Hmm…

—-”Are white people really the most beautiful race or do we just think that because we grew up being told that?”—-

Well, sort of, yes. And we can measure it. However…. let’s explain why. Because it’s very interesting.

In general, humans favor a certain set of ratios, and in general, humans favor pedomorphism(retention of juvenile features) – for obvious reasons of fertility and fitness – especially since we take so long to mature, and because of that can demonstrate our fitness due to our behavior, easily.

If an individual possesses those ratios, apparent health, apparent awareness (intelligence), and SUFFICIENT RELATIVE juvenile features, then we tend to judge them as beautiful regardless of skin or hair color, or minor racial features (lips, eye folds, nose sizes).

Ratios and pedomorphism are selection criteria for healthy growth through symmetric development over a long time period.

This generally means more ‘aquiline’ features (fine features) and lighter coloring. It’s not a mystery why ‘whiteness’ spread in at least two if not three phases. It was a selection preference AND a geographic utility. (The math is pretty simple really.)

All populations contain more and less pedomorphic individuals. All populations (races, subraces, tribes, clans) contain a distribution of individuals with hyper mature (masculine) and hyper immature (feminine) features. In general the middle and upper classes are more attractive than the working and underclasses, but only loosely. So to say all white people? No. More white people than other peoples? Yes.

It is harder to evolve-out (remove) certain features, and easier to evolve-out (remove) other features through the process of pedomorphic evolution.

Whites have for some reason, achieved somewhat less pedomorphic evolution than east Asians, but whites have achieved that evolution from a LATER version of man under greater outgroup competitive pressure than east Asians. There is too much uncertainty about White development compared to the current clarity of East Asian development.

Africans have less pedomorphic evolution, Arabs less, Central Asians less, Mediterraneans less, West asians less, Germanics less, Slavs less, Indians the entire spectrum, and east asians the most. Arguably indian women with less Dravidian contribution are only marginally indifferent from Scandinavian women. And low dravidian contribution Indian men and women like european men and women, have developed symmetrically with men and women equally attractive across the class spectrum. (in general, the problem for the world is the steppe and desert people who did not go through sufficient ‘genetic grinding’ under cold weather agrarianism. And in africa there is high value to early maturity since the continent, in disease gradient alone, is extremely hostile to human life.

And we can measure the correlation between physical (facial) features and development, by a rather obvious endocrine analysis: testosterone levels. (We aren’t very different from wolves and dogs really. A few endocrine pathways produce profound differences. )

In a perfect fantasy world men could have African physiques, Northern European appearance and brains and east asian fat distribution, and women could have northern european appearance, and height, east asian brains , body size, longevity, fat distribution, scent, and hair-density.

I could state the opposite by race, subrace, and ethnicity (or tribe), but it would be too uncharitable. However, a gander at the distribution of features in indigenous Australian women and a gander at the physique of certain southeast Asian men, will demonstrate that the distribution of features in a population can work both very positively and very negatively.

One of the ways to interpret the attractiveness of at white populations is that whites successfully killed off large portions of their underclasses, as well as previous generations of european inhabitants, and are a predominantly middle class race. East asians evolved in isolation and killed off vast portions of their underclasses, but more importantly close gene pools can correct better than diverse gene pools** and the han are the largest subrace, and the han, koreans, and japanese are extremely homogenous.

Diversity is always and everywhere a bad thing. It makes correction of weakness, defect and error difficult. No matter what Abrahamic religions, Marxists, Postmodernists, and Academic Pseudoscientists propagandize.

(Understand this research has been suppressed actively since the second world war. But technology has finally made it possible, and other countries are now providing the information that western peoples suppressed for almost a century.)

Stereotypes are the most accurate measurement in the social sciences. They have to survive the market for verification for generations across entire populations. (Yes, really).

At present the intermarriage between lower quality white males, and average quality east asian females is doing something very nice in that particular gene pool, because both east asians and europeans have something to positive to contribute to the gene pool.

Genes can’t lie. Science isn’t kind. Reproduction is just another economy analyzable and explicable by economic criteria.

I hope this was helpful.

I work regularly to end denial of our differences, so that we provide institutional solutions to our differences. Markets are always better than monopolies. And large states are always monopolies that compete at the expense of some group or other of their people.

Cheers.