is, some of you have proven the worst stereotypes of the american white racist- totally self centred, uncaring of the senstivities of the people concerned, ignorant of the culture and people who write about. So people in Northern Europe have blue eyes and blonde hair. People here have black hair and brown eyes. SO WHAT? I dont think white blonde is particularly handsome; neither do a lot of the people I know. As an Indian female (yes, we arent just a theoretical concept but real people), you once again proved to me what yours is not a country for one of my race. You can keep your precious white racial purity. And no I dont really expect a response and yes, I can expect you to say that I am biased and not being scientific. I am not usually make a habit of posting on other people’s sites like this- this is the first time ever for me. To some of the posters, from the bottom of my heart, shame on you, people. 705
Posted by Abhi on Sun, 10 Sep 2006 13:13 | #
to bnrocks, i was just asking JD why is he against blacks. is that a crime? j richards is a bloody white supremacist. you can go and lick his ass and also of any white punk d!ckheads like him. i dont care. and u can keep ur advice to urself. if i meet any racist on the street i will most probably spit on his or her face. and cut the crap about hindi. lets talk in the language u understand. the language which ur white masters gave u. lol. 706
Posted by bnrocks on Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:00 | # maybe u should read the whole thread abhi in which u’ll find other comments of mine which prove otherwise before calling whites my masters. i kno J Richards is a damned racist but i thought Indians would have a bit more decency. 707
Posted by JD on Sun, 10 Sep 2006 19:15 | # Moron, what moron. if spaeaking the truth is racist, well I cannnot help it. Negro log dikhne me ugly hote hai aur IQ unka thoda kum hota hai. Cheers. 708
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:09 | # Rukhsana, what gives rise to comments threads such as this is the forced race-replacement régime European peoples everywhere are currently being subjected to by their governments: whites feel it’s time for them to defend themselves racially in explicit terms, since part of the racial attack on them at present is the implicit and explicit denigration of their physical appearance by means of the claim that their descendants will be more attractive-looking if whites today mix with other races than if they stay white by marrying other whites. Were we not being bombarded constantly and from every corner with the most aggressive propaganda telling us we’d be better off and more attractive physically if we mixed with other races—with the Subcontinental races, with the yellow races, with the Negro races, with the Mexican race, and so on—were whites in Europe and North America and elsewhere across the globe not currently being bombarded with that propaganda constantly, non-stop, and in many countries forbidden to contradict it, to speak out in opposition to it, we’d not be having discussions like this on blogs, discussions which might hurt the feelings of people of other races—they’d be totally unnecessary. But sadly they’ve now become very necessary, as white people ask each other if it’s really true what we’re being told constantly, that we must mix with all other races, that we’d look much better mixed than white, and so on. We feel we need to bring this out in the open and discuss it frankly. That’s what’s going on. That’s the story behind threads such as this one. We have manners, the same as Subcontinentals. But things have come to such a pass now, with governmental propaganda in all white countries deliberately pushing the white race toward not valuing itself, disliking itself, seeing no point in continuing to exist as a race, believing that all non-white races are better than whites and more moral, our governments actually pushing the white race in the direction of going out of existence, that we’ve moved to a realm beyond manners, one requiring frankness in regard to certain topics not normally frankly discussed because they’re potentially hurtful to others, because they’re matters of opinion, and because they simply don’t need to be discussed. Things in the world have now unfortunately changed in such a way that it’s become legitimate for whites to discuss openly, frankly among themselves (and others of course may listen in if they like) whether or not all this anti-white propaganda, including the propaganda about white looks being improved by mixture with non-whites, is true. 709
Posted by patel on Mon, 11 Sep 2006 01:04 | # richards,
http://www.obesityresearch.org/cgi/content/full/9/11/696 710
Posted by Abhi on Mon, 11 Sep 2006 01:48 | #
711
Posted by Abhi on Mon, 11 Sep 2006 01:50 | #
dunno about IQ but blacks have the most amazing bods. 712
Posted by Highlander on Mon, 11 Sep 2006 02:53 | # Tobor,
C.M.,
“Nordids, a.k.a. “Nordics”, are strongly depigmented, orthognathic and leptomorphic dolicho-mesocephals of northern Europe. The general Nordid type probably evolved through the blending of gracilized northern European Cro-Magnoids (robust broad-faced Upper Paleolithic types) with various types, including tall leptomorphs associated with the Battle-Axe and Boat-Axe peoples, who entered Europe from the Eurasian steppes (carrying the Corded type with them), penetrating the various Nordid-formative territories in several consecutive waves. The resulting blends were subsequently stabilized, and the resultant types further specialized, to yield the present Nordid varieties. The ancestral Corded type (named after its association with the Corded Ware culture), with its high vault and long head, was skeletally “nordiform” (approaching a Nordid), or perhaps Mediterranid (of a larger, more robust variety.) Nordids are in a sense a northern equivalent of the southern Mediterranid leptomorphs, existing in a general dichotomy with broader-featured Europid Cro-Magnoids. This duality may be a reflection a general distributional trend, recalling the dichotomy between the Cro-Magnoid and Capellid/Aurignacid varieties of Paleolithic Europe.” Also of note, wavy to curly hair is sometimes found in the UK, Ireland and certain parts of Scandinavia in addition to the Mediterrenean, and is not an ‘absolute’ indicator of Middle Eastern origin.
713
Posted by C.M. on Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:43 | # I have this to say Highlander about the vague theoretical classifications but of course pictures will do. Take a look at these pics:
It’s not a matter of pigmentation at all, I can easily explain it through gentics, instead of vague corded wave pottery etc. This is a comment from a guy called “Greame” from another site. “The appearance of many Northern Europeans, Western and Eastern, despite their pigmentation have facial features indicating large amounts of Mongoloid genetic inheritance. Many exterminated Jews were blond and blue-eyed. Their pigmentation did not help them. Those features labled paedomorphic in North-West European women are actually Mongoloid. The flaring cheek bones, broadish nose, almond shaped eyes, everted lips and straight hair. Under the pink tinge is a light yellow skin. http://dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000208.html The looks of Janin Reinhardt is that of a typical Nordic, she could have been Swedish or Norwegian or Finnish or Dutch. 714
Posted by C.M. on Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:59 | # I have another one:
There is a divide between North and south Europe, and this is due to the admixture level of middle eastern neolithic farmers or even a complete replacement of local populations by middle eastern farmers as in Greece or Italy or Portugal. Miss world 2005 Unnur Birnar Vilhjamsdottir, a typical paleolithic example of how people looked like before their mixture with neolithic farmers from the middle east. 715
Posted by C.M. on Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:17 | # It’s not just pigmentation Highlander: Uma Thurmann is blonde and blue eyed but look at her nose. This type of noses can also be seen in upper caste hindus and this shows where the upper caste hindus have come from: the middle east. 716
Posted by C.M. on Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:33 | #
How cute, Janin Reinhardt “has “sinodont” teeth. The teeth and skull of paleolithic Europeans and Siberians are the same, indicating a common ancestry and a common culture. 717
Posted by patel on Mon, 11 Sep 2006 11:18 | # “Indeed both types have a tendency to show signs of aging somewhat earlier than other types, as a result of fewer surface lipids (which seal in moisture) and less melanin to protect itself from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. Of course, the wrinkles formed tend to be creases on the surface, as compared with the deeper creases found on darker complexioned skin, which has a thicker dermis and subcutis. Also, despite the possible experience of wrinkling at an earlier time, fair skinned people are less likely to suffer from ‘sagging of the face’ or ‘jowls’ because of their thinner dermis. “
also by the time other races develop the DEEP creases and sagging skin they are usually very old like well into their 70s and 80s. of course you have blacks who begin to wrinkle before 70 but those are smaller wrinkles not the deep ones youre talking about. however by the time whites develop wrinkles they are still very young like from 25 to 30.
but i remember richards mentioning somethnb about blacks developing faster than whites, in my opinion that’s very irrelevant because THAT type of development is considered beautiful. that’s not what you call aging richards, that’s simply teenage and adolescent development or what you call puberty. aging is when a person gains wrinles and grey hair and loses muscularity and thier bones began to wrinkle. i don’t even see how what richards is saying aobut black children developing earlier and hitting puberty quicker is relevant to the topic.
718
Posted by patel on Mon, 11 Sep 2006 11:33 | # “Asians generally have sagging in the upper face (brow, upper lid, midface) while Caucasians have more problems with the lower face and neck area. “ 719
Posted by Nair on Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:33 | # What is going on??I cannot believe people are catering to JR’s racist line of thinking which he tries to pitifully back by some scientific blah blah which I’m sure he put together.Kudos to Malcolm for trying to hold his end up . 720
Posted by pinder on Mon, 11 Sep 2006 21:58 | # This website is messed…clearaly you took the worst pictures of the indian actress… and they stilll 10X hotter….. hahahahahahahahahahah nice try !!!!hahahahaha ur jokes!!! 721
Posted by patel on Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:37 | # i second that pinder, just from what ive seen the indian women posted next to the white women in this thread are 100% better looking. not to deny that there are beautiful white women but if you were to go by this thread and had never seen a white woman before you would think that all white women were dull looking because the white women posted in this thread are rather mediocre and average looking. This becomes especialy true when you match their pictures up next to the indian beauties posted in this thread. 722
Posted by C.M. on Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:41 | # About the noseshape I was describing, it is right there without googleing, on the first page after the lovely Ruth. “Also consider the following pictures, starting from Miss India 2005, Amrita Thapar, who has a manly face”. This is the kind of nose Jews have also, I have seen drawings of nazi cartoons depicting a big nose Jew, today we would call that kind of nose “arabic”, the big hooked nose with a sinister Jew. Of course it was mend as propaganda to exclude Jews as being “different” or to stir up hate for them. But on the other hand the Jews are exactly doing the same thing as the nazis in their movies, with the distortion of truth and targeting a great country and its citizens. I don’t see differences in what the nazis were doing with their cartoons and what the jews are doing today. If anybody believes it is just “entertainment” or “they criticize their own government (america) too”, you are wrong. They cooperate with their government what to publish and what not. This is creating some serious resentment. There is a good reason why movies characters are depicted as they are, even if it is totally wrong. Sellling the movies is just a secondary reason. I don’t think latinos or blacks will mind if they are depicted as gangs as they are, because they actually like it, encouraged by a inferieur style as rap. Actually the son of a former Chinese president served in the wehrmacht as lieutenant while the son of another former Chinese president was serving as a lieutenant in a tank division of Stalin in the same era. Even the parade style marching goose stepping is derived from the Nazis, as they were the military advisors who were sent to China. The helmets are fitting too. 723
Posted by C.M. on Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:04 | # Actually we owe a lot to the nazis, not only the goose stepping which is performed in perfection, old wehrmacht officers who see this will acknowledge this. The goose stepping the most tired and exhausting style of marching that it can only be performed a few hundred metres before you get totally exhausted where the boot is planted on the ground with force while it looks so effortless when performed it, it is the ultimate style of parade marching. So you think I am a nazi sympathiser? I admire their military thinking, their discipline and their military innovations. I want them to be honest about world affairs and how things really are, blacks like basketball and rap, latinos like to roam in gangs, what is wrong with that to depict them that way in movies instead of doctors and classical music listening sonar operators. 724
Posted by C.M. on Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:49 | # Maybe the jews can make movies about fucking arabs as the terrorists as they are. Now that is reality. It makes sense and it is true. Let me analyze something more: So a katusha round hit the Israeli covette, is my speculation correct? But freaking right wing neocons seized the opportunity about something like “Chinese C-802” or something like that. The missile is too complicated to operate for kalashnikov and RPG yielding gangs + it needs mid course guidance which I don’t think they have, a fire control radar that is large and heavy because the missile is desgined to cut a frigate in half at a distance of 130 km. Let alone a gimpy corvette. Why is there alway the dishonesty and lies when China is involved? 725
Posted by patel on Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:56 | # acutally whites are far more likeoly to use drugs than hispanics and also mroe liekly to not only gert drunk but drink and drive. Everyday millions of (mostly White) so-called responsible, upstanding people engage in myriad criminal acts:
why dont we portray white people in this light…they shouldnt mind since tso many of them engage in these acts everyday. 726
Posted by bnrocks on Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:03 | # geez abhi! we got worked up over nothing really. no offense to u realli! its just ur latter comment that got me going! as for u JD ur just behaving like a dork. seriously I’ve seen african americans who are smart and pretty. I dont kno where u live but ur views are very steriotypical. maybe u should assess the crime in areas concentrated by blacks yet that would not conclude that all blacks are criminals. But based on looks…..we have JR thinking indians are ugly and we have u saying blacks are ugly and there’s no relationship to neither point. and speaking of IQ there are very smart indians while at the same time there are FOBS trying to be ghetto! so don’t hit the IQ oh yeah and by the way to J Richards wasn’t this thread called THE EVOLUTION OF BLONDE HAIR AND BLUE EYES AMONG NORDICS????? btw Mr. Fred Scrooby, your comment is very very very insightful. It shows how educated you are. 727
Posted by bnrocks on Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:09 | # oh yeah and i forgot to mention that many of the people whos name shall remain unnamed are spending countless valuable hours of their lives (for those of u who like the phrase time is money) posting comments in order to defend their belief that whites are better than other races in terms of looks and smartness when in reality time and time agian this proves to be untrue. by the way patel, i like the environmental crimes and ur ending statement saying they engage in this acts daily. that was smooth…lol 728
Posted by rustymason on Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:12 | # “oh yeah and i forgot to mention that many of the people whos name shall remain unnamed are spending countless valuable hours of their lives (for those of u who like the phrase time is money) posting comments in order to defend their belief that whites are better than other races in terms of looks and smartness when in reality time and time agian this proves to be untrue.” No, butrocks, you’re missing the real, hidden point of this thread - a chance to oogle beautiful women. It’s the Playboy defense: I buy it for the articles! BTW, it’s time for more pics, please. 729
Posted by bnrocks on Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:59 | # xcuse me??!!! ewwwww rustyman ur disgusting! u should really see how u should from other ppl’s perspectives! plz dont comment to my comments in the future. got it? and yeah u sure seem good at finding hidden meaning of things! maybe u should start ur own thread and post obscenities on it so we can see how many more pervs like u there are. 730
Posted by rustymason on Tue, 12 Sep 2006 17:36 | # So, liking to look at beautiful women is perverted? What is ya, some kinda faggot? 731
Posted by bnrocks on Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:26 | # ehem looking at beautiful women is fine"fagg” if ur looking at their face not their rear ends. and notice here we use the word “look” not “oogle” and everyone who’s not a perv or sry if ur offended at being called a perv bc ur so clean minded right, everyone who’s not like u is a faggot right? cuz nobody possibly in the world could disagree with u. U couldn’t take it if that were to happen right? that would make every decent person on this planet a faggot! what kinda rocks are up ur butt rustyman? 732
Posted by rustymason on Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:49 | # Thank you for your learned instruction, I shall endeavor to do as you recommend ... once I discover what the devil you’re trying to say. 733
Posted by patel on Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:07 | # LOL, bnrocks you’ll be surprised at how many freaks and perverts live in america…this is nothing for whites and for americans LOL
i reemember someone mentioning that only blacl men like large butts hwoever this is so far from true, especialy if you go to latin countries and to italy…the men in those countries oogle at large backsides. 734
Posted by JD on Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:57 | # bnrock you are behaving like an idiot. You just cant accept the facts. You have inferiority complex to Europeans. 735
Posted by patel on Tue, 12 Sep 2006 23:26 | # I HIGHLY dobut that JD is an indian, if so he is truely embarrassing. JD YOU are the one with the inferiority complex to whites (that’s if you are indian yourself which i doubt) how dare you claim bnrocks has an inferiority complex when it comes to white people whn YOU’RE the one lopping up white ass like its going out of style.
they’ve shown time and time again in this thread that they believe indians (and yes YOU included) are inferior. you claim blacks are so dumb but your level of stupidity knows no end my friend you are constantly proving that stereotype that indians are more civilized than blacks completely untrue in this thread.
736
Posted by bnrocks on Tue, 12 Sep 2006 23:33 | # psh yeah inferiority complex to europeans?? patel btw if u dont mind my asking are u a grl or a guy? bc i dont think any guy would have the guts the admit the world is full of pervs. i dont think they understand the wrong in their ways…lol and no offense if ur a guy which i highly doubt, u dont sound like one which can be a good thing in this case u kno…i was just saying…wondering if there’s another feminist among us…lol and rustyman leave it. u arent gonna understand bc to understand u need a fully functioning mind. 737
Posted by bnrocks on Tue, 12 Sep 2006 23:38 | # lol thanx patel… oh yeah and realli i do think JD is indian unfortunately (hard to imagine why indians are out to make themselves look like crapp) because he was blabbering some offensive garbage in hindi which instigated me to reply on this stupid site in the first place 738
Posted by rustymason on Wed, 13 Sep 2006 00:47 | # butrock, Are you “communicating” in Ebonics? I had heard about this language, but thought it was a joke. All apologies to your family. 739
Posted by EC on Wed, 13 Sep 2006 01:00 | # Patel states: I HIGHLY dobut that JD is an indian, if so he is truely embarrassing. The hypocrisy in this statement is astounding. Patel berates another Indian for not having a superiority and even doubts that someone who is Indian would say such “embarrassing” and demeaning things. Yet he has posted ad nauseum of why whites should not have the audacity to behave in similar fashion. Care to explain Patel? 740
Posted by Tile Hats on Wed, 13 Sep 2006 05:52 | # “white peole dont give a SHIT about you why the hell is your stupid ass sticking up for them?????” An excellent comments thread. 741
Posted by C.M. on Wed, 13 Sep 2006 07:53 | # It’s getting better, i do google and now they said it was a “silkworm” or SSN-2 styx, first it was a “drone” or UAV, then it became a C-802 which is one of the most advanced anti-ship missiles around. The jews better make up their mind, because I consider it a insult that the C-802 so called hit their gimpy corvette and did not explode. It ALWAYS explode, either by the time delayed contact fuse or the electronic time fuse. It will always explode after being fired! Given the minor damage it is a a katusja, the same rockets the fanatics fire at israeli cities, no more than a warhead of a few KG. The C-802 is weighing over 600 KG with a warhead of 165 KG. In test it attacked and sank discarded ship over 10000 tons. In the 2005 with the joint Sino Russian military manoeuvres, a C-802 fired by the new 052B destroyer hit and left the target ship in flames, while the Russian naval officer, who had the honour of plotting the position of the target, was staring at the screen at the target ship in disbelief. the american neocons are bullshitters! The iranians might have some C-801 older versions delivered in the eighties but they cannot copy the C-802 which is the long range turbofan version. I do think they can copy the SSN-2 styx but even this would be too difficult for the fanatics to operate. As usual the freaking neocons know nothing about military affairs let alone military hardware. it does not need to have alot of physics knowledge to know that a subsonic missile thrashing in a corvette, even if it does not explode like the exocet that hit a british frigate in the 1982 war will still destroy the ship, just by its kinetic energy alone and rocket fuel. I am serious: a C-802 will always explode and if it does not explode which is the same as you winning 10 million bucks it will go through the corvette and you can write the corvette off for good. Well if the fanatics fire katusha rockets at the corvette and just one hit the ship it’s just like that. Why are jews lying? My trigger finger is itching to prove that a C-802 is the premium missile to attack ships together with the whole C-80X family, the air lauched C-803 will fly 250 km to the target fired from a JH-7 from high altitude. 742
Posted by C.M. on Wed, 13 Sep 2006 08:07 | # The american jewish neocons are a bunch of dumb pot smokers and rap listeners. Given the same bullshit that the pussy rappers raps, it does not surprise me that these neocons are talking nonsenses. As the same as the bro’s black asses are owned by the record labels, the freaking neocons are owned by israel. stick to your own affairs and do not try to involve China, you won’t like it. 743
Posted by C.M. on Wed, 13 Sep 2006 08:37 | # Fuck trade with america too! The sooner trade and other crap ends, the better. the same for the american jewish neocons with 2 motherlands, fuck neocons and other jewish media! next time in hollywood movie i wan a miami cuban in drugsdeal as the dealers as they are, and i want a Chinese doctor and a jewish diamond trader. Plus a rapping and basketball playing negro! 744
Posted by C.M. on Wed, 13 Sep 2006 08:43 | # I want hollywood movies to have Uma Thurmann or Natalie Portman playing the wives of a bunch of black rapping negroes! I am not asking for too much huh, or orlando bloom having sex with a black fat negro woman! 745
Posted by C.M. on Wed, 13 Sep 2006 08:52 | # yeah hollywood just gimme, just gimme, just how good it would be for jewish families to have a black bro as son in law, how politically correct it would be, how beautiful jew children will look like afer marriage with bro. But for some reason despite it is just “entertainment” i don’t see this to happen. time warner, mtv, cnn, and other bias liars should be kicked out of china and be jammed. what kind of retards listen to rap and view dumb american hollywood productions. 746
Posted by C.M. on Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:40 | # Although we owe something to the jews like the PL-8 which is indeed a copy of their shafrir 3 AAM, the J-10 has no links with the defunct lavi. In various websites I still that they quote the dimensions of the lavi as bing the same for J-10. It’s very simple because there are plenty of pictures of J-10 with the PL-8, the dimensions of this missile is 3.00 m. Just see how many times the missile fit in the length of the plane, the missile fits about 5,3 times which makes the J-10 about 16 m. in length. I was wondering how stupid people could be not to take the reference of an existing missile to figure out the length of the aircraft. Apart from everything being different I take it as a insult to the work of Chinese engineers. Why bother with the lavi, we could have copy a F-16 as well, but you want something better than a F-16 of course, what senses does it make otherwise to develop a new aircraft. It’s exactly the same for the PL-12 AAM, the stupid so called analysts think it has the internals of the Russian R-77 while it resembles the AMRAAM on the outside. How stupid can you be? What sense does it make to make a new configuration with the same old Electronics? It’s like putting your old computer hardware in a new casing, what kind of improvement is this? The stupid freaks insists about israeli assistance while the israelis are as clueless as the russians what’s going on. the so called Israeli involvement that I know of is the Shafrir 3 copy and the front armour of the new main battle tank. And now this bullshit story about the corvette being hit by a C-802 missile. What a fucking load of bullshit, bullshit stories! 747
Posted by C.M. on Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:57 | # it should be of course a copy of their python 3 missile not the safrir which is a older missile. I am so angry that i am mixing up things and fucked up my typing. fuck the neocons they are morons! 748
Posted by Tile Hats on Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:26 | # CM, have you asked the blog owner here if you can be a regular blogger here? Your knowledge of racial science, politics, and modern weaponry would be a good complement to the other bloggers here. You wrote: “it does not explode like the exocet that hit a british frigate in the 1982 war will still destroy the ship, just by its kinetic energy alone and rocket fuel.” That’s interesting. What do you think of the potential of hypersonic weapons and their ability to effect target “kills” by kinetic effects as well? Allegedly, the US military has been interested in these things, as a sideline to the Aurora spyplane project. One wonders if the jewish neocons are going to exploit these hypersonic technologies. Do you have any further insight on this? Thanks. 749
Posted by bnrocks on Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:19 | # u kno what rusty mason name-calling is as far as ppl like u can go and then u go to berate the person’s family when in reality u are the one lacking all sensibility because the fact that you dont understand plain simple english is a concern for u to deal with…u should be asking youself whether YOU speak in “ebonics” bc clearly u don’t understand english the most i can say is that U SUCK! no actually its no joke….u just need to get back in touch with reality and understand that whenever that time was when u actually made sense, no longer persists. like when u cant think of a comeback u ask if im speaking in a different language. get over it. i bet ur days in elementary school are over which is when kids make comebacks like that….. 750
Posted by bnrocks on Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:30 | # EC: i think what patel means is that normally u wouldnt expect urself to do bad things u tell others off for doing. thats my opinion patels comments sound perfectly sensible to me. 751
Posted by C.M. on Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:43 | # Tile Hats: About hyperkinetic enrgy weapons, everything with sufficient speed can piece armoured objects, ships, tanks etc. It’s already used on anti-tank ammunitions, like a high density rod made out of tungsten or depleted uranium. The rod will pierce the armour of tanks just by its velocity. About hyperkinetic missiles like in the mach 6 class, it will not even need a warhead to do its job. Even ordinary birds which collide with the windshield of a jet will pierce it, even go though your helmet. And it’s just a bird of soft flesh and feather, because of the speed of the collision even a bird can pierce hard material. Of course it’s effective but I think it’s more fun to have a exploding warhead hitting the target. More smoke and fire. A hypervelocity missile will go through the ship from the deck to the bottom of the hull, but there is nothing more dramatic than the ship being hit by a missile with high explosive warhead, more show and visually more dramatic, you know the fire and the smoke. I am not a scientist of weaponry but I know alot of the systems because you need to know what the weapon is capable of and that’s why I also know about foreign weapon system. The barak anti missile missile is simply not good enough to protect the corvette. Well of course there is no defence against a incoming katusha rocket but I think most anti ship missiles will defeat the barak defence system with ease. But that’s not my problem. But I stepped out of line perhaps, let’s continue about racial science and more pictures. And fuck the neocons! 752
Posted by tony on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 17:39 | # now THIS is beauty…when you go to this site scroll down to the postcards of the ladies from tahiti…that woman with the pink and yellow flowers on her head is ESPECIALLY beautiful. http://www.janeresture.com/oceania_women/ also here’s another gorgeous lady. guerra vida
753
Posted by tony on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 17:49 | # anyone claiming not to be attracted to at least some of those women is straight lieing thier ass off or either a gay man 754
Posted by tony on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 18:18 | # another beautiful island woman, singer vanessa quai http://www.pacificislandsradio.com/profiles/vanessa_quai/index.htm
755
Posted by tony on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 19:01 | # another beauty, esther baxter
http://videohoneys.yazzi.com/gallery/main.php/download/1708-6/Esther Baxter.jpg?g2_GALLERYSID=05f699bcc20c1a5d7029989de10ca4bf
756
Posted by Highlander on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 20:50 | # Uma Thurman is actually not Jewish. She likely falls somewhere between an East Baltic and north Germanic Phalian type. Danubian elements also appear to be present in her genetic makeup to which her somewhat concave nose, along with eye shape and their distance apart can be attributed. In addition, some have argued that Thurman’s appearance suggests a greater Dinaric influence on some level, but I am not so certain. 757
Posted by the indian on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:59 | # all women are beautiful in their own way….....u racist bastards think the nordic pictures are sooooo ugly…....their skin is all red and the dumb blond blue eyed look is so stupid….indian woman have exotic looks…and asian woman…..u say nordic men wont like indian woman but it does not matter because the indian woman dont find nordic men attractive anyway! 758
Posted by sankar on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:08 | # guys, it definitely is true that nordic women are much more attractive than the average asian or african woman. i mean there is no comparison at all. it is definitely true that there are quote a few very attractive asian or african women, but on an average nordic/european women are far more attractive. It is pointless to keep comparing the most beautiful indian women with the most beautiful nordic women. it dosen;t say much. 759
Posted by tony on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:44 | # hahahah,^^^^^^ look at the desperate white boy pretending to be indian 760
Posted by asian beauty rules on Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:03 | # asian beauty rules. c all the picz comparing indian girls and nordic girls. i find indian girls r better looking. all nordic women have same white skin. and dey all look da same to me. der face is not all dat feminine. look at indian beauty der face has this feminine beauty. and decency. indian girls have sharp feature and very beautiful smiles. if u compare beauty between nordic and indian women i wud say indian women r certainly ahead. 761
Posted by tony on Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:27 | # sharp features dont equal femininity in my eyes, however voluptuous and wholesome faces do…that’s sjut my opinion though. to me the indian women in this thread look warmer and more wholesome and have softer faces. 762
Posted by Nisha Sheth on Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:58 | # sankar, you are obviously the most idiotic person to ever exist. To be able to insult your own race like that is appauling. For one, when we see in the report what the author views as the even more UNATTRACTIVE women of India - what do we see? we see malnourished, poor women who have paid absolutely no attention to the way they look. You are saying that that nordic girl is attractive? You think you know what Indian women look like.. you’re a fool and you have absolutely no clue. To express an opinion that your own race is ugly and that another is beautiful is pathetic. It just shows how much you’ve been brainwashed by the media in to believing what is attractive. Tell me what is attractive about pasty white girls, with thin limp lifeless hair, no lips, small beady eyes, freckly skin, ghost blonde hair (which is often faked)?? BTW.. you probably like Christina Aguilera, Britney Spears, Cameron Diaz… try finding pictures of what these uglies look like without makeup. Then look up Aishwarya Rai and see her without makeup. They don’t even compare. I remember when i was only about 12 years old.. i was all .. oh yeh man “she was blonde!!” “blondes are so hot”.. then as i grew up.. you know what.. i realised i was so unattracted to blonde pale hair which usually comes along with pale skin. If you want to subordinate yourself to a lower level of existence then you go ahead and do that. Right now, the rest of us are trying to change the way people think about the world and educate people about how diverse different cultures, societies and peoples are. You are what’s wrong with the film, television and fashion industry - you weak minded( not forgetting pathetic) individual. 763
Posted by Nisha Sheth on Tue, 19 Sep 2006 17:03 | # By the way a few years ago i went on a school trip to India.. one of my teachers who was a white european man.. kept on going on about how beautiful he thought the women of India were. IN addition the variation I saw although limited to certain areas was astonishing. I saw many people with light eyes, and a few children with light brown and blonde hair. yes blonde hair does exist in India - try doing some research. Everyone is just ignoratn.. heck I probably am as well. 764
Posted by bnrocks on Tue, 19 Sep 2006 23:16 | # Nisha cheers. 765
Posted by aishwarya on Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:44 | # i think all the ppl in the world are beautiful in their own way…....the mother fucking bastard who said nordic women look better and africans have a low iq are idiot…...they have the low iq and the ignorance to think lyk this and not appreciate what mother nature gave us…..everything is beautiful,the white skin,black skin,brown skin,yellow skin are all beautiful….be proud of what u are and dont be ignorrant enough to discriminate like the fuckers here ..... 766
Posted by VaGaB0nD on Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:42 | # You guyz look like a bunch of nordic nerds…...I am an American and I think that its US who decide which woman is beautiful and which is not. 767
Posted by Nisha Sheth on Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:57 | # To rant about how nordic women are “sluts” is stupid as well. My point is - sure people believe in the golden ratio (in terms of facial proportions or whatever) - but the whole point of that ratio is that different races fulfill the ‘required quota’ as equally as any other. That is to say - according to the standards of beauty - there are equal numbers of beauties in every race. Now what we have come to believe now is that different hair colours, eye colours and most importantly skin colours are seen as attractive. Why does this happen ? Because the heavily mixed white race shows an astonishing amount of diversity in this department compared to any other race - so such a fact has clearly been capitalised on. I know SO MANY white women both adults, teenagers and even small children who dye their hair blonde, wear blue contacts - all in the incredible notion that they believe this to be unquestionably more attractive than other features. Scientists are now telling men that they are instinctively attracted to fairer blonde women because their pale hair colour highlights “higher levels of oestrogen” - BOLLOCKS! The ultimate reason why blonde hair and blue eyes are seen as the best is because they occur in the fewest amount of people in comparison with the world’s population of 6 billion. This is why lighter eyes even in India is preferred -because 98%+ of Indians have black or deep brown hair and brown/black eyes. I’m tired - it seems difficult to express this opinion - or rather knowledge of the world. It’s still such a massive shame that Indians are now only very slowly being given roles in Hollywood (real roles) - and the Indians who are actress such as Aishwarya Rai, Sneha Ullal who jesus christ guess what.. have fiar skin and light eyes. That says so much. 768
Posted by tony on Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:58 | # Now THat’s what im tlaking about…check out the picture below, i think she’s mixed with indian and black or shw could be ethiopian, it’s ahrd to tell but she has indian features too.
769
Posted by tony on Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:59 | #
one more picture for those who want to see more eye candy 770
Posted by tony on Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:14 | # ok here’s an indian beauty, i dont think she’s mixed just indian
771
Posted by aishu on Sun, 24 Sep 2006 10:49 | # nisha u bitch if u really think noth indians are prefered over south indians ,then u must be the one pickin up north indians…..aishwarya rai,hema malini,vidya balan,sridevi,rekha,sameera reddy,sushma reddy,amritha rao,padma laxmi are all south indians and they r hot and fair if u havent noticed….im also south but ppl think im punjabi,gujuor bengalie…....there r north indians who r dark too 772
Posted by Dinna on Sun, 24 Sep 2006 17:51 | # This site is funny as hell. I mean, what is the big frigging deal and pleasure in comparing the physical attractiveness of different races (can anyone tell me exactly that they are 100% pure of one singular race original from thousands of years ago?), particularly, who are the best looking women, in order to decide the BIG picture of the superiority of certain human species - and even amazingly, theorize & rationalize the mere partiality/close-mindedness/self-centeredness All reminds me of the arbitrarily interpreted ‘Science’ of Nazi. A word of suggestion - spend all this time elsewhere in learning real science about human origins of races! The diversity was the originality to the geographic variety of the earth - try put a Nordic in African without sun screen a few thousands years back. This has been the fact so deal with it - all have equal right of existence, reproduction and migration; the so alleged ‘inferiority’ of some races/cultures is merely a function of biased pratice of religions, disfunctional economy and lack of education, etc. But then again probably some of the folks here after learning the real science still wouldn’t change their mind about being partial, and would want to tell black people to go back to Africa and Asians back to the East. Have you thought about whether Europe of the Nordic place of origin is fit to hold all the white people in Americas alone, less all white population of the world? Should I go (back) to Germany? I mean, come on folks, in a intellectual and intelligent time like 21 centrury, one least wise thing to do is to accept, if not totally appreciate, the un-rewindable wheel of trend of human history - globalization, which brings down primarily the alienation and differences of races, cultures, markets and mentalities. Inter-breeding provides solid material ground for unifying the world to that effect. Like it or not, better trust the experience of history and open our eyes darlings, accept the trend og globalization and unifying with peace of mind! Resistence, partilaity and self-promotion has brought NOTHING but wars, hatred and poverty (thus the so-alleged ‘inferiority’ of some peoples). Just look around the world now. You know what I mean by saying that we can find more meaningful and positively contributing employment to our bigger picture. Go travel around the world to the less traveled, or read a book on non-biased spiritual or philosophical decreeds (i.e. on all-blending Taoism instead of alienating religious texts). You will change your mind and enjoy a more satisfying state of clarity of gloablization. Working up muscle of partiality by drawing up maps and charts on Nordics or saying whether Hindu women are pretty in comparison is children behave and too primative. “Majority Rights”? Or “Entirely Rights”? You decide later which is just and peace-keeping, after you have think humbly in both shoes of the majority and the minority, race-wise or otherwise. (Btw, for those, particularly, white men, who can’t seem to get past the obsession of comparing women’s ‘beauties’, I recommend a book called “The Centerfold Syndrome”. - hope then you can realize that such ‘comparative study’ is frivlous given that we are not moutains and rocks for comparison, less solid comparison. Find better employment by self-imporvement through art, science and humanity).
World peace (like all beauty queens say)! Dinna 773
Posted by Top on Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:07 | # Dinna, I understand where your concerns are coming from - I really do, but try to answer my concerns. I am all for world peace too. But… Demographic trends indicate that at the current pace whites will soon (relatively) be minorities not only in America, but everywhere else including Europe. They will be minorities in a sea of non-whites who are currently being taught that whites are the source of their problems and that whites who assert any type of self-determination are evil and should be annihilated. If you don’t believe the last assertion just read some of the non-white people’s entries in this thread. Feel the aggression in them, and imagine those people having power over white people. From my perspective I add one and one in the above paragraph and I worry about the sum. And that’s just the high-level version that ignores many other variables. Now from even a higher level, let me ask you: in your version of world peace - is there a place for white people? Is there a country in which white people will be allowed to remain a majority so that their genetic form can survive? Or do you see the form of the English, French, Germans, Czechs, Russians, Italians, Greeks, etc. being washed away in the sea of Asian and African genes in the name of world peace? Or are we allowed to be at least small minorities - and if so to what degree? And as a white person, whose permission should I seek so that my form survives in order for me not to hurt world peace? I guess what I am asking is: what is your vision of the world in the year 2200? Or beyond. If we are going to be just one mixed up group of people what will this ‘people’ look like and be like? And if it doesn’t matter to you why are you forcing your philosophical view point on those of us to whom it does? Do you believe that this is the only way towards world peace? Do you think that breeding all different human forms out of existance is the only way to achieving peace? Or do you believe that it should just be left to randomness and the genetic ball should just roll? What if I said that I respect your decision to do that. But… What if then there was a group (by that I mean a country) of us that decided to only mainly hang with each other because we felt like it? Would you think that was wrong? Would you try to send a bunch of other people there to screw us (literally) into our place? Would you LET us be? Or would you have the need to open up our borders and show us some foreign lovin’? There are other questions, other subtlities but these are the basic starters. P.S. 774
Posted by Himmler on Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:02 | # I completely disagree with this site, and yes I am full blooded German. In order to understand where you are going wrong you have to answer a couple questions: 1. Are your subjects chemically or surgically altered? I’ll answer them in order, 1. Furthermore it is obvious that if you look at the roots of the nordic subjects hair, you can see that they are almost all natural brunettes. Thus, the probability that they have blue eyes is extremely low and they are probably wearing blue contacts available at any drug store or costume shop. You see, blond hair is a recessive gene, so is blue eyes, the WHO study is exactly right in saying that natural blond hair and blue eyes is on the verge of extinction, it is… 2. 3. For anyone who questions this look for the word Proto-Indo-European. These were a group of people that originated out of the Indo-Iranian region, founded Sanskrit, Persian, German, Russian, Latin, Greek and many others. Proto-Indo-European. Digs in Germany proved that the first Indo-Europeans there had dark skin and dark hair. Basically, Genetically/Linguistically/Historically, Nordic peoples, are the remnants of non- Indo-European peoples who were pushed out of central Europe by an intense invasion of people who are known as “Indo-Aryans”. Is this whole Blond hair blue eye thing our own localized version of aboriginal features? Lastly, the amazing thing is that this site hasnt posted a picture of Ivana Trump and Anna Kournikova yet!!! Is this because she has more in common with Indian or Indo-Iranian women with regards to facial features? thats my bit… 775
Posted by I. Jonassen on Mon, 25 Sep 2006 08:36 | # Malcolm A, I didn’t expect you to respond to my last comment, but you have once again shown your ignorance of basic science and statistics, and if you think that I am JR because I have made the same “poor” arguments as JR, then one needs to consider how good are your last comments. Cluster analysis I mentioned several different ways of arriving at clusters and you wrote, “Whatever the methods used to arrive at the clusters, the degree of association of these clusters is analyzed using correlation coefficients, which indicate the degree of association between closely linked groups. Comprehende?” You are clueless. The skull studies are based on Euclidean distances and use the nearest neighbor amalgamation rule; correlation coefficients are not involved. Additionally, the genetic study by Rosenberg used an uncorrelated alleles model to show evidence for racial clustering. Therefore, your assertion is nothing but ignorant. On the other hand, why debate the correlation coefficient issue? This debate stemmed from your assertion that cluster analyses are mostly based on correlation coefficients, which lead to ANOVAs, and speaking of ANOVAs, you wrote the following.
Once again, there is no ANOVA of “a number of empirical characteristics” since ANOVA is a univariate tool. If 3 or more groups had to be compared with respect to a single normally distributed variable, one would use ANOVA. One doesn’t use ANOVA to compare two groups. If one had 24 linear craniofacial measurements assessed across three or more groups, one could theoretically perform 24 ANOVAs for each of measured variables, and if the F-test is significant for each ANOVA, then one will have to perform post-hoc analyses to determine significant differences between all possible group pairs with respect to each variable. This translates to a large number of statistical tests, which increases the odds of finding a significant difference and is not acceptable; this is the reason why the craniofacial studies will not present data in terms of ANOVAs and subsequent post-hoc analyses. Even though JR has now twice cited data about several statistically significant differences between Indians and whites as they pertain to the nose by Farkas et al. and Hanihara and other differences documented by Hanihara, you still insist that there are no significant differences between the facial features of Indians and Nordics! One doesn’t even need data; common observation should be enough to infer significant differences in facial features.
Differences in allele frequencies are qualitative?
Wow! Where are correlation coefficients being used in cluster analysis based on Euclidean distances and using the nearest neighbor method of amalgamation? And, statistically significant differences pertain to the correlation coefficients themselves, not the groups? This is pure nonsense. Additionally, you have not been able to cite a single paper that has shown two groups being assigned to different clusters without there being any statistically significant differences between them. Race You have described what I wrote about race as mumbo-jumbo and said that common sense tells us that there are three major racial groups. Basic science will appear to be mumbo-jumbo to an ignoramus and charlatan like you. Besides, whereas it is intuitive that whites, blacks and East Asians belong to separate races, it is also intuitive that several other populations do not fit into these three groups, including the large population of south Asia.
The main debate is not about racial classification. JR’s entry does not even mention racial classification. The main debate is about the beauty question, which you lost a long time ago, as evidenced by your stopping posting links to pictures of attractive Indian women and then going into a tangent arguing that Nordics and Indians belong to the same race in order to make the case that the facial features of Nordics and Indians are not significantly different. What you couldn’t prove using pictures, you have tried to make a desperate case for by trying to fit Nordics and Indians into the same race. To make this case, as I have pointed previously, a belief in 3 races, where one race comprises of blacks and another race comprises of East Asians, is necessary in order for you to argue that South Asians best fit in with whites rather than blacks or East Asians and hence whites and South Asians belong to the same race. Therefore, the number of races is important and far from a side issue as far as your argument is concerned. In my last comment I used the expression “white race,” which you commented on by saying that “The races are not mainly classified based on the criterion of color as you are trying to imply.” Where have I made the latter assertion? In the very beginning I documented a set criteria used to assign races, and it clear that someone like me could never imply that races are mainly classified based on skin color. Talking about the white or black race is not to imply that racial classification is based on skin color.
Coon made his case for 5 races, and once again, there has NEVER been a consensus on the number of races among humans.
Well, if one were to construct a genetic tree of mammals, humans and gorillas will cluster together before they join the dog group. This means that humans and gorillas are closer to each other than either of these groups is to dogs, but this does not mean that humans and gorillas belong to the same species or race. Similarly, in a genetic tree of humans, the first split is between blacks and non-blacks, but we don’t talk about a black race and a non-black race. We use some standard criteria to assign races, which I have listed previously, and using these criteria, the non-black group is split into multiple races and it is not possible to classify Indians and whites into the same race. How does one decide what level of clustering separates races? You have just made your assertions, whereas I have cited current and widely accepted criteria to assign races.
Your pathetic comprehension is remarkable. The implication clearly is that evidence for race exists in published papers, not in some official consensus. Beauty
Whoopee! Here you are in your own words:
I have not taken a stance on the beauty issue, but have addressed it using your criteria. You have yourself stated in the beginning that Nordic women are more beautiful than others in general. The fact is that your reasoning is absurd. If by your initial reasoning, Nordic women are generally more beautiful than others, then it does not follow that non-Nordic admixture in a Nordic base will enhance beauty, which is what you have argued to make your case that although Nordic women on average look better, the best looking women are Indian. But it is too late to resort to calling me a racist; I have just used your own reasoning, not taken a stance on the beauty question. Besides, given that it is obvious that you are a South Asian, your belief that the best looking women are Indian makes you a racist by your own criterion.
Really? Do you think that the majority would agree that the following woman is very attractive and deserves the Miss Universe title? She (Zuleyka Mendoza) actually won the 2006 Miss Universe title!
Take a careful look at beauty pageant contestants; masculine and unattractive women abound; citing modern beauty pageant statistics to make the case for which women are most attractive is ridiculous. In summary, it is your arguments that are so poor that you should have been banned a long time ago. Good riddance! 776
Posted by I. Jonassen on Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:47 | # Himmler, A full-blooded German signing off as Himmler believes that Nordic women tend toward wide and flat noses, Indo-European migrants to Germany were a dark-skinned people and that the probability that north European brunette whites have naturally blue eyes is extremely low? Liar! No surgical scars are evident on the noses of the Nordic women shown. Besides, ignoramus, the great majority of nose jobs involve surgical cuts made via equipment inserted into the nostrils to prevent scarring on the outside skin, i.e., there would be no scarification on the outside. In some cases, an incision is made on the skin region separating the nostrils, but this would not be visible in the kinds of photos shown. Surgeons do not cut on the skin in the nose ridge region. Northern Germany has a lot of Nordics, and no German would make your comment about Nordic noses. There are plenty of brunettes among Nordics, and some Nordic women shown here are brunettes, but there are obviously plenty of natural blondes shown, too. What is remarkable is your assertion that the probability of blue eyes is extremely low in brunettes! Blue eyes are very common among Nordics, including brunette Nordics. Eye color and hair color are inherited separately. The WHO study you have referred to was never carried out by WHO; it is a hoax, which was pointed out toward the beginning of the comments thread. Nordics are non-Indo-European people who were pushed out of Central Europe by invading Indo-Europeans? You are insane! You really want me to believe that there is a significant market for Indian movies in Germany and Russia among whites? Why are not one of your incredible assertions supported by any decent citations? Why do stupid people like you try to ruin an academic discussion (see beginning of this entry)? 777
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:41 | # I see you have learnt the r-word and the f-word at skool, Aish. But not much else by the look of it, so please explete elsewhere. 778
Posted by rustymason on Thu, 05 Oct 2006 08:00 | # Distinguished Ladies and Gents of this noble thread, I would like to remind you that it is time to restore the attractiveness of this thread with more pics of beautiful White women. Vielen Dank. 779
Posted by Lisa on Wed, 11 Oct 2006 19:13 | # i just cant believe how sad all you people are. im a ‘normal’ person who stumbled across this website accidentally and i am utterly mortified by it. could it be that your frankly creepy over obsession with woman’s looks have something to do with the likely scenario that you are all hideous yourselves? is this why you have disjointed yourselves from the real world in such a grotesque manner? here’s an idea wake up to the fact that humans are infinately complicated beings who in their entire uniqueness are disallowed from finding certain things beautiful and others not. a japanese woman may find a black man attractive, she may also fall in love with his personality. there of course, innumerable combinations. one person may find aishwarya rai attractive, another may not. the most intelligent of us know physical looks have no relevance to anything anyway, and we will all eventually turn to dust. and for most if not all of you above, not a moment too soon i might add. 780
Posted by De Arndt on Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:34 | # Jonassen, Interesting post. Some flaws though. In regards to the use of correlation coefficients in cluster studies, indeed there are some methods that do not involve such coefficients , but those studies do not indicate significant clustering patterns either, and are used mainly as preliminary investigative tools for studying clustering trends.Only those that involve coefficients are used to predict significant relationships between groups. I believe Malcolm has provided some references to this effect earlier on. Rosenberg may have used an alternate model, but it is also true that Rosenberg has never proposed, or even suggested, any sort of comprehensive human classification schematic based on any of his research work. That should put to rest, any debate on the significance of Rosenberg’s contributions to human systematics. Your comments on the significance of ANOVA in multi-factor analysis are not accurate. Factorial design is widely used to compare several random variables at differing levels , the results of which are then pooled for an analysis of their combined effect. There is no ned to perform multiple ANOVA as suggested by you. You are quite right in stating that the observation that humans & gorillas cluster closer to each other than to dogs does not lead one to the conclusion that humnas and gorillas belong to the same species. However, when clustering closely related groups WITHIN a LARGER group ( human spps), the fact that Nordic andIndian groups cluster closer to eachother than to other groups would certainly indicate racial closeness. The case of humans, gorillas and dogs is an extreme comparison ACROSS groups, but still does not disprove the relative closeness factor seen among groups that cluster together, be it WITHIN a group or BETWEEN ( ACROSS) groups. Now on the unrelated matter of beautiful women, your euphoria is not totally justified. In the first instance, Malcolm was expressing his PERSONAL OPINION ( that Nordic females are the prettiest ) whereas in his last comment he seems to say that there is NO GLOBAL CONSENSUS or EVIDENCE OF A GLOBAL CONSENSUS regarding Nordics being more beautiful than Indians or otherss. You cannot claim that Malcolm’s personal opinion as a white, is evidence of a global consensus. Therefore, his latter statement is not a contradiction of his former statement. Further, there is indeed no evidence of such a consensus even on this thread, as seen by the comments here. While all or most Indian sub cons here seem to believe that their woemn are the best looking , the others , including Latinos and Nordics, seem to support the view that theirs are the best and so on and so forth. You have also overlooked Malcolm’s comment “..when the top 1% of beauties are considered, the non-nordics are the best looking..” (ad verbatum ? ) I believe wht heis trying to say here is that though by virtue of having a larger population , Indians may have more unattractive women, they also may have more attractive women at the top 1% tier, a difficult argument to counter considering Indias large and diverse population. Remember, he contends that “Caucasian” includes indian and Nordic sub groups within it, and by the same token it follows that Indian and Nordic faces are mostly similar, with some advantage being conferred to the Indian group by way of various mixes. 781
Posted by BRYAN on Fri, 20 Oct 2006 00:14 | # Whats this, i am white and i know a beautiful women when i see one, wheather she may be white, indian, asian or black. i’m usually not attracted to black girl unless thier mixed. Indian women dont date much so i excluded them from the Senario. But ortientals are one hell of a sex toy. You can bend them anyway you like and you leave behind a huge gaping HOLE cause thier so tiny. Seriously Its all about the physical with asians girls. Not saying i will ever marry an asian girl. but just have some fun with her 782
Posted by Nicole on Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:30 | # Hi… 783
Posted by jeanne on Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:46 | # I don’t really have a strong preference either way, some darker women are gorgeous as are some white women, but let’s not kid ourselves about the preferences of most women in foreign countries - they prefer to be pale. Posted by Steve Edwards on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 01:17 PM | #
784
Posted by Mavado on Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:12 | # All you racist bastards that think Nordic women are the best looking in the world, puhleeeeeeeeeeze! Most natural blondes i have seen means plain, ugly, lipless, flatassed, small round beady eyes, huge feet, horse teeth, and long thin horse heads. THese two latinas blow all the nordic woman away that have been previously posted in the looks department: Aracely Arambula:
Adriana Lima:
785
Posted by Englander on Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:39 | # I do think that the examples of blonde women could have been chosen better. There are much more attractive blondes out there. Your mestizo choices are very white-looking. Adriana’s only outstanding feature is her eyes. She would benefit from a more caucasian nose. Not to mention the fact that the average latina looks nowhere near as good as those two women. 786
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:25 | # Mavado, do please try to keep up. The girls you pictured are hot, no-one is going to argue with that. What makes them ‘latina’? Their passports, thats all. How much indian/african background do they have? Quite possibly none. In Aracely Arambula’s case Id bet money on it, and Id never heard of before I read your post. Very likely almost all their ancestors are european. You are implying the debate is about whether girls from one political/geographical entity are different from girls from another political/geographical entity. Thats not the point at all, though you would like it to be. Going back to the lovely Aracely, you can see girls like her in any British town, the only ‘latina’ thing about them is their holidays in Spain. Anyway thanks for the heads up on these two, certainly worth looking out for them. 787
Posted by Karisma on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 04:09 | # ***To all the Indians here: there’s no point in posting the pics of Indian models or actresses. Even if you post a gorgeous women next to a blond canine, people here are still going to choose the dog on the basis of its blondness. ***To JRichards: I was reading your posts and your discussions almost seem based on fact…until I got to your post on Charlize Theron vs. Aishwarya Rai. First of all, Charlize clearly has a much broader and protruding nose compared to Aish. And this is AFTER her well-known nose job. Look at this pic before her surgery:http://therepublicofbitch.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=286 The ‘before’ nose is bigger than most black chicks!! Just posting that pic of Charlize made you lose a lot of credibility. Sorry man.. ***To the Person who posted Scarlett Johannsen’s pic: 1. She has also had a nose job; her nose is clearly not Nordic in any sense. 2. For all the people who hold her as some Aryan supermodel—she is part JEWISH!!! ==definitely Semitic blood—>highly probable African blood ***To the guy saying Adriana Lima is beautiful because she is mostly white: She is mostly black and native Indian, with some Japanese and Portuguese thrown in. Check out this pic with her cousins: Sorry dude they don’t look ‘mostly white’ to anyone!! ***To the ‘Majority Rights’ supporters: where exactly do you find pure Nordics? Let’s say Europe. But we have to exclude Southern Europe because they have considerable admixture from Moorish and Jewish populations. And Eastern Europe is mostly Slavic, so they are ruled out because of their Mongol blood (even though many of them are very blond). So now we have Western and Northern Europe left. The UK is full of dark haired people known as the ‘Black Irish’ and also the Romans occupied them for sometime too (basically swarthy Italians!). Check out the phenotype of Catherine Zeta-Jones…she could be mistaken for an Arab or a light African any day!! So we only have a few countries in the world left that might have the pure white people we are looking for. I am going to list them: Iceland—probably one of the purest populations on Earth, but still they do have considerable Mongol admixture. Check out BJORK (a native Icelander) here: Finland—Finnish people do not even speak a European language (they speak a Ural-Altaic language related to Turkish). Also they have mixed extensively with Asians, genetic tests say 55% (even other ‘white supremacist’ sites agree with this). Link:http://www.white-history.com/finland.htm Greenland—87% of the population is mixed with the native Inuits. totally out!!
Sweden and Norway both have significant Lapp populations. They are rather homogeneous, but not ‘pure’. Scientific article here (“http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12173029&dopt=Abstract So basically, there is no country free from genetic admixture!! But if you’re just looking for the purest phenotypes that do exist, then you should only post if you are from DENMARK, SWEDEN, or NORWAY. It is so pathetic to see people posting pics of white celebrities with JEWISH blood, or even worse, they act like they are part of the majority, when in reality, I bet any genetic test would prove that most of you people do have significant admixture!! ESPECIALLY if you are American or of British origins!! I do Adore blond hair, and even more so red hair, but you guys make white people look stupid when you don’t understand genetics and try to look smart!! Doesn’t help the cause at all 788
Posted by Karisma on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 05:14 | # I just wanted to add that not all blonds are European as the map seems to indicate; I know quite a few family members who are blond and/or have light eyes. Some Pics of Relatives in Pakistan: [img=http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/8126/kashmirlq6.th.jpg] Another cousin (black hair+green eyes): http://www.flickr.com/photos/sidra/28691004/ Her brother (red hair+blue eyes) I’m just posting this to point out that South Asians can be phenotypically white without any European genetic contribution. Some ppl have said we are descendants of the Greeks but genetic tests have proved otherwise. Another thing I’d like to point out is that the pool of South Asian celebs is majorly skewed towards Hindus, because Muslims discourage acting and modelling. Incidentally, Muslims are generally reside in the North and west of the country where the lightest people live. So the average Indian actress is a lot lighter than most Indians but equal to the mean or darker than most Pakistanis. 789
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 07:38 | # OK I stand corrected on Lima, but the other girl… As for Charlize having a nose bigger than most black girls, sorry thats not flying and yes I did check out the picture you pointed to. 790
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 27 Oct 2006 03:01 | # Karisma, I have a large number of comments in this thread to reply to, and I had planned to post my replies in one go at a later date, but your comments simply have to be addressed now; the others can wait. You have said that I have lost a lot of credibility by posting pictures of Charlize Theron, even tough she has allegedly had a nose job. If I make a lot of well-supported arguments and make one alleged mistake because of my being unaware of an obscure allegation, how does this make me lose a lot of credibility? On the other hand, what evidence is there that Charlize has had a nose job? You linked to the following pictures.
The picture on the left allegedly shows a pre-nose job Charlize. This picture does not reveal a nose in need of a nose job, and if Charlize had a nose job, then it was a very subtle nose job. The nose width in the left picture is unambiguously narrower than what is the average among blacks. On the other hand, the picture on the left is unclear, whereas the one on the right is clear, i.e., one cannot confidently conclude that Charlize has had a nose job. You say that it is well-known that Charlize has had a nose job. How is this alleged fact well-known? Sites like good plastic surgery and awful plastic surgery, which focus on before and after pictures of celebrities that have undergone cosmetic surgery, do not address Charlize Theron’s alleged nose job. I have gone through a number of tabloids that have revealed celebrities with surgically enhanced body parts, but have never encountered the allegation that Charlize has had a nose job. Your allegation is baseless and unproven. Aishwarya Rai has a broader nose than Charlize, and you have ignored Aishwarya’s hooked nose. Next, Scarlet Johansson. I posted a picture of Scarlett Johansson, but not in the context of displaying an attractive woman. A Hindu critic said that blondes like Scarlett Johansson need a tan to look half decent. Therefore, I posted her picture in Vanity Fair, where she does not have a tan and asked him whether he seriously believes that whites would have anything against her paleness. I also pointed out that Scarlett is not blonde and that I do not like her looks, i.e., would not cite her as an attractive Northern European. In other words, your comment on Scarlett Johansson is completely irrelevant. Besides, where is the evidence for her alleged nose job? Better cite clear evidence. Next, Adriana Lima. Is she mostly black and American Indian? Your evidence is citing her picture with her cousins. Great! Let us say that a black and white couple produces a mulatto. If this mulatto is standing with his cousins from the white parent’s side, would one conclude that the mulatto has mostly white ancestry? If the mulatto is standing with his cousins from the black parent’s side, would one conclude that the mulatto has mostly black ancestry? In the picture, if Lima is really posing with her cousins, then they are easily her closer-to-non-white cousins rather than her closer-to-white cousins. Lima has blue-grey eyes, straight hair and her overall looks argue against her being mostly black and American Indian. It is also obvious that whatever attractiveness she has, she can thank the white part of her ancestry for it. The rest of your first comment concerns the straw man of pure Nordics, which has not been talked about by myself or any other person associated with this site. What is a pure Nordic? The blondest people from Norway will share the majority of their genes with the blackest people of West Africa. There will always be some overlap between different populations. Such overlap is smaller for a cluster of traits, and a cluster of traits is what is relevant to race. If you are going to talk about racial admixture, then you must cite figures from an analysis of a cluster of genetic/skeletal markers. Based on analyses of a cluster of markers, the Mongol element among Slavic populations is minor and is not randomly distributed. It is an easy matter to find plenty of Eastern Europeans that are blonde, blue-eyed, long-skulled and appearance-wise fully Nordic. Just travel through Russia. I agree that southern Europe is not a good place to look for plenty of Nordic types, though one would find some such people there, especially in northern Italy. Your claim that Iceland has considerable Mongol admixture is based on a single individual, Bjork, out of a quarter million people! Icelanders are mostly a Scandinavian-Gaelic mix; the Asian element is very minor:
You claim the Finnish to be 55% Asian! Finland is the blondest nation; well over half its people are either blond or light brown-haired. How would the latter be possible with 55% Asian ancestry? The 55% figure comes from an allele, TAT-C, but racial admixture should be inferred from a cluster of alleles rather than a single allele since race is not defined by an allele but by a cluster of alleles. If you properly read the page you mentioned, you would have encountered evidence that it cannot be definitely concluded that TAT-C is coming from a Mongoloid stock. There is also a reference on the page about 1% Mongol ancestry in the Finns. In addition, among the roughly 20 million people of Norway-Sweden-Finland, there are less than 80,000 Lapps, mostly in Northern Scandinavia, and heavily mixed with Nordic whites. There is no large Mongol component in Finland. Just because the Finns do not speak an Indo-European language does not mean that one should assume substantial Asiatic ancestry among them. Millions of people in India speak an Indo-European language without being white or close. You have mentioned the dark-haired people of Britain, but forgot to add that these people are also generally among the palest Europeans. Therefore, they surely do not owe their dark hair to the swarthy Italians that allegedly constituted the Romans that occupied Britain. However, even today, not all Italians are swarthy. Northern Italy has plenty of people that look like central and northern Europeans. You have cited the “white-history” site to support a point, but appear to have missed a page there featuring plenty of citations about the heterogeneous composition of the ancient Italians, including the mostly Nordic Roman Patricians. More importantly, this entry is based on a paper that talks about hair and eye color diversity in northern Europe. If there were molecular evidence for such diversity to result from the mixing of different types of white people, i.e., a blond people, a red-headed people, a brunette people and so on, then Frost’s thesis would fall apart, his paper would not have been written and this entry would not have been posted. The molecular evidence shows that such diversity has risen indigenously within the same race. Therefore, there are plenty of brown- and black-haired indigenous inhabitants of northern Europe that are no less of a Nordic-type than their blond counterparts. On the other hand, there are indeed dark-haired people like Catherine Zeta Jones who clearly have non-Nordic facial features, but then such people are found in only some parts of Britain, do not represent a southern European/ Middle Eastern element in Britain, and no one is saying that all indigenous European populations in northern Europe are of the Nordic type. To prove that some south Asians can be phenotypically white without any European genetic contribution, you have cited three pictures, all of children, and one being an obscure group picture where facial features cannot be made out. One of the pictures is supposed to depict a red-haired and blue-eyed person from Pakistan, but shows a brown-haired child with an eye color that cannot be made out from the picture, though it appears to be light. The picture of the light-eyed girl at best shows borderline European facial features. However, racial aspects of facial features are most evident among adults, not children, and you have not cited pictures of adults. Moreover, the children with dirty blond hair will grow up to be brunettes, typically dark brown haired. Anyway, I have seen pictures of white-looking adults from the northwestern part of south Asia. However, what you have failed to do is to show that the closer-to-white looks do not represent a European contribution. On the first page of the comments thread, I cited a figure from a paper by Rosenberg et al. (2005), which ran a cluster analysis of 993 microsatellite markers assessed in multiple populations. If you observe this figure, then over half of the membership of some groups in the northwestern part of South Asia—such as Balochis, Pathans, Sindhis, etc.—is in the European cluster, which is clear proof of their part-European ancestry if you also consider historical facts. You wrote, “but you guys make white people look stupid when you don’t understand genetics and try to look smart!!” What indication have you given that you understand genetics? 791
Posted by SHELLEY on Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:01 | # WHAT A WASTE OF TIME, YOU PEOPLE NEED TO WORRY ABOUT WORLD PEACE AND CHILDREN DYING IN AFRICA OF AIDS. YOU PEOPLE ARE MORONS, NEED TO GET SOME LIVES!! 792
Posted by the man on Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:08 | # Who cares about J. Richards’ taste in women? Is he some kind of standard purveyor of female beauty? This whole thread is absurd and it’s eating up MR’s bandwidth. 793
Posted by Englander on Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:24 | # Could there be any greater example of why some people don’t think women should have the vote than the above remarks by Shelley? 794
Posted by Lou on Fri, 03 Nov 2006 23:45 | # Can some someone summarize this for me? I can’t read racist. 796
Posted by Kunal Jaggi on Sun, 05 Nov 2006 11:48 | # I dont know how I came across this website but just wanted to leave a comment. I can very easily find pictures of “superior looking nordic women” who are so blonde that you cant see their eyebrows. Other ones with “paler complexions that south asians and arabs find attractive” who are so white that its scary. Seriously. I’m not racist but I found your literature extremely offensive. At this point you might refer me to the “research paper” you seem to have here. Well let me just say one thing to that, if you or whoever did that spends so much time on proving why North Europeans are racially superior to other races, you will just seem to be a neo-nazi. Oh and btw, I commend you in your selection of probably the ugliest pictures I’ve seen of the Indian actresses you put up. Let me know if you would like me to send you some pictures of real women. Think about this before you come up with a rant. 797
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 05 Nov 2006 23:33 | # Karisma - I should ask why is it that out the rainbow population of latino countries just why is it that two women you chose as being represenitively beautiful both happen to look very european. Maybe that is just a random outcome of their (claimed) very mixed ancestry. But where are all those latino models who only have black/indian ancestry that other latinos really rate so highly? 798
Posted by Owen Davis on Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:10 | # I am reading the novel, “The Bluest of Eyes,” by Toni Morrisson. I was looking for a short theory of the idea of blond hair and blue eyes. Did it begin with Hitler and what is the significance to the idea. 799
Posted by Owen Davis on Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:16 | # Would I be able to see your responses on this web site. 800
Posted by johny yespapa on Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:02 | # I’m an indian. I dont know if I’m good looking or ugly. All I can say reading from the comments posted are that there are quite a few indians as well as probably pale unattractive white men arguing here. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So Who’s to generalize whats beautiful and whats not? Brain works mysteriously. Both natural (by birth) and environmental (social, cultural, climatic) play an important role in sexual preference. I’m not going to convince or argue with your f*kers here as to whatz beautiful and whats not. I just want to warn you racist holes that there are quite a few indians blogging here. Indians who are ashamed of the way they look and want to be more white than the white masters, Indians who would sell their mothers for 2 cents if that will make them look sexy and acceptable by the white master. My message to those moth foking indians is “Die you cock suking bastards. go fok your mutha for giving birth to your ugly face. you insecure nincompoops. you wanna be whites. go fok your sisters to make your beautiful gene pool even better”. 801
Posted by Johnny Nomoma on Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:13 | # “My message to those moth foking indians..” How do you “fok” a moth? Is that a new Hindu ritual, or what? 802
Posted by andrew on Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:50 | # Generally speaking ,the Europeans are the better looking of the races,thats undeniable ....however you will find very unattractive Europeans in the same way you will find very attractive asians,Orientals etc… Beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course ,but the general rule is that Most women like men to be tall,attractive,dark ,blue or brown eyed ,usually of northern medditteranean appearance ..while men prefer women to be fair,preferably blue eyed,blonde or occasionally dark hair and of european type shape . generally opposites attract ..ive rarely seen 2 fairs date each other and same applies to 2 darks . 803
Posted by malaikah on Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:53 | # replying to the comment that most of the asian women want to look whiter and “fair and lovely” is most sold or whatever… 804
Posted by Real German on Sat, 11 Nov 2006 05:07 | # @Owen Davis
Count Joseph-Arthur de Gobineau was the first one to point it out in his essay about “The Inequality of Human Races”: http://www.amazon.com/Inequality-Human-Races-Arthur-Gobineau/dp/0865274304 More about the achievements of the Nordic people can be read here: 1) The Ancient Romans Were Nordic 2) http://www.white-history.com/earlson/index.htm Greetings RG 805
Posted by nirmal shenaz on Sat, 11 Nov 2006 05:54 | # Hello JR I dont know how you can say that Nordic women are the most beautiful in the world well you may feel so .But wait take the world at large,I am sure that asians countries like china india japan pakisthan and others who hold the 65% or more (appro) of the population in the world have no idea about Nordic women .The asian people think every white people to be same .Then i dont know what is there in blonde hair i am sure asians wont find it beatiful because mostly asian people dye thier hair brown, red. or some other colour but never blonde.The Asian people find Bollywood stars to be perfectly beautiful .I dont say Aishwarya rai is the most beautiful but i have been to india and have seen many womens who look stunningly beautiful that aishwarya rai .Well i have travelled to countries like america ,germany,Russia and there too i have seen stunningly beautiful women so you cannot say that paricular country has the most beautiful women with the perfect features.Is nordic features all that needed for a women to be beautiful i find it rubbish.Well even i have seen women with nordic features to be looking extremely ungly and at the same time i have seen certain south indian women who are dark , nothing Nordic about them very beautiful.Even there are chinese women who does not have the perfect features like straight nose to be very beautiful.Nordic features are no parameters to beauty it differs from individual to individual and from country to country. Then i think the perfect skin colour is that of the arabic women of arabian countries like dubai iran and other muslim countries that is perfect fairness thier skin dont need makeup as the indian skin as done by some bollywood actresses in tonnes and also dont go pale dead white with blemishes and dirty red patches like the white women or as the nordic women as they are also white.But when it comes to beauty it is not to any country or community 806
Posted by johny yespapa on Sat, 11 Nov 2006 14:09 | # A white fuker said “White women are the most beautiful”. Now to this there is a score of indian fukers that want to convince the whiteboy that they are beautiful as well. Oh white master” look we are also caucasian. Please dont ignore us. PLease fuck our women. Let us fuck your women.blah..blah…blah..” You goddamn indians, y do you have to convince others of your beauty or that you are caucasian. Who gives a fuck? I would burn all the indians who think they are caucasian or who want to convince others that they are beautiful or smart or whatever alive. The mothers who give birth to these idiots with low self respect should be force fuked by the big oxes and bulls that you find in indian villages. 807
Posted by Johny yespapa on Sat, 11 Nov 2006 14:11 | # johny nomama, if you had a “moma” I would have shown you how to fok a moth or moma. 808
Posted by Johnny Yomama on Sat, 11 Nov 2006 17:15 | # When you fok a moth, do you do the adult, the caterpillar, or the pupal stage? Is fuk and fok the same thing? “I would burn all the indians who think they are caucasian…” Well, I certainly don’t thing they should be burned, but they are deluded. I’ll agree that Indians should be proud of their own race, which is markedly different from that of Caucasians. 809
Posted by Lurker on Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:52 | # Its not just moths (and what about butterflies?) Im intrigued by how to fok a moma. Is this some obscure reference to the museum of modern art (NY) perhaps? 810
Posted by nirmal shenaz on Mon, 13 Nov 2006 05:05 | # JR The nordic women you have pasted in this site do you say they are perfectly beautiful sorry man ,i can say they are beautiful but not the best of beauties ,Dear you can see many white women more beautiful than this who does not harbour any nordic features .Blonde hair ,may be bcos i am an asian i find blonde not that attractive i find black hair ,brown hair to be very beautiful.Well it is individual choice what one likes or not. Please dont say that ‘Beauty lies in the eyes of beholder” is not true.this web site of yours itself a big proof that beauty differs from person to person and mostly men of one country find thier own women to be the best. 811
Posted by ok on Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:33 | # Let’s talk about men!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond
[image]http://www.pocketheather.com/images/paris-hilton-lazy-eye12_copy.jpg [/image] [image] ... We all bleed RED! 812
Posted by btw on Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:58 | # I am sorry to hear about the decline of the natural blondes. I can understand your frustration, as you sound very insecure but there is no need to insult brunettes for that. There are two magor populations in the world, Indian and Chinese. Eventually we are all going to blend with them. Personally, I find multiracial people extremely beautiful. Aishwarya Rai is only one of them. There are many beautiful people out there, but they won’t expose themselves as it is offending their culture.
http://www.salsamania.it/news/2005/gen05/jennifer lopez.jpg
—————————- and the list goes on….
814
Posted by rustymason on Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:39 | # Thanks for the links. It’s about time, this thread was getting stale. Comparing the pics, there’s no doubt about it, White womens are the prettiest, the only ones that can truly be called beautiful. 815
Posted by David Morreale on Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:29 | # Well, I have never seen a better example of shit-wrapping going on than on this blog. you’ve wrapped a load of shit in the fancy wrapping of Ph.d rhetoric pretending to be scientific, but which is, in fact, a bunch of racist clap-trap. But, please, I support you, so read on… I’m so very amused… I thought this was a joke site until I read further looking for photos of gorgeous women, which I found all over the place here. How many of you are married to, or dating leggy, blonde models? How many of you would give your fat, slobbering wives over to experience one evening with a woman as gorgeous as Ashwari? You can cite all the evidence in “scholarly’ journals that you wish, but the fact is that you are speaking of your own opinions of attractiveness. I married a beautiful woman of Irish descent, but previously to that I dated several black women and was lucky enough to date many “ethnic” women who were gorgeous and wonderful and far too smart to bother posting anything to your sad little site as I am doing right now. I feel pity for you, actually. If any of you were half as smart as you pretend to be, you’d know that you’re missing out on huge numbers of gorgeous women because you’re a bunch of racists. I think it’s wonderful! Seriously, because there are I.Q. deficient men like you out there, men like me will not have to deal with you getting in the way when we find a gorgeous woman who is other than blonde leggy model material. Of course, with you guys snapping up all the playboy bunnies (or in the case of the writer, the models from http://www.bigboobdreams.com) the rest of us will just have to content ourselves with hot, sexy, girls with chocolate skin and almond eyes. Thanks! 816
Posted by rustymason on Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:12 | # And how does this make you feel, David? May I call you David? When did you first find out that your parents didn’t love you? How does calling people “racists” make you feel? Your lack of attachment to other people and lack of understanding of how basic society operates is fascinating, please tell us more. Oh, and someone post more pics of hot chicks, please. 818
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:35 | # If that is ‘our’ David, check out the photos. If I didnt know better Id say that the people pictured on his site seem to having something in common (no, not the beards) I just cant quite seem to put my finger on it… In the happy brown almond eyed, monoracial world of the future Im sure David will still find a willing audience of course. His music after all is a pure cultural artifact entirely divorced from any coarse human substrate, which is why of course we see the rainbow diversity of Davids photo page.
819
Posted by btw on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 04:40 | # You are welcome, by rustymason. If you think that women looking like that one
are the prittiest for you, so be it. But there are plenty white men and women who prefer multiracial people. There is nothing you can do to stop them, it’s a natural selection. BTW, many african people have kind a nordic nose. Check this out.
or wise versa many blond people have african nose.
820
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 06:28 | # btw - OK youve listed three black women and three white and drawn attention to their features, kind of white for the black girls, kind of black for the white girls. Where youve shot yourself in the foot is the black girls are all models and rated as pretty but no-one is going to think of those white women as models (though I think one of them is quite nice - I think we all know which one I mean). So youve used pretty black women, whose attractiveness is derived, in part, from european-like aspects of their looks to argue for the equal attractiveness of black women and then cited unattractive white women whose unattractiveness is based, in part, on their possession of black features. 821
Posted by btw on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 07:24 | # “Oh, and someone post more pics of hot chicks, please.” Ok, rustymason. Here are your beautiful blond women for you. Enjoy!
http://www.romantic-future.com/girls/misa blond.jpg
http://www.usd.edu/images/pictures/original/usd blonde girl-hand_f.jpg
http://www.santabanta.com/wallpapers/rating.asp?catid=443060
822
Posted by btw on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 07:36 | # Thank you Lurker for admiting that there are attractive dark people as well as unattractive blond. See it for yourself.
BTW, most white female celebreties have done nose, lip and boob job in order to get some oriental look. 823
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:11 | # btw, You - and many others - consistently fail to understand the import of this post. The issue is not about who has the most beautiful women but about the destruction of Northern European distinctiveness through mass Third World migration. Please try to answer to that rather than spam us with links to pictures of women you consider attractive. 824
Posted by Englander on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 09:33 | # “BTW, most white female celebreties have done nose, lip and boob job in order to get some oriental look.” What are you talking about? 825
Posted by btw on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 14:05 | # Some people here claim that ” White womens are the prettiest, the only ones that can truly be called beautiful.” That statement is ridiculous, ofcourse. Obviously many blond people love to blend with others, so what is your problem? Can you stop your blond women enjoy darker men? I wouldn’t call it “destruction of Northern European”, because multiracial people are prettier and helthier. BTW, I don’t want any race to disappear, but if that happenes through the process of natural selection, so be it! 826
Posted by saira on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:14 | # hey you white folks are bloody stupid, all your wihite women are just fucking balck men and you are worried about indians. dumb ass white folk get a life. 827
Posted by Jack on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:53 | # Message to J Richards: You, sir, are seriously warped in your views of Asian women. Some of the comparisons you make on this page are outrageous, bordering on hilarious. How can you honestly say that basically every single one of your ethnic examples are outclassed by the supposedly ‘finer’ examples of nordic women. I understand that everone has their own tastes and opinions but you are making comments that seem based on a level of racism and ignorance that I (and others who have seen this page) could only describe as ‘Nazi-esque’. 828
Posted by asdfjkl on Thu, 16 Nov 2006 08:04 | # They’re saying Nordic women are the best looking because they are. They don’t have the wide nose with the large nostrils, the saggy breasts, and the baseball bat shaped legs that many black women do-not saying all black women have these features but it’s in the majority. They also don’t have to use chemical hair relaxers in an effort to approximate another race’s hair texture like EVERY picture posted of EVERY mullatta/latina woman (passed off as black), dye their hair blond, or put a white line down the bridge of their nose with some dark foundation on the sides to give the “illusion” of a long straight nose or get a nose job to narrow their nose (they have those beautiful noses naturally). Nordic women are golden haired, blue eyed, slender bodied beauties. 829
Posted by btw on Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:26 | # I’m still waiting someone to post pics of good looking
830
Posted by mon on Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:28 | # youre completely WRONG WRONG WRONG!! & so freaking biased, dont even start with me! what were you thinking—all of your reasonging is baised-making this assumption that nordic/ european women are way more beautiful. not stopping to realize the women in india that are beautiful—are NATURALLY beautiful- & have exotic beauty, not the typical commercial beauty thats found everywhere you go! & ahswariya rai is a stick, so i dont know where the heck you pulled a wide waist and braod shoulders out of—but that woman is real, not a bunch of fake plastic & makeup that diets & worksout insanely. 831
Posted by Lisa on Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:42 | # Racists masquerading as scholars? Who knew this could still happen in the year 2006? 832
Posted by Koyarus on Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:24 | # BTW, I don’t want any race to disappear, but if that happenes through the process of natural selection, so be it! Besides, even if nature decided to select against a certain form of organism, that doesn’t mean people should dawdle. If a critically endangered plant found in a rainforest, for example, that naturally produced a rejuvenating serum of some sort, was on the brink of being wiped out by the sudden increase in leaf eating ants in the plant’s habitat, would you sit back and say “meh, it’s natural selection, duder. Go with the flow” or would you say “holy crap, guys, let’s collect some seed samples and grow our own immortality shrubs and get stonking rich!!!1”? I know that analogy went off tangent a bit, but you get the idea. You’re guilty of committing the naturalistic fallacy big time, and even then the supposed ‘natural selection’ you were talking about is entirely in the hands of mere humans. Racists masquerading as scholars? Who knew this could still happen in the year 2006? Oh, and hello everyone. If you remember me at all. 833
Posted by Bella on Sat, 18 Nov 2006 03:57 | # Do you guys realize that it’s yourself you love?? 834
Posted by bella on Sat, 18 Nov 2006 04:15 | # I almost forgot..what do the guys think of that blonde chick who married the very black singer Seal?? 835
Posted by Born in Fiji on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 07:09 | # J Richards, White nationalists who post racially biassed statements make others hate whites more. Have you as a white ever thought from that angle? Or is white is right the usual mantra of the day? 836
Posted by Born in Fiji on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 07:32 | # To those Caucasian-centric peoples, The border region of Aandhra Pradesh and Tamizh Naadu is the least caucasian region of India, probably after Chota Nagpur in the Jharkhand Orissa border. This is the core Australoid zone where the rich dark brown colour dominates. This is near the Rayalsima region which boasts the temple of Shrinivas who is depicted as the Lord of the 7 hills(Ezhu Malai Devuda). Folks from this region be proud! The Lord himself is depicted as black skinned and is worshipped by all Hindus of all so-called ‘castes’. In fact in sanatana dharma one does not have to born a Hindu to be a Hindu. It is the eternal truth unlike the rants and raving of Christmas tree worsippers in the west who worship blonde ‘goddesses’. To all you caucasian-feature loving peoples, I challenge to come to the land of Ezhu Malai Devuda and cleanse your mind of stupid carnal lust and forget that so and so Miss Indiana will offer you some ‘favour’ if you send her roses. Better spend energy of make roses to present to the Lord of all mankind. 837
Posted by btw on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 16:18 | # Koyarus, “Mass immigration” is not a threat to your kind. If your people did not like to blend with others, they wouldn’t. But they DO! That is a natural selection. Btw, not olny the cutest people will be selected. The wisest, the good hearted and the helthiest men and women will survive too. 838
Posted by Emma Regina on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 22:30 | # You picked the worst pics ever. The others were Hooters girls. Untouchables are not considered by many to be Indians, as they have no Aryan blood. Mongolians were famous for masculine features. They are not Indians. That what Mongolia’s for. There are other countries besides India. I can see that you are a prostitute. Fuck you! My cousin is a blonde Indian. She is the prettiest person in the world. If the meaning of this is to say that blondes sleep with the whole world, then shut up. I think that you are saying that being a whore is virtuous. 840
Posted by Emma Regina on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 22:37 | # Your favorite “nordic” stars. http://www.tackystars.com/content/BadMakeUpandhair/index.shtml 841
Posted by Emma Regina on Sun, 19 Nov 2006 22:57 | # Some of the Indian “girls” were Amithabh Bachan in satires. 842
Posted by I. Jonassen on Mon, 20 Nov 2006 02:02 | # De Arndt, This is a response to your allegation of flaws in my previous comment.
“Those studies do not indicate significant clustering patterns either”? Are you kidding? Richards previously posted the following nearest-neighbor dendogram based on 24 neutral craniofacial measurements.
Do you not see any significant clustering pattern? Don’t you see that the clustering is along geographical lines? Once again, no correlation analysis was involved in coming up with the clusters. More interestingly, do you consider the Nubians and the Somalis to be Caucasoid? The neutral craniofacial inter-landmark distances of the Nubians and Somalis being closer to that of Europeans, it is not possible to call Indians Caucasoid but not the Nubians and the Somalis. However, if you or Malcolm believes that the Nubians and the Somalis are a Caucasoid people or members of the same race that whites have membership in then you people are not worth debating with. A study such as above wouldn’t just provide a dendogram; it will also provide numerous statistics documenting the differences between the groups. For instance, C. Loring Brace, the lead author of the study, presented the results from a discriminant analysis of the samples. The probabilities that a skull from the English Neolithic or the German Neolithic cannot be accommodated in the modern European group were 0.686 and 0.168, respectively, but the probabilities that they cannot be accommodated in the India group were 0.004 and 0.032, respectively. In other words, one cannot confidently exclude the English/German Neolithic skulls from the modern European group but easily exclude them from the India group. How is this possible if according to Malcolm there are no significant differences between Indians and Europeans when it comes to craniofacial features, and do you believe that the results support your contention of no significant clustering pattern? Brace also presented Mahalanobis distances (D<sup>2</sup>) between the clusters; some examples: Northwest Europe-Central Europe (1.7), Northern Europe-Southern Europe (3.34; from a separate study), Northwest Europe-India (10.7), Northwest Europe-black Africa (26.2). Why is the Mahalanobis distance between Europeans and Indians non-zero if there are no statistically significant differences between Indians and Europeans? Where has Malcolm provided any references that the nearest neighbor amalgamation rule does not demonstrate statistically significant differences between clusters?
Wow! You have had people saying there is no genetic basis for race, and then Rosenberg comes along and shows that the largest set of neutral DNA markers at the time of the investigation separates humans along six geographic clusters. These clusters also correspond well with the geographic races proposed by Linnaeus. Very inconvenient for race deniers, isn’t it? However, two objections are raised. It is argued that the geographical clusters are an artifact of sampling geographically well-separated populations and assuming that there is a correlation structure underlying neutral DNA markers within populations. Then, Rosenberg shows that even if one uses an uncorrelated alleles model and samples geographically adjacent populations over a broad region spanning the major populations of the world, one still ends up with the same geographic clusters. Moreover, these geographic clusters are obtained notwithstanding clinal distribution. What argument is left for the race deniers? How can you question the significance of Rosenberg’s work? Do you want him to spell out, “Okay children, humans are divided into the following races…”? Do you expect such a statement from a mainstream academic desirous of maintaining his funding and continuing his research work on population genetics? Can’t you read his papers to see what exactly the races are?
We are not talking about an experimental design where independent variables are being manipulated to see the effect on dependent variables, which is where one would use a factorial design. We have a situation where there are 24 craniofacial measurements per individual, many individuals per population and multiple populations. What n-by-k factorial design do you propose so that the dataset can be “pooled” and then analyzed using a single ANOVA? Do you know of a similar study that has done this? Your comment is absurd. Malcolm is either implying that one carry out multiple ANOVAs, which nobody would given problems with multiple statistical tests as I mentioned previously, or that an ANOVA be used for the multivariate analysis, which cannot be done since it is a univariate tool.
What is the point of your comment? If A and B cluster together before joining C, then A and B are closer to each other than either is to C, which is what you are saying and is also something that I have never disputed, but this does not prove that A and B belong to the same taxonomical group, which is my point and which is something that you have not disputed.
Global consensus is not relevant because I did not address it. I addressed the beauty question using Malcolm’s criteria.
I have not claimed that Malcolm’s personal opinion is evidence of global consensus. I also haven’t implied any contradiction in Malcolm’s comments related to his global consensus comment. “Malcolm’s personal opinion as a white”? Do you seriously believe that Malcolm is white? Malcolm asked Richards to explain why the following Indian does not have Nordic facial features. Is this question coming from a white person or a non-white under the illusion that his kind is a dark version of whites?
Malcolm wrote that the Nordic women posted by Richards all look the same. Is this comment coming from a white person or a non-white who like most people has a hard time distinguishing the facial features of people belonging to another race?
Once again, global consensus is not the issue. Besides, some Indians here have acknowledged that whites look better; some Indians have attempted to pretend to be white to make their point; Malcolm stopped posting links to pictures of attractive Indian women a long time before Richards told him goodbye, and for obvious reasons that I stated earlier; and there have been other non-whites that have stopped posting links to women whom they believe beat Nordic women in looks after Richards responded with comparisons. Richards will probably post other comparisons. Richards has also made other points such as successful men disproportionately seeking white, especially Nordic, trophy wives, Japanese men having a preference for Nordic Russian prostitutes, etc. Therefore, whereas there is no 100% consensus, Nordic women are undoubtedly regarded better looking than Indian women by the majority of the world’s population.
I have not ignored the comment. I clearly stated that Malcolm has called Nordic women better looking than others on average, but that the best looking women are Indian. Malcolm’s assertion appears to be strange. It is Malcolm’s justification for this belief that is absurd and the reason for my euphoric comment. Malcolm explains that the best looking women are found among upper caste Indian women because their white ancestors absorbed non-whites and shifted toward the median of the facial features of the world’s populations; the median being preferable to the extremes. The question is if Nordic facial features are better than others on average, i.e., the Nordic average is better than the non-Nordic average according to Malcolm A, then how is it possible for non-Nordic admixture to increase the attractiveness of a Nordic population? Malcolm’s reasoning is obviously absurd. Why are you defending such an ignorant and stupid charlatan? 843
Posted by btw on Mon, 20 Nov 2006 07:08 | # I’m still waiting to see a proof that nordic woman are better looking. Can you post some photos to convince me? BTW, many blond people say that they wish they had sparkling dark eyes, wavy dark hair and tanned skin. 844
Posted by Englander on Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:14 | # This thread is badly in need of some photos of beautiful nordic women. I find plenty of non-whites attractive, but I also consider white women to be by far the most beautiful on earth. Tthe most popular appearance-altering procedure would be blonde hair dye. Personally I like brunettes. 845
Posted by andrew on Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:20 | # The best looking 1% of people on this earth have surely got to be a mix ,as to gain these features you would somewhere along the line have to take the most perfect facial assets of each/a race . 846
Posted by Emma Regina on Mon, 20 Nov 2006 21:34 | # You can never really say that Indians are “ugly.” Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. This is one crazy beholder. Think about this: 848
Posted by Pooja on Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:15 | # Hello. I have to say this is a very racist/biest website. Of all the Indian actresses shown above, the worst pictures were diliberatley chosen. You probably very well know that Aishwarya Rai is considered the most beautiful women in the world also said by Julia Roberts herself. You also can not base the beauty of the entire country of India based on a single Indians beauty. The pictures of India posted up there were diliberatley taken from villages. It would be the same as taking pictures of so called “ghetto” places/neighborhoods in America. Why have you not chosen places such as New Delhi, Pune, Goa, Agra, Amritsar, Madras, Bombay, Banglore or any other city or hill station in India where everyone dresses and acts the same including education standards and lifestyle as here set aside certain cultural basics. 849
Posted by pOOJA on Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:24 | #
NO ONE CAN SAY THE INDIAN ACTRESS AISHWARYA IN NOT BEAUTIFUL. 850
Posted by Pooja on Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:30 | #
852
Posted by btw on Tue, 21 Nov 2006 05:35 | # There are many types of beauty. If you like blond women, here it is. http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/pv/Uma Thurman-12.jpg
http://www.newamericandimensions.com/images/Salma-Hayek-(2).jpg
If you like Asian beauty, see here.
If you prefer black beauty, here it is.
I love diversity. 853
Posted by Englander on Tue, 21 Nov 2006 09:12 | # I appreciate the beauty of women like Aishwarya Rai, but she is not the most beautiful woman in the world, even if Julia Roberts herself says so. Those Indians above look quite weird to me, with their big noses. 854
Posted by andrew on Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:42 | # How come all the Indian women shown look very European ? surely there must be attractive ‘Indian looking’ women out there to show ? 855
Posted by Pooja on Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:25 | # My point here is that not ALL of a certain race is beautiful or perfect. Not EVERY Indian women are beautiful or perfect just as not EVERY nordic women is beautiful or perfect. Only an imbecilic website would discuss the topic of supposedly “ALL” Indians being grotesque while “ALL” nordics being pulchritudinous. It is simply puerile to think so. 856
Posted by Pooja on Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:56 | #
857
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:24 | # Ladies and gentlemen, Retarded Hindus are hell bent on degrading this thread to a “who has the ugliest women” contest, misrepresenting my arguments and coming up with absurdities. Therefore, the comments functionality for this thread is temporarily removed. When I have some free time, I will reopen the comments thread, post my replies and leave this thread open for at least a couple of weeks for people to post their response to my comments. If then I still keep coming across retarded arguments, I will reply to the newer comments and close the thread for good. This thread shows no sign of becoming inactive, and it cannot be allowed to continue with no end in sight, especially if it forces me to repeat my arguments and attracts plenty of lowbrow comments, often by people who have not bothered to go through the entire thread before posting. Post a comment:Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Next entry: Citizen Sailer
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA Nations
|
to the last line, to show that I’m being mock patronising. And remove the first and.
&Id=515
&Id=633
?42
…. THATS THE DRAWBACK… U GET THAT??????????????????? SORRY FOR ALL THE LOSERS WHO ARE TRYING TO CONVINCE THEMSELVES THAT THEIR RACE IS THE BEST OF ALL!!!!!!! BOOOOOO…....
.html
.html
.html
.html
.html
.html
most women in forein countries dont prefere to be pale because of the skin color but because of the opputunities that the skin give them. is not specialy because the think white is better but because they are brainwashed, they are poor people and the see rich white people alle the time , so the of corse wont to be paler because it makes them feel that they are closer to the rich man ” the white man”
[/image]
http://www.escaner.cl/escaner10/xica2.jpg(img)){kind=link}
![[img=http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/8126/kashmirlq6.th.jpg]](http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=kashmirlq6.jpg){kind=link}
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:05 | #
Remaining references:
Olivier, 1960 U. Olivier, Pratique anthropologique, Vigot Frères, Paris (1960).
Ovchinnikov et al., 2000 I.V. Ovchinnikov, A. Götherström, G.P. Romanova, V.M. Kharitonov, K. Lidén and W. Goodwin, Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the Northern Caucasus, Nature 404 (2000), pp. 490–493.
Pitulko et al., 2004 V.V. Pitulko, P.A. Nikolsky, E.Y. Girya, A.E. Basilyan, V.E. Tumskoy, S.A. Koulakov, S.N. Astakhov, E.Y. Pavlova and M.A. Anisimov, The Yana RHS site: Humans in the Arctic before the last glacial maximum, Science 303 (2004), pp. 52–56.
Rana et al., 1999 B.K. Rana, D. Hewett-Emmett, L. Jin, B.H.-J. Chang, N. Sambuughin, M. Lin, S. Watkins, M. Bamshad, L.B. Jorde, M. Ramsay, T. Jenkins and W.-H. Li, High polymorphism at the human melanocortin 1 receptor locus, Genetics 151 (1999), pp. 1547–1557.
Riches, 1974 D. Riches, The Netsilik Eskimo: A special case of selective female infanticide, Ethnology 13 (1974), pp. 351–361.
Rees, 2000 J.L. Rees, The melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R): More than just red hair, Pigment Cell Research 13 (2000), pp. 135–140.
Relethford et al., 1985 J.H. Relethford, F.C. Lees and P.J. Byard, Sex and age variation in the skin color of Irish children, Current Anthropology 26 (1985), pp. 396–397.
Reich et al., 2001 D.E. Reich, M. Cargill, S. Bolk, J. Ireland, P.C. Sabeti, D.J. Richter, T. Lavery, R. Kouyoumjian, S.F. Farhadian, R. Ward and E.S. Lander, Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome, Nature 411 (2001), pp. 199–204.
Richards et al., 2000 M.P. Richards, R.E.M. Hedges, R. Jacobi, A. Current and C. Stringer, Gough’s cave and sun hole cave human stable isotope values indicate a high animal protein diet in the British Upper Paleolithic, Journal of Archaeological Science 27 (2000), pp. 1–3.
Richards et al., 2001 M.P. Richards, P.B. Pettitt, M.C. Stiner and E. Trinkaus, Stable isotope evidence for increasing dietary breadth in the European Mid-Upper Paleolithic, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98 (2001), pp. 6528–6532.
Riedl, 1990 B.I.M. Riedl, Morphological and metrical characteristics of the male and female Leitmotif in mate-selection and its impact on the selection of the spouse, Homo 41 (1990), pp. 72–85.
Rogers, 1986 R.A. Rogers, Language, human subspeciation, and ice age barriers in Northern Siberia, Canadian Journal of Anthropology 5 (1986), pp. 11–22.
Santos et al., 1999 F.R. Santos, A. Pandya, C. Tyler-Smith, S.D.J. Pena, M. Schanfield, W.R. Leonard, L. Osipova, M.H. Crawford and R.J. Mitchell, The Central Siberian origin for Native American Y chromosomes, American Journal of Human Genetics 64 (1999), pp. 619–628.
Scheffel, 1984 D. Scheffel, From polygyny to cousin marriage? Acculturation and marriage in 19th century Labrador Inuit society, Inuit Studies 8 (1984), pp. 61–75.
Scheffer, 1704 J. Scheffer, The history of Lapland: Containing a geographical description, and a natural history of that country; with an account of the inhabitants, their original, religion, customs, habits, marriages, conjurations, employments, etc., Tho. Newborough & R. Parker, London (1704).
Schrire & Steiger, 1974 C. Schrire and W.L. Steiger, A matter of life and death: An investigation into the practice of female infanticide in the Arctic, Man 9 (1974), pp. 161–184.
Schweder, 1994 B.I.M. Schweder, The impact of the face on long-term human relationships, Homo 45 (1994), pp. 74–93.
Scozzari et al., 1997 R. Scozzari, F. Cruciani, P. Malaspina, P. Santolamazza, B.M. Ciminelli, A. Torroni, D. Modiano, D.C. Wallace, K.K. Kidd, A. Olckers, P. Moral, L. Terrenato, N. Akar, R. Qamar, A. Mansoor, S.Q. Mehdi, G. Meloni, G. Vona, D.E.C. Cole, W.W. Cai and A. Novelletto, Differential structuring of human populations for homologous X and Y microsatellite loci, American Journal of Human Genetics 61 (1997), pp. 719–733.
Seccombe, 1992 W. Seccombe, A millennium of family change, Verso, London (1992).
Sherman, 1922 C.P. Sherman, Roman law in the modern world, New Haven Law Book Co, New Haven (1922).
Short, 1975 G.B. Short, Iris pigmentation and phototopic visual acuity: A preliminary study, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 43 (1975), pp. 425–434.
Simchuk, 2001 A.P. Simchuk, Frequency-dependent sexual selection in a natural population of oak leafroller moth (Tortrix viridana L.), Tsitologiya i Genetika 35 (2001), pp. 25–29.
Sinnock, 1970 P. Sinnock, Frequency dependence and mating behavior in Tribolium castaneum, American Naturalist 104 (1970), pp. 469–476.
Smith & Smith, 1994 E.A Smith and S.A. Smith, Inuit sex–ratio variation, Current Anthropology 35 (1994), pp. 595–624.
Soffer, 1985 O. Soffer, Patterns of intensification as seen from the Upper Paleolithic of the Central Russian Plain. In: T.D. Price and J.A. Brown, Editors, Prehistoric hunter-gatherers. The emergence of cultural complexity, Academic Press, Orlando (1985), pp. 235–269.
Soffer et al., 1993 O. Soffer, P. Vandiver, B. Klima and J. Svoboda, The pyrotechnology of performance art: Moravian venuses and wolverines. In: H. Knecht, A. Pike-Tay and R. White, Editors, Before Lascaux. The complex record of the early upper Paleolithic, CRC Press, Boca Raton (1993), pp. 259–275.
Stepanov & Puzyrev, 2000 V.A. Stepanov and V.P. Puzyrev, Evolution of Y-chromosome haplotypes in populations of North Eurasia, American Journal of Human Genetics 67 (2000), p. 220.
Sturm et al., 2001 R.A. Sturm, R.D. Teasdale and N.F. Box, Human pigmentation genes: Identification, structure and consequences of polymorphic variation, Gene 277 (2001), pp. 49–62.
Tacitus, 1970 C. Tacitus, Germania Transl. by M. Hutton. Loeb Classical library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1970).
Taioli et al., 1996 E. Taioli, S.J. Garte, J. Trachman, S. Garbers, D.W. Sepkovic, M.P. Osborne, S. Mehl and H.L. Bradlow, Ethnic differences in estrogen metabolism in healthy women, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 88 (1996), p. 617.
Templeton, 2002 A.R. Templeton, Out of Africa again and again, Nature 416 (2002), pp. 45–51.
Thelen, 1983 T.H. Thelen, Minority type human mate preference, Social Biology 30 (1983), pp. 162–180.
Torroni et al., 1990 A. Torroni, O. Semino, R. Scozzari, G. Sirugo, G. Spedini, N. Abbas and M. Fellous et al., Y-chromosome DNA polymorphisms in human populations: Differences between Caucasoids and Africans detected by 49a and 49f probes, Annals of Human Genetics 54 (1990), pp. 287–296.
Tyrrell & Chamberlain, 1998 A.J. Tyrrell and A.T. Chamberlain, Non-metric trait evidence for modern human affinities and the distinctiveness of Neanderthals, Journal of Human Evolution 34 (1998), pp. 549–554.
Vallois, 1961 H.V. Vallois, The social life of early man: The evidence of skeletons, Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 31 (1961), pp. 214–235.
Van den Berghe & Frost, 1986 P.L. Van den Berghe and P. Frost, Skin color preference, sexual dimorphism and sexual selection: A case of gene-culture co-evolution?, Ethnic and Racial Studies 9 (1986), pp. 87–113.
Vatin, 1970 C. Vatin, Recherches sur le mariage et la condition de la femme mariée à l’époque hellénistique, Éditions E. de Boccard, Paris (1970).
Wang et al., 1991 D.Y. Wang, T.J.A. Key, M.C. Pike, J. Boreham and J. Chen, Serum hormone levels in British and rural Chinese females, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 18 (1991), pp. S41–S45.
Weyer, 1932 E.M. Weyer, The Eskimos. Their environment and folkways, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT (1932).
Zerjal et al., 1997 T. Zerjal, B. Dashnyam, A. Pandya, M. Kayser, L. Roewer, F.R. Santos, W. Scheifenhövel, N. Fretwell, M.A. Jobling, S. Harihara, K. Shimizu, D. Semjidmaa, A. Sajantila, P. Salo, M.H. Crawford, E.K. Ginter, O.V. Evgrafov and C. Tyler-Smith, Genetic relationships of Asians and Northern Europeans, revealed by Y-chromosomal DNA analysis, American Journal of Human Genetics 60 (1997), pp. 1174–1183.