Reality doesn't give a damn about your feelings

One of the fastest guaranteed ways to trigger any shitlib into full-on meltdown mode is to bring up the fact that there are real, measurable, and persistent differences between different races.

If you wish to test this theory, merely walk onto any high school or college campus and state plainly that blacks and whites are different races. You will not even be able to complete the sentence before a howling mob of social justice warriors immediately descend upon you with their depressingly standard, but unfortunately highly effective, swarm method.

Nonetheless, reality is what it is. There are clear and marked differences between races, and they extend far beyond the merely physical or physiological.

These differences manifest themselves in several different ways, and each one of them is deeply controversial- but really shouldn't be.

Take physical beauty standards, for instance. Heartiste put a rather good, and highly provocative, piece up today talking about the Australian Aborigines, who are very much in the running for possibly the world's ugliest race:

Abos and the assorted subpopulation primitive groups like pygmies and Amazonian tribes have literally zero attractive women. You could Find, Meet, and Attract ten thousand of their women, but you wouldn’t want to Close any one of them.

Would abo men bang their women? Apparently, enough to still exist as a race. Actually, research of that nature would be very illuminating. Do abo men — literal proto-human throwbacks with an average IQ lower than that of deepest Africa — prefer their own women or would they be enticed by the standard White Euro beauty norm? This would reveal the nature of the tussle at the intersection between evolution and a platonic universal beauty standard. 

Most likely, abo men would prefer non-abo to abo women, were they given a side by side comparison and a realistic shot at bedding a non-abo. Can we get some funding over here for this critical research proposal?

Heartiste is right. And based on this, we can formulate certain conclusions that are guaranteed to offend the hell out of many people who read them. (Good thing that I don't care in the slightest.)

First: (almost) every race on Earth has its own standards of beauty, and (almost) every one of those races has universal outliers that other races find highly attractive.

There are, however, exceptions to this rule. Such as the Aborigines of Australia, the Inuit and similar tribes of the Arctic wilderness, and a good many African tribes- particularly the Moor Arabs of Mauritania, where fat women are seen as desirable.

That leads us to the second badthink truth: objectively speaking, and putting aside culturally-driven aberrations like the one noted above, most cultures and races prize women who are slender, with specific bust-to-waist and hip-to-waist ratios, long-haired, and symmetrically featured.

It doesn't matter where you look, whether we are talking about white Caucasians, the extensively ethnically mixed populations of Central and South America, North and East Asia, or the Indian subcontinent. The women considered most attractive in all of these cultures conform to those criteria.

Now here is the third bit of ass-pain for liberaltards everywhere:

Whiteness, or at minimum fairer skin, is considered attractive across virtually ALL of these cultures.

That one is undoubtedly contentious. But you merely have to look at the women that are upheld as paragons of feminine beauty across these cultures. Virtually every single one of them either uses some form of skin-whitening product, or has had her most famous pictures airbrushed somewhat to give her a fairer complexion.

Consider the evidence.

Aishwarya Rai, once considered the most beautiful woman in the world and an icon to hundreds of millions of Indians, yet is far whiter than the average Indian woman:

African supermodel and widow of David Bowie (RIP), Iman, whose most heavily marketed photos are routinely whitened and brightened:

Miss China 2017, a lady by the name of Li Zhen Ying:

Tao Okamoto, Japanese model and very attractive star of The Wolverine:

Or how about that icon of black America, Mrs. Jay Z, also known as Beyonce:

And finally, how about a picture of Miss Russia 2017. For, y'know, control group purposes. Yeah, that's right:

The point of all of this- besides being a good excuse for me to go find elegant pictures of beautiful women, especially the Russian girl- is that standards of beauty do, in fact, cross cultural and racial lines. Moreover, there are in fact objective standards of beauty that can be applied across those same lines.

And those standards overwhelmingly lean toward: tall, slender, attractively symmetric features, and at least somewhat white.

Doesn't matter whether you like it or not. I don't care. Neither does reality. It simply is.

Now, being the naturally inquisitive person that I am, I asked myself this:

"If indeed we can argue that there are objective standards of beauty, and if indeed most major cultures all have an approximately common set of such standards, is it possible to infer anything by attempting to correlate cultural intelligence with cultural beauty?"

After all, it is not accidental to me that the regions of the world that produce some of the most beautiful women, on average, according to these cross-cultural sets of objective standards, also often (but not always) have average IQs at the high end of the spectrum.

Well, let's find out.

Here are the 5 countries with the highest average IQs:

  1. Hong Kong (which is technically part of China) - 107
  2. South Korea - 106
  3. Japan - 105
  4. Taiwan - 104
  5. Singapore - 103

For the record, the universal average IQ is of course 100, as I have illustrated elsewhere. White Americans have an average IQ of about 103, on par with Singapore. Black Americans have an average IQ of 85- a finding backed up by and reproduced within numerous rigourous studies and analyses.

All right, so the populations with the highest average IQs also happen to produce quite attractive women. There appears to be a positive correlation of some kind, though obviously the exact strength of it cannot be determined at this point, and this assertion that I am making is extremely tenuous and needs thorough testing.

So what about the 5 countries with the lowest mean IQ?

  1. Equatorial Guinea -59
  2. Ethiopia - 63
  3. Sierra Leone - 64
  4. Democratic Republic of the Congo - 65
  5. Zimbabwe - 66

Well how about that. The countries with the dumbest people- measured in terms of problem-solving ability and reasoning skills, to be clear- also happen to produce what I suspect most of you will agree are not particularly attractive women.

Now, I haven't lived in Africa, obviously. But I know someone who has. And he doesn't have all that many kind words to say about the people that he saw there.

As Adam has pointed out, African culture doesn't really have a whole lot to recommend it if you like the finer things in life. It has not created works of significant musical or aesthetic beauty in recent memory.

Where, after all, is the African equivalent of the transcendental beauty of the fifth movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony? Where is the African literary equivalent of John Milton's magnificent Paradise Lost? Where is the African equivalent of John Martin's three most celebrated works?

Stating any of this in public is dangerous in the extreme. That doesn't make it untrue.

And it is an awful lot of fun to observe what happens when you introduce such badthink to shitlibs who have no idea how to react when they hear it:

Here is another video going into considerably more detail about these findings and their consequences:

The reality is that IQ matters. It has direct civilisational AND aesthetic consequences.

I invite anyone who disagrees to think back to the last time that he had to deal with the stereotypical loud fat black woman at the DMV or the Post Office. These stereotypes exist for a reason.

And that leads to our final bit of badthink for the day:

Can barbarians ever become civilised over time?

Surprisingly, history tells us yes.

It just takes a damned long time.

Consider the example of the Romans, who let Goths and Vandals settle within Roman territories in order to escape the expansions and attacks of the Huns in the East. When the Germanic tribes initially moved into Roman territories, they truly were barbarians- uncouth, uncivilised heathens who had no understanding of the refinements of civilisation. Their presence became so great and burdensome, in fact, that more than one historian has argued that it led directly to the fall of the Roman Empire.

Yet, within two centuries of Rome's fall, the Goths had already absorbed the culture of their erstwhile masters- and were busily establishing their own Visigothic kingdoms across Europe.

Before the Dark Ages were brought on in the late 7th Century by the rapid and extremely violent expansion of Islam, the Visigoths had established thriving civilisations in Germany, France, and Spain. Those kingdoms might eventually have reclaimed the glories of Rome, if they had not been killed off by the Islamic invasion of Spain.

Looking farther to the East, when the Mongols initially invaded and conquered China, they were true nomadic barbarians who rode on horseback and who sustained themselves during their brutal rides by cutting a vein in the necks of their horses and drinking the blood for nourishment.

Yet, within three generations of this conquest of what was at the time the most powerful and civilised culture in the world, the Mongols had become highly refined and civilised. They had absorbed the cultures that they had conquered and adapted to the same.

These lessons teach us that, yes, the barbarians swamping Western shores might be civilised one day.

There are two huge problems with this reasoning.

First is the fact that we'll all be long dead and gone by then.

Second is the fact that, unlike the barbarians of previous eras, these barbarians are simply being let in with their original cultures without ever being asked to adapt to the standards of their hosts. They are not desperate to seek the shelter and prosperity of a better culture; they are here to feast on the bloated and decaying corpse of a once-great culture.

The lesson that reality teaches us, always, is this: an aggressive, but stupid, culture inevitably defeats a highly intelligent and civilised, but cowardly and passive, culture. Always, and every time.

Reality, as always, doesn't give a damn about what you think of it. These facts are what they are. They must be learned and absorbed and understood- or else reality will teach us some very harsh lessons indeed about what happens when a vastly stupider, uglier, and less refined set of cultures go to war with the enlightened, aesthetic, but incredibly weak-willed West.


  1. There are some reasons for the universality or near universality of the preference for whiteness, or lightness, that don't have a necessary genetic component. Instead, it can be about class. We honky types often don't realize it, but black folks can sunburn and tan, too. Now who, in Africa, say, got sunburnt and darker? Peasants and slaves, to include female peasants and slaves, working in fields, exposed to the sun. Who did not get so dark? The upper crust / aristocracy. They and their women tended to stay indoors or, if they went out, did so with someone to hold a parasol overhead. Hence, to be lighter was to be better because of the sun and avoidance of same.

    I suspect, anyway.

    1. Good point, sir. That was and remains the case where I come from also, for the same reasons.

      The exceptions from South Asia tend to be the mestizo types, i.e. the Anglo-Indians. The mixed-race and mixed-caste results of the British colonials mingling with the natives were in many ways outcasts in both communities- never quite white enough for the English, and never quite dark enough for the Indians. This matches the experiences of other mixed-race groups worldwide, from what I can see.


Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts