« Thankfully, no bailout | Main | The hookup culture and the coming downfall of Western civilization »

December 12, 2008

Comments

That's disgusting. The average white woman has a waistline bigger than mine.

"Strangely, I don't see these women in Manhattan."

There's lots of heffers north of 125th Street, they have tans though.

But you live in Hells Kitchen, and there's quite a lot of thin, neat white males walking around there.

HS – “The average white woman is pretty big. Strangely, I don't see these women in Manhattan.”

Generally speaking, Manhattan is more upscale and expensive place to live. And, if I recall, obese women tend to make substantially less income (for a variety or reasons). They would also be expected to have much lower sexual market value, and thus would be less likely to appeal to the sort of men (as wives or cohabitating girlfriends) who could afford to live in Manhattan.

If you see fewer obese women in Manhattan (or San Francisco, or Santa Fe) it’s probably because they cannot afford to live there.

Walk around any suburban Wal-Mart and you won't be surprised by those numbers.

One thing to keep in mind is that waist size among women is primarily an esthetic issue. Among men it is a FAR bigger deal, as large waist measurements in men (especially over 40 inches) are associated with a significantly increased risk of early death.

And another reason to date white teen girls.

If the average white guy is 70.4 inches tall, weighs 186 pounds and has a 37-inch waist, I'm not doing too badly: I'm the same height, weigh somewhat (but not too much) more, and have a smaller waist.

I didnt check his data because Im in a hurry but the weight figures caught me eye too. I am used to hearing that the averages are about 155lbs for males, 125lbs for females. halls.md would seem to agree with me. Weight does increase a bit beyond age 40, though.

I thought maybe Steve had carelessly read the 75th percentile column instead of the 50th or something but looking over the data in more detail it would seem that he's right.

Stopped Clock – “I am used to hearing that the averages are about 155lbs for males, 125lbs for females.”

This may be due to the difference between the Average and the Median (example below)

HS – “The average white woman is pretty big.”

However, it should be noted that certain measurements will not have a uniform Gaussian distribution. One such example would be women’s weight.

It’s difficult for women, even those who try to do it, to get below a certain minimum cut-off weight. A severe anorexic woman of average height could get down to, say, 80 lbs., but below that, she’d probably die. At the other extreme, women can, and do (my Gawd! I’ve seen the pictures) reach weights in excess of 500lbs. Because the upper end of the curve can become so elongated, it tends to skew the average (in fact, since more 500 lbs women can survive than can 50 lbs women, even the median will be somewhat skewed).

As a result, the average woman may weigh 148 lbs, but a typical woman will weigh something less.

As an example, if one where to look at a modeled small sample (which probably represent a reasonable estimation of weight distributions) where in individual weights were: 100, 105, 110, 115, 120, 125, 130, 140, 150, 200, & 330 lbs respectively: the average weight would be right at the 148 given for the overall population (via Salier), while the median weight would be 125, as Stopped Clock recalls.

Speaking of size:

http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2008/12/hes-gotta-big-head-you-know-what-that.html

He's gotta a big head. You know what THAT means....

Okay. I couldn't resist. Make of it what you will. This German condom institute invited men online to measure the length and girth of their penises. More than 10,000 men from 25 European countries submitted their measurements. I correlated the means with national level IQs taken from Sailer's table of Lynn's data. Here are the numbers:

----

Speaking of size:

http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2008/12/hes-gotta-big-head-you-know-what-that.html

He's gotta a big head. You know what THAT means....

Okay. I couldn't resist. Make of it what you will. This German condom institute invited men online to measure the length and girth of their penises. More than 10,000 men from 25 European countries submitted their measurements. I correlated the means with national level IQs taken from Sailer's table of Lynn's data. Here are the numbers:

Pearson Correlation

Length-girth .80
Length-IQ .63
Girth-IQ .43

I expected that I'd find nothing or perhaps an inverse correlation, but wow, a positive one. Does God have to give it ALL to some guys??!!

You may have entitled this post "Big White Women," but the one thing that really pops out from the numbers Steve Sailer mentions is just how large many black women are.

I meant to say median ... both the NHANES data Steve posted and the data on halls.md refer to medians. Thus the two data sources seem to conflict with each other.

I live in a town north of Dallas, Texas. I do my grocery shopping at Walmart. I could show you some big white women! In fact, I noticed a trend where some of them drive an electric cart around Walmart instead of walking. At first I thought they were disabled. But then I noticed them getting up and walking to take things off the shelves. Basically they are riding instead of walking because they are so overweight.

I guess I don't quite live in HS's Manhattan.

One thing about black women is that they tend to have more muscle than women of other races. Even if black women weigh a lot, they aren't necessarily fatter than others, at least not quite to the extent that their weights would indicate.

"It should also be pointed out that we're talking about the median average and not the mean average. Yes, according to government statistics, 50% of white women aged 20-39 weigh 148 or more."

Median average is an oxymoron. Mean average is redundant.

"Even if black women weigh a lot, they aren't necessarily fatter than others, at least not quite to the extent that their weights would indicate."

Michelle Obama's neck is so thick, I could imagine her beating the crap out of BHO at home.

@Peter
When I first heard the term BBW (Big beautiful women, euphemism for seaelephants) I thought it meant BIG BLACK WOMEN mainly because most BBWs are black. Now Half Sigma is introducing the term
BWW.
Actualy let's play a game here. The only term I might be interested in is BBT.

"Actualy let's play a game here. The only term I might be interested in is BBT."

Big beautiful transvestites?

or is it:

Big beautiful transsexuals?

I'll email you my PO box so you can mail me my prize.

"black and blue toddlers"

BBHWPUTNLAAHB.

*big breasted height weight proportionate under 30 non-lawyer anally accessible hot babe.

"BBHWPUTNLAAHB.
big breasted height weight proportionate under 30 non-lawyer anally accessible hot babe."

I of course would add one thing to that list of requirements.

Posted by: Peter | December 12, 2008 at 04:55 PM

Agreed, the bald eagle must go!

Bring back the fluff!

BBHWPUTNLAAHBGNP. I know.

"I live in a town north of Dallas, Texas. I do my grocery shopping at Walmart. I could show you some big white women! In fact, I noticed a trend where some of them drive an electric cart around Walmart instead of walking. At first I thought they were disabled. But then I noticed them getting up and walking to take things off the shelves. Basically they are riding instead of walking because they are so overweight."
You know, I hate to engage in prole-bashing but that really is kind of disturbing.

CNGWNMDALBMI...but that's just not worth going into.

"I live in a town north of Dallas, Texas. I do my grocery shopping at Walmart. I could show you some big white women! In fact, I noticed a trend where some of them drive an electric cart around Walmart instead of walking. At first I thought they were disabled. But then I noticed them getting up and walking to take things off the shelves. Basically they are riding instead of walking because they are so overweight."

Happens in Tennessee as well. It's pathetic, really. I figured it out once I saw some large woman get out of one of those and walk to her car. Anyone who complains about young people being lazy should realize that oftentimes this is the example they have to look up to (so lazy they can't walk their fat ass around Wal-Mart.)

"And another reason to date white teen girls.

Posted by: Gannon | December 12, 2008 at 01:39 PM"

Don't try dating them in the US, Gannon.

What makes a person "fat" or "thin"? Beats me. Ask a ballet dancer who's fat.

In a lot of states, 16-17 year old girls are legal for residents.
Hell, it seems that Hawaians have by far the biggets balls in the US.

By the way, this reminds me that uncle Adolf hat a taste for teen girls to. When he met Eva Braun he was well into his thirties and she was 16. Before Eva, he fell in love with his 15 year old niece, when he was around 30 or so.

And Charlesmagne, emperor of the Germanic Romanic empire, saviour of the west, first wife was twelve, and he never married a woman over 18.

"By the way, this reminds me that uncle Adolf hat a taste for teen girls to. When he met Eva Braun he was well into his thirties and she was 16. Before Eva, he fell in love with his 15 year old niece, when he was around 30 or so."

Gannon makes a lot of sense. Whenever I'm in doubt about whether molesting underage girls is okay, I always remind myself that it's what Hitler would do.

"By the way, this reminds me that uncle Adolf hat a taste for teen girls to. When he met Eva Braun he was well into his thirties and she was 16."

That was not unusual before the 1960's and women's rights movement for older men to date girls as young as 16. In fact, it is still common in Eastern Europe. Sergei Fedorov used to date Anna Kournikova when she was 17, I think.

I actually agree with Gannon up to a certain point that the national age of consent law should be lowered to 16, but I'm not really comfortable lowering below 16 even though teens can give birth without much problem at age 15.

"Whenever I'm in doubt about whether molesting underage girls is okay"
At least you are confessing that even a PC intelectual like yourself lusts and covets teen girls.

And check out the median for Hispanic women: just under 5'3" and 155 lbs. In other words, short, squat, and with a waddling gait. You see lots of them around southern California, usually with 3 or 4 ninos and ninas in tow.

Another reason to build that fence. It'll cut down down on eye pollution.

In the end it all comes down to female beauty. If Mexico were populated by slavs with average IQ of 90, nobody but feminists would complain about mass immigration.


I think Jean Marie Le Pen once said that he liked the muslim veil since it "hid ugly women". I concur.

Whenever I think of becoming a vegan, I always remind myself that it's what Hitler would do

"One thing about black women is that they tend to have more muscle than women of other races. Even if black women weigh a lot, they aren't necessarily fatter than others, at least not quite to the extent that their weights would indicate."

On reconsideration, it's apparent that extra muscle isn't the whole explanation for the greater weights of black women. If that were the case they wouldn't have such large waists, as extra girth around the midsection is caused by fat, not muscle. Apparently black women indeed do have a tendency toward being overweight. Hispanic women, too.

do they have a genetic tendency or it's simply low IQ -->> low income & low education -->> prole life style?

"If Mexico were populated by slavs with average IQ of 90, nobody but feminists would complain about mass immigration."

The average IQ of Eastern and Western Slavs isn't 90; it's higher (Slovenia 95, Slovakia 96, Russia* 96, Czech Republic 97, Poland 99)

The average IQ of Mexico isn't 90; it's lower (87).

Lucas,

The Le Pen quote is priceless. Interesting insight.

"do they have a genetic tendency or it's simply low IQ -->> low income & low education -->> prole life style?"

The issue is one of low IQ --> high time-preference. High time-preference leads to lack of self control. This is also the cause of other non-Asian minority problems such as illigitmacy and spontaneous (and easy to discover) crime.

My guess would be that among the white population with mean IQs in the 85-89 range, analogous to blacks and Hispanics, obesity rates would be similar.

An aside, if you match blacks and whites for IQ, the black crime rate is only twice the white rate. Match Hispanics and whites for IQ and the crime is roughly the same. I think this is caused by a black genetic issue other than IQ, probably higher testosterone coupled with higher testosterone sensitivity.

Regarding Teen Girls. Mary Wollstonecroft (later Mary Wollstonecroft Shelley) was only 16 when Shelley impregnated her, and was the scandal of the age when she toured the Continent with him (and her sister) pregnant at age 17. I believe Shelley was 26 or so, a full ten years older. The contemporary examples of Evan Rachel Woods, then 17, and Marilyn Manson (though admittedly, he's neither male nor human :> ) and Hillary Duff, then 17, and some other rock guy 11 years her senior at the time, come to mind.

But then, none of these historical nor contemporary examples describe the vast majority of current teen girls. All these young women were required to act as adults from early adolescence, the actresses required to perform like professional adults in multi million budgeted productions. Also controlling their own wealth which in terms of absolute luxury no doubt exceeded that of Louis XIV.

However, today's teen girls are in extended childhood. They have no real ability to form solid judgments about anything, much less if it is wise or not to have sex with a person (of any age). This childhood often extends into the mid Twenties, in terms of judgment and maturity, sadly, and their opposite sex numbers can often times be no better (as far as maturity goes).

IMHO it is probably wise public policy to recognize and handle the exceptions (early responsibility and great wealth/power make 17 year old actresses functionally adult) and allow the vast majority of teen girls the protection they need to explore choices "safely" i.e. no sex with disastrous choices, that is sure to happen without boundaries and the cultivated immaturity of modern Western consumerist societies.

Sadly all that happens in practice is illicit, hidden hookups (with older guys) with these teen girls, to the detriment of their own maturity, choice-making process, and growing up. Absent close and important relationships with older female mentors, teen girls make stupid choices that hurt themselves by peer pressure. I'm not talking pregnancy, but rather emotional damage by having sex with the wrong choice made rashly at a young age when opinions of a lifetime are laid down in memory.

There was a recent survey, posted by HS, on Brit Females. Hidden in that survey result was the remarkable statistic that the average female respondent reported losing her virginity at age 16, to a man who was seven years older, and that she felt nothing for. This is probably not wise for forming healthy attitudes towards men by young girls who mature into women.

Do men have a hard-wired attraction to teen girls. Undoubtedly yes. But that's not the point, rather what is wise social policy in controlling and harnessing sexuality, male and female. To promote solid and lasting relationships in monogamous marriage.

I submit we don't do a very good job of that, and it starts in adolescence (with both sexes). IMHO teens need to be "forced" to interact with each sex "safely" to experiment without damage and understand each other more clearly, without illusions or fairy tales or resentments. Part of that is keeping older, more mature male competition for young boys out of the way.

Americans are obese. News at 11.

Fat bitches need to marry early so that at least their skin will be tight enough to restrain the avalanche of lard which, by age 25, will make her resemble a melting snowman.

Re: teens -- go to Sailer's article, and click on the link for the PDF of the study itself. They report means for children and adolescents too! They're broken down by sex, but not race.

For example, a 16 year-old girl weighs 136 lbs, while a 20-something woman weighs 156 lbs. And it only gets worse as you look above 30, obviously. Goddamn, 20 lbs in 10 years!

And that's not because teenagers are shorter: a 16 y.o. girl is 5'4, just as the average female 20+ is.

BMI: 23.2 for a 16 y.o. girl, vs. 26.5 for a 20-something woman. That right there is the difference between normal weight and overweight.

Waistline: 31.5 in. for a 16 y.o. girl, vs. 34.7 in. for a 20-something woman.

Just in case anyone doubted whether girls look more effortlessly attractive in high school vs. at 25. They just roll out of bed and rarely exercise, even with a free daily gym membership (i.e., gym class).

It's really hard to look bad at that age -- and really hard to go wrong in choosing them as girlfriends and mates.

Graphs on this will be up sometime soon at my personal blog.

"At least you are confessing that even a PC intelectual like yourself lusts and covets teen girls."
Actually, I think he was making a sarcastic point about using Hitler as a role model. Maybe this makes sense among Argentines of German descent but it doesn't go over too well up here outside of Stormfront.

"I expected that I'd find nothing or perhaps an inverse correlation, but wow, a positive one. Does God have to give it ALL to some guys??!!"

Rushton found a negative correlation between the IQ's of the races and the penis size of the races which makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. If you're correct, and there is a positive correlation between the average IQ and average penis size of European countries, it's probably caused by nutrition. Since everyone in Europe has similar genes, the countries with better nutrition grow taller heights, larger penis size, larger brains, and higher IQ. However within countries, nutrition would be similar so I doubt there would be a within country correlation between IQ and penis size & if there were it would probably be negative.

@SFG:
Well, I wasn't using Hitler as a role model. I was being sarcastic too. But Hitler lived only half a century ago. So he serves a simple purpose. Proving that only 50 years ago men still maried teen girls, and there was nothing wrong about it. In fact, most famous man married/coveted teen girls. From Cesar to Goethe. But Hitler is contemporay. Chairman Mao is also famous for having slept with HUNDREDS of 15 year old girls.
The current prime minister of Turkey married at 30 his then 15 year old wife. Even Helmut Kohl started dating his Hanelore when he was 19 and she 15 (under US standards Kohl would be a statutory rapist). And isn't there a beatle song about seeet sixteen?
Hitler is an interesting character because he was a fanatic nonsmoker,vegetarian, environmentalist, animal lover, specially doglover, child lover (not pedophile), and an alpha male, very popular among women.

@Whiskey:you are one of the commenters I respect the most.
You basically argue that teen girls are unable to consent because society treats them as children. Usualy, arguments blaming society aren't well recieved on Half Sigma. For example, in my opinion blacks aren't poor because society opresses them. Blacks are poor because their median IQ is low. Also, jews are overrepresented in Politics, economics, media and academics. A lot of the intelctual authors of Communism and Femenism were jews. But this is not because of some jewish conspiracy. The reason is much more simple. (Ashkenzi) jews simple have a high median IQ. So there are also a lot of neoliberals who are jews, like Milton Friedmann. Jews simply have a lot of power because they have high IQs, probaly because European jewish culture forced their females to reproduce with the smartest jewish males instead of the jewish bad boys.
So I believe that saying that society treats teen girls as children is rather irrelevant.
Women at around 14, definitively at 16 are ready to reproduce. They have the natural physical and phsychological maturity to consent to have sex, as well as the urge. Nothing positive can come from posponing that urge. Men form strong bonds with teen girls, (aged 14-22), bonds which last a lifetime. Also, teen girls at that by nature fall strongly in love. It is true that boys their age can't form families yet. But men aged 22-32 years of age can. If the law oposes these relationships, teens will have sex anyway. But it won't be with man who are ready to take responsibility. It will be with boys their age who aren't ready to marry the girl or older guys who don't care about the laws. So there will be abortions (eupehmism of murdering unborn children)instead of happy marriages.
Whiskey and Spungen say that teen girls aren't mature or wise enough to asses the intents of a men. That's why parent's should be involved and advise their daughters. Posponing female marriage is bringing death to western mariages.
16 girls are ready to marry and have sex, and posponing it is absurd. Women over 25 are much less suited to form lifelong bonds, are past their prime fertility years although exceptions obviously apply.
In the end, it doesn't matter if society treats 15 year old girls as children. They simply aren't, they are more educated tha ever, have adult IQs and bodies. You may treat a dog like a cat. But the dog will still be a dog and act like a dog (he will bark, not meow, and he won't be able to climb up trees).
And Agnostic is right: HS girls (read High School, not Half Sigma) are effortlessly sexy.

Amish,

I didn't say that slavs have an IQ of 90. I just said that ilegal immigration would be more acceptable if immigrants were beautiful, even with low IQs.

The preference for extreme female thinness is found mostly in the homosexual community who runs the modeling industry, many of who also happen to be Jewish. I'm fairly convinced that the men who will only date/bang unnaturally thin and emaciated females are actually gay (people like Roissy); many women who are unhealthily thin often have very low libidos and have major problems with sufficient vaginal lubrication (they are suffering from a lack of nutrition), which makes good intercourse difficult. Thus this ridiculous current craze for anal sex amongst these unaturally thin women and their (probably closeted gay) men.

America and some other countries clearly have a bad problem with too many overweight/obese people, but you all here seem to forget that women and the female species of most mammals have evolved with MUCH more body fat than males -- this is a part of biological evolution...to deny the naturally high body fat percentage of average females and turn away in (gayish) disgust from them is to deny nature itself.

@Obviuos:
Roissy has said in the past that his favourite female BMI is around 20. That's still healthy and within normal range. Gay designers usualy chose models with BMIs around 17. Females stop menstruating at BMI below 18. My personal dream female would be a 16 year old girl with a BMI around 22, 23. I agree with you that for a twentysomething woman a BMI of around 24 is probaly healthier and more normal than a BMI of 20. But the problem is that maybe around 2/5 of adult women US women habe BMIs over 30, which are not healthy and greatly diminish their attractiveness. Women with BMIs over 35 are disgusting and unfuckeable.

OK Gannon, sorry for the ethnic jibe.

Great post Gannon, especially:

"Hitler is an interesting character because he was a fanatic nonsmoker,vegetarian, environmentalist, animal lover, specially doglover, child lover (not pedophile), and an alpha male, very popular among women."

You can also add to that list decorated combat soldier, amazingly inspiring orator, master politician, economist, excellent community organizer, writer, artist/painter, architect and urban planner, re-generator of a nation, music/opera/film lover, and on and on.

Hitler was without a doubt one of the greatest leaders of the 20th Century...too bad the highly advanced Third Reich was cut as short as it was because if it had continued to exist the world (especially ever-declining 21st Century Europe) would no doubt be a better place overall.

Re:Hitler

I've heard Hitler wanted to exterminate Slavs. Is this true or simply one of those things they say to make the man the caricature of evil?

I don't even know if I should trust my version of Mein Kampf. Abe Foxman wrote the introduction, for crissake.

"Thus this ridiculous current craze for anal sex "

I dunno. Every woman I've had any extended sexual experience with has been quite aroused by the kinkiness of anal sex, and none of them has been anything close to emaciated. It's a dominance/submissive thing for most women.

I just nailed my girlfriend in the ass two days ago, while she brought herself to climax with a vibe on her clit. She probably has a BMI of around 22-23.

"You can also add to that list decorated combat soldier, amazingly inspiring orator, master politician, economist, excellent community organizer, writer, artist/painter, architect and urban planner, re-generator of a nation, music/opera/film lover, and on and on."
Probably. Unfortunately for Germany, he was a lousy general and tried to micromanage the war, which is the real reason his generals tried to kill him. He may be one of the few examples of what happens when an artsy type gets into power.

As for the world being a better place...the Germans would have been better off but I doubt anybody else would have. And quite frankly as an American I'd rather see Europe taken over by the Arabs than by the Nazis. The Arabs can't even wipe out Israel with its few million people, and they've got it surrounded. The Wehrmacht was probably the most powerful army in history at the time and if they'd managed to take over Europe they would have been over the Atlantic and at our doorstep in a decade or two. And no matter what you think of the US Army, they couldn't have stopped a Nazi Europe. The Germans have the perfect combination of qualities to be a great military power: ruthlessness, technological knowhow, and organization. They weren't soft and ethical like us or drunk and disorganized like the Russians. If they had gotten the A-Bomb, they would have been unstoppable.

"I've heard Hitler wanted to exterminate Slavs. Is this true or simply one of those things they say to make the man the caricature of evil?"

Killed a lot of Poles and Russians, didn't he?

"Killed a lot of Poles and Russians, didn't he?"

Not anymore than his enemies. My question is did he see killing them as an end in and of itself (which is how it's portrayed in the popular imagination) or was it just war? What would've happened to Poland and Russia had Hitler won?

Do you believe in Generalplan Ost? I'm not sure how much of the standard narrative you think is Allied propaganda... We know he wanted Lebensraum--living space--for Germans, and that can't have been good for the local peoples. When they took over Poland they killed the intelligentsia and prevented Polish children from gaining any advanced schooling. And the purple P on concentration camp prisoners? Why have a whole different color if they didn't want to single them out the way they did communists, Jews, and gays?

I actually do agree Germany got a raw deal after WWI, but I don't know if the other countries could have really coexisted with Hitler. I do believe that a more rational German leader might have, say, been able to keep Austria and the Sudetenland or possibly even the Polish Corridor and been able to unite most of Europe's German-speaking population.

"What would've happened to Poland and Russia had Hitler won?"
Well, Hitler's intent was to administer the slavic countries through a German aristocracy. Hitler's intent was not to exterminate the slavs, but much rather treat them like secondary citizens. (By the way, pre 1917 Russia was in fact governed by an aristocracy with lots of German ancestors, Kaiser Wilhelm the second and Zar Nicolas were cousins).
So slaves would become serfs to their German masters, or maybe a better term would be secondary citizens of the Reich. But Hitler didn't aim for the extermination of the slaves.
While I'm not a fan of the Nazis, Western Europe might be better off today if the Wehrmacht would have defeated the Soviet Union. Nazism never was only about the Germans, it was about about all the Germanic Romanic people of Western Europe. For Hitler, the Dutch (Germanic), the French (Franks), the Italians (Ostrogods)the Spanish (Visigods)the Brithish (Anglosaxon) were all equal Germanic people. A Nazi Europe never would allow an Islamic takeover.

Hitler's main deficit was his contempt and disrespect of the sacredness of human life. His hate towards jews was irrational (although to be fair a lot of people back then considered Zionism and communism as synonyms)and cost him lots of brilliant minds, like the mind of the greatest genius of the century, an Austrian like himself called Albert Einstein.
Also, Hitler considered slaves as inferior to the (germanic) white race, something with which I can't agree. However, Hitler's plan for slaves was serfdom, not genocide.
Something people should read about is national socialist economists. They are still capitalists, but are aware of capitalisms shortcommings like excessive greed and short term thinking.

About the Lebensraum, Hitler's intent was to settle the empty spaces of the soviet union with German settlers, but the plan never was to exterminate the serfs, more like using them as colonies.

Gannon,

Good stuff. There's certainly nothing inferior about slavs. I'm going to St. Petersburg to continue my study of the language next semester.

I will take everything we hear about WWII with a grain of salt as long as there are people in jail for questioning the official story.

As far as if the world would've been a better place had Hitler won consider that the current dysgenic path we're on is a road to extinction. We take control of our breeding, through classical eugenics or genetic engineeting or intelligence/beauty disappear from the universe forever. If a man or movement understands that I can forgive a lot.

I don't know who brought up Hitler, but for God's sake, he was gay. The connection between homosexuality and fascist-type ideas is very old.

Hitler was definitively not gay. He enjoyed making love to young women. Nazis hated homosexuals, and homosexuals were sent to concentration camps. Ernst Röhm, the leader of the Sturmabteilung was homsexual, but Hitler killed him and his loyal followers during the "Die Nacht der langen Messer". The nazis considered homosexuality as a perversion against nature.

first of all, I agree that high Jewish IQ is a direct result of the community's decision to arrange for the smartest young jewish men to have the most kids. this was helped along by the rampant anti semetism of Europe. In fact, anti semetism was the best thing that ever happend to the Jews of Europe (until the 1930's of course)

Look at it this way - the jews of the Ottoman Empire faced much less anti semetism. Jews of the Ottoman empire did not develope high IQ's (look it up - sephardic jews have IQ under 100)

Jews in Europe faced anti semetism and developed very high iqs. First of all, Jews in Europe were forbidden careers as farmers and forbidden careers as soldiers. Essentially any jew with a strong back but not a high iq never made enough money to have kids that grew to adulthood. Only those jews with a very high IQ could acumulate wealth.

Then, the zeitgeist in the jewis community was for the jews with wealth to marry their daughters to the jews with the highest iq. There was no better IQ test in the history of the world than i am aware of than the study and debate of the talmud. There was effectively a tournament each year in which all jewish boys competed to study and debate the talmud. The absolute winners of this tournament were selected to be talmud scholars. Then the best of the talmud scholars were selected to marry the daughters of the wealthy and given enough money by their father in laws to have more than a dozen kids.

The point is that there was not a perfect meritocracy - some high iq jews probably were not allowed to become talmud scholars but when compared with anything else in the world at the time this was the best thing going.

Have you ever thought about what you would do if you were bill gates and you wanted to insure that your offspring would be the wealthiest and smartest people over the course of the next thousand years? First of all, you would set up a religion that called for all those that could do so to "be fruitful and multiply" Then you would set it up so in each generation there was a strict IQ test and that the kids with the highest IQ would be given enough money to have 20 kids each starting at 13 and the ones that were not smart would not be given any money to have kids.

This selective breeding would result after only 20 or thirty generations in the offspring having an IQ way way higher than any other group in the world.

This would be a world beating formula. As far as i know, NO ONE is following this fomula today -even though it is very attractive for most billionaires to die knowing that they will have hundreds of thousands of offspring with super high iq's. Perhaps some billionaires are doing this secretly

"This would be a world beating formula. As far as i know, NO ONE is following this fomula today -even though it is very attractive for most billionaires to die knowing that they will have hundreds of thousands of offspring with super high iq's. Perhaps some billionaires are doing this secretly"

Embryo screening is advancing to the point where families will be able to use IVF to screen multiple embryos for looks, intelligence, and other abilities.

Check out past articles on FuturePundit for this.

Obvious #49

Are you a fat woman? Are you a beta of aryan stock?

"This would be a world beating formula. As far as i know, NO ONE is following this fomula today -even though it is very attractive for most billionaires to die knowing that they will have hundreds of thousands of offspring with super high iq's. Perhaps some billionaires are doing this secretly"

Nerd cliff, nerd cliff, nerd cliff. 6 feet tall is manly, 7 feet tall looks kind of freakish, 8 feet tall you need leg braces or can't walk. (Remember Robert Wadlow? He wanted to be a lawyer and passed the bar exam, but his size was too distracting.) As Roissy can testify, IQs over 140 hurt you in the dating world.

Of course, raising the average IQ to 110 or so the way the Jews did isn't a bad idea; you get more of your population in the 120ish sweet spot, and people with IQs of 150 are less trouble than people with IQs of 50.

Back to arguing with Hitler fans (why am I doing this instead of getting laid? Cause I'm a geek, that's why)

"Good stuff. There's certainly nothing inferior about slavs. I'm going to St. Petersburg to continue my study of the language next semester."
Yeah, but he still wanted to enslave your people...hello...you really want to be ruled by Nazis? They only cared about Germans and considered Slavs untermenschen...better to have your own country, I think...

As for Slavs being inferior...you guys certainly seem to have the math stuff nailed. How many great mathematicians were from Eastern Europe? I'm trying to remember all the Russian names I heard in statistics class...Kolmogorov, Lobachevsky, Chebyshev, Markov... If it hadn't been for Communism there probably would be internet startups galore in Russia. The problem is the social disorganization, I think...sometimes you just can't get out from behind history.

"I will take everything we hear about WWII with a grain of salt as long as there are people in jail for questioning the official story."
I think Holocaust denial laws are stupid too (it's not illegal to claim Napoleon was British) but Hitler was no friend of the Slavs. If you're a big believer in Slavic culture, I'd remind you that Hitler despised Russians and wiped out culture in Poland when he conquered.

"As far as if the world would've been a better place had Hitler won consider that the current dysgenic path we're on is a road to extinction. We take control of our breeding, through classical eugenics or genetic engineeting or intelligence/beauty disappear from the universe forever. If a man or movement understands that I can forgive a lot."
I suppose. The Nazis were aware of the well-educated breeding less etc. Of course, their bloody-minded approach to eugenics pretty much tarnished it for the next 65 years (and counting). But we're assuming they'd won. Like I said, if you're German, you'd be better off. But if you are in fact Slavic, you'd probably be a miserable illiterate peasant cleaning floors for some SS man in Pomerania.

It's just occurred to me that this thread is a very amusing example of Godwin's Law. We started talking about fat women and now...Hitler.

Were European-Jewish women the only group in world history not to use physical dominance as a main criteria in selecting men? What about Asian women?

Also, would it be fair to say that today's Jewish American women have more in common with women in the general population than their ancestors when it comes to sexual selection? I say that because I once read an article where Jewish women were complaining that Jewish men, especially the ones single and available, were too short and not athletic enough.

"Nazis? They only cared about Germans"
That is not true. Nazis cared about all Western romanic germanic people. For the Nazis, as I have already said, the people from other Western European countries were equals and were treated fairly under the war. There is a reason why some SS units were full of French, Dutch and Scandinavian citizens. They believed in the reestablishment of the Roman Germanic empire.
The Nazis main fault was not to recognize slaves and Ashkenazi jews as full whites. In fact, for Nazis, the jews were scum which needed to be exterminated. A mistake newer pro white organizations are not doing. (although a lot of them still exclude jews).

The simple fact on the table is that european jews ran a selective breeding program in which the absolute highest IQ young men got to have 12 children while the lower IQ young men got to have no children.

They repeated this for hundreds of years with spectacular results that are visible today.

As far as i know, there is no other group in the world that did this - no other group in world history that managed to have the high IQ young men have massively greater numbers of kids than the lower than normal and average IQ

I throw this out to the crowd here - can anyone else name me such an example?


I get the sense that in some religions EVERYONE is encouraged to have as many kids as possible.

I also get the sense that in some areas the men that are rich get to have a lot of kids and the men that are poor get to have none.

But the fantastic thing about the jewish example is that the deck was constantly being re shuffled - with a new set of the smartest select few selected each generation.

as i said, i am interested in knowing if this happened anywhere else with any other group or is it truly un precedented


(by the way it is possible but not proven that the christians of europe did the exact opposite and took some of the highest iq men out of the breeding stock by making them catholic priests. I do not know for sure whether this is true, but if you can prove that half the super high iq christian men in each generation were made in to priests, that would have pushed christian iq down a fair bit in europe - but again i do not claim this is true just opening it to discussion)

Leaving aside all this oral diarrahea about Hitler and the Nazis and Jewish IQ's, let me point out that I looked at the government publication that Steve Sailer cites, and I am now on a **HUGE** ego trip. My height is just about at the mean for white men in my age category. Where it gets interesting is looking at weight and waist measurement. My weight is somewhere between the 50th and 75th percentiles, though closer to the 50th, but what really thrills me is that my waist measurement is **less** than the 25th percentile.

You cannot begin to imagine what a gigantic ego boost this is.

@Peter:
Were you really that fat during your youth?

"@Peter:
Were you really that fat during your youth?"

At 5'10" I weighed mostly in the 245 - 250# range. I reached this weight when I was about 17 or 18 and stayed there until about five years ago.

I don't recall ever actually measuring my waist, but I wore pants with a 40" waist and had to wear them pretty low to fit.

The CDC BMI calculator says I'm overweight, yet people tell me I'm "skinny".

The last statistics I saw shows Mississippi ranks #1 in obesity and Colorado ranks last. Having the highest black population explains Miss being the fatest, would elevation have anything to do with Colorado's thinness?

"It's just occurred to me that this thread is a very amusing example of Godwin's Law. We started talking about fat women and now...Hitler."

Does it count under Godwin's Law when Hitler is brought up positively by more than one of a conversation's participants?

"The CDC BMI calculator says I'm overweight, yet people tell me I'm "skinny"."

BMI is misleading for many people. In particular, people with a lot of muscle and/or large bone structures can have high BMI's even when quite fit and trim. Waist-hip ratio is probably a more accurate measurement.

"hat is not true. Nazis cared about all Western romanic germanic people. For the Nazis, as I have already said, the people from other Western European countries were equals and were treated fairly under the war. There is a reason why some SS units were full of French, Dutch and Scandinavian citizens. They believed in the reestablishment of the Roman Germanic empire."

No, I goofed. You're right about that. Hitler actually thought the Norwegians were more pure Aryans and encouraged his soldiers to have children with Norwegian women. (You can imagine what happened to the kids after the war.)

BTW, newer pro-white organizations, at least in Europe and the US, are strongly anti-semitic. It's quite possible that _in Argentina_ this is not so much the case; from what I read Peron wasn't strongly anti-semitic. South African whites also accepted Jews, from what I recall (and Israel was one of the last nations to break ties with them!). Italians also don't look very Germanic to me, but it would be kind of hard to have a movement that excludes Italians in Argentina. ;)

But I don't think Slavs had anything to look forward to...quite frankly, if Hitler hadn't had racism against other European peoples to draw on, it's not clear how he would have justified all those invasions. I mean, where's he going to get the living space from? It's not like he had black people to whip up hatred against, and he was allied with the Japanese...

"Does it count under Godwin's Law when Hitler is brought up positively by more than one of a conversation's participants?"
ROTFL! Yeah, that is different. Godwins' law assumes the participants think Hitler is _bad_. It doesn't apply to Nazis, I think. Maybe this is the Godwin's Law, Half Sigma/HBD corollary: as the length of any thread increases, the chances of a *positive* comparison to Hitler or the Nazis approaches one!

Gannon, no I say that society wide, teen girls and teen boys are not required to grow up, and as a consequence for the sake of teen BOYS as well as girls, both of whom will indeed grow up, teen boys and teen girls should be forced to spend a lot more time together without having sex.

So that each can "learn" about each other. Currently, teen boys grow up to young men without much interaction with girls, know very little about them, and either idolize women or resent them as they grow older, neither being healthy.

Teen girls, for their part, don't get real understanding of male weakness and strength, and form unsound opinions about what makes a proper lifetime partner (basically strength, status, power/dominance, all of which are far too fleeting for most people to be the basis of a happy marriage).

One of the reasons why marriage has declined starts in the bad social skills among girls and boys that carry over into adulthood.

I do think marriage at younger ages should be encouraged, as well as lots and lots of help with childcare and education for women, no penalty for the mommy track.

I think that marriage at age 21-23 is likely ideal, from a society perspective. While girls CAN reproduce at age 17 or so, it's unlikely society can be shifted enough for that to happen. I want the possible not the ideal.

I think with enough socialization with teen boys (no sex) from ages 13-18, and then College, young women in their early twenties will have enough maturity, and judgment, to make appropriate choices in husbands.

Though realistically, we are in the age of single motherhood, and we are likely looking at merely single motherhood at that age range.

But even that would be far better. Women have greatly reduced risk of breast cancer if they have a kid in their twenties, before age 30. Women with no kids have the highest risk, then women with first kids post 30, then finally women with first kids before 30. And as you note, this allows women to have reduced risk of birth defects, far less difficulty in pregnancy, easier time for childcare, and so on.

I think there will be far too much social resistance from parents wanting at least a BA/BS for their daughters for teen sex/parenthood to be a reality. However, 21-23 is certainly do-able, society wise, and particularly if women who take time off for kids early are given respect, social standing, and the paid opportunity to return to school for Masters or whatever, much of which is just "SWPL" social mongering, but does have it's place.

One thing that I find encouraging about Tina Fey, is that she is a mother, and is the epitimoe of SWPL. The model of the working mom, stuff like that is more important than we know.

Regarding the Fashion industry: few are Jews, nearly all are gay men of either Persian, or European (Italian, French, German, etc.) or WASP descent. Ralph Lauren, Armani, Marc Jacobs, Versace, etc. would come to mind.

Women have awarded Gay Men as arbiters of what is cool and fashionable. Single women especially seem very fond of gay men, I don't know why.

The Hollywood casting, writing, directing, and producing ranks are definitely over-represented by gay men. I would not cite Ovitz's "Gay Mafia" but the over-representation exists.

Hitler was in fact a moron. Only someone profoundly stupid would have chosen to fight a two front war, with Napoleon's example in front of him, let alone the Kaiser's.

Hitler presided over a war machine that had both horses and the ME 262, the first Jet fighter. The finest machine gun and bolt action rifles. Moreover, what he wanted (a European Empire) was monumentally stupid, and manifestly impossible unless he rolled double sixes every time.

He had to defeat a Maritime empire that was still extant, with a powerful ally in the US with near unlimited wealth, manpower, and resources, that was nearly impossible to reach with his own power. For what? Ruling Poland and European Russia to the East, and France and the Benelux and Norway to the West? Who cared?

If Hitler had died on the Western Front (too bad he did not) in 1917, the world would have been a far better place. There would have been no destructive World War Two, merely a rightist Germany with some sort of Franco type, Europe divided, with all the nations unable to conquer each other (even with modern technology, geography made Hitler's idiot fantasy of becoming another Caesar Augustus monumentally self-defeating). Europe is a tough place to conquer, every next valley has a river hard to ford, lots of defense, easy to make the attacker pay. There's a reason it has been split apart into separate kingdoms, countries, peoples, and such for most of it's existence (only the Roman Empire, circa 50 BC to 200 AD, really, and Charlemagne, and later Napoleon created very short-lived "Empires" ... Hitler's Reich did not even last as long Napoleon's).

Meanwhile Europe got a permanent lobotomy (the Holocaust) and lost most of it's critical young men a generation after the unspeakable losses of WWI.

In short Hitler took one of the most talented, high-achieving nations in Europe, after it had recovered from the slaughter of the Thirty Years War (a third of German speakers died) over the centuries, and turned it and Europe's brightest people, the Jews, who were no threat to anyone and the subject of immemorial persecution, into a giant charnel house. Not one brick was on top another in Germany, for the most part.

-------

As for teen girls, I don't think it's socially possible for teen girls to make choices, parents understandably want them to be going to college not raising babies at 17. I DO think that marriage and family at age 21-23 is an achievable social goal, particularly if motherhood is given respect, the Mommy Track is given more prestige, and social assistance for both child care and going back to school to get a Masters is accepted and respected among Middle/Upper Class people.

Even if we only end up with a society of single women who have kids at age 21-23 instead of 35, that is a good thing. It greatly reduces the chance of breast cancer, for women (having kid before age 30) and reduces birth defects. It's also easier to raise a kid at age 23 than age 35. More energy.

I am most concerned however, with women/girl's socialization. I think girls need to be "forced" along with boys to socialize far more with age-peers and develop healthy (but non-sexual) interactions so each can form healthy and realistic pictures of each other.

Now, young boys grow up either idolizing and resenting young women, neither is healthy. Young women form immature pictures of what men can and cannot be like, and that is not healthy.

Achievable social goal: young men and women ages 13-22 form healthy, non-sexual relationships (13-18) and understand each other, are encouraged to marry (for women, age 21-23, for men say age 26-29). There would still be that age gap, probably a healthy one, but there would far less sex for girls (and boys) and far more understanding.

Particularly among women. I don't see good decision making skills built up among either women or men, but for women especially the choice of father and husband for their kids and themselves is critical and IMHO can only be learned through non-sexual contact with males ages 13-18 when learning is set down (about what is a good guy and what is not). Risk-free since there would be no sex then.

I do agree that it is entirely biologically possible for young women to have sex and kids at ages 15-17 or so. It is probably not wise social policy for them to do so, however, given the above, and certainly is not an achievable social goal. As opposed to the social expectation of marriage in the early twenties.

One cannot overlook a parent's ambition for a young girl. It's understandable. It could and should be harnessed IMHO to develop more healthy social relationships.

Hmm, double post, my earlier post did not show up.

Sorry. Stupid computer!

Yeah, kids at 30 isn't the best thing biologically speaking. The problem is that it's hard to get by on one income these days, especially for the middle and working classes.

Whether it's working women since the seventies driving down the price of labor, increased competition from abroad, or a decline in labor unions, I don't know; probably a mix of all of the above. But there's nothing we can do about the rise of China and India (remember, they've got nukes), and the other two changes are supported by different sides of the aisle.

"If Hitler had died on the Western Front (too bad he did not) in 1917, the world would have been a far better place." -- Whiskey

Agreed that Hitler was a disaster for Europe, but I don't believe that Europe's fate woudl have been so rosy absent his reign.

You're not mentioning the fact that Nazi Germany did not exist in a vacuum. Just to the east of the Bug River was Stalin's Soviet Union, with its own designs on Europe. The 6 million Jews that Hitler murderedmay or may not have been "Europe's brightest people." They were, however, in overwhelming numbers, Soviet sympathisers and would likely have played a major role in advancing Communism in Europe, had the USSR invaded Poalnd, Germany, and beyond.

WW2 was a tragedy in epic terms, but it's a mistake to pin it all on one provincial failed art student. With or without him, some kind of a calamity was going to happen.

"But there's nothing we can do about the rise of China and India (remember, they've got nukes)"-- SFG

I'm not too worried about China, absent any direct military aggression they may direct against Europe or North America, an unlikely scenario. Let's also not forget that they have a looming demographic disaster.

India I'm less worried about. India is a mishmash of quarelling tribes, religions, and ethnic groups, incapable of any kind of coordinated action.

Muslims/Arabs alone are nothing to worry about either. Or Africans, or any one else, from the West's perspective.

What we do have to worry about is the enemy at the top of our own society, the traitor globalist class that is actively floodinig Western countries with said Indians, Chinese, Africans, Muslims, et al.

"I don't believe that Europe's fate woudl have been so rosy absent his reign."

If Hitler had not come to power, it is probable either the military or another nationalist party would have taken power and allied with the West against Soviet Russia.

Many British and French elites were hopeful that they could form an alliance with Hitler against the USSR but they never came to an agreement with Hitler, whereas, say, if a Wehrmacht general was running Germany in the 1930's, he would probably have followed Bismarck's advice not to make too many enemies at once and agreed to ally with Britain and France.

Given how incompetent the early Red Army was, a non-Nazi Germany allied with the West should have easily been able to defeat an invading Red Army.

"You're not mentioning the fact that Nazi Germany did not exist in a vacuum. Just to the east of the Bug River was Stalin's Soviet Union, with its own designs on Europe. The 6 million Jews that Hitler murderedmay or may not have been "Europe's brightest people." They were, however, in overwhelming numbers, Soviet sympathisers and would likely have played a major role in advancing Communism in Europe, had the USSR invaded Poalnd, Germany, and beyond."
He could have just thrown all the Communists in jail (which he did, or executed them). It's not even clear that moderate lefties were such a threat; remember the SPD collaborated in the suppression of the KPD.

"What we do have to worry about is the enemy at the top of our own society, the traitor globalist class that is actively floodinig Western countries with said Indians, Chinese, Africans, Muslims, et al."
Well, you can't blame the 'rootless cosmopolitans' in Europe, there aren't a lot left. The actual rootless cosmopolitans--the Harvard-educated New Class which is, of course, heavily Jewish--are a problem. I am in favor of cutting down on all this immigration, but you don't even mention Mexicans, which are the main group that would induce a demographic transition (and hasn't been assimilating well). Most African immigrants (the ones coming over now) seem pretty law-abiding and hard-working, which does give me a little bit of pause with some of the race realism around here. There aren't a lot of Indians or Chinese and I don't see a problem with the way they've comported themselves. Heck, Razib even digs Greece and Rome... I'm not that obsessed with racial purity as long as you can turn people into Americans, and that seems to be happening. They may have assimilated into the New Class, yes, but you can't say they haven't been playing by the rules. America didn't perish with the Italians and Irish and it won't perish with the Indians and Chinese.

I'm not that obsessed with racial purity as long as you can turn people into Americans, and that seems to be happening.

If a bunch of Germans can get a Haitian man in the 1930s and 1940s to believe that Hitler is great and that Nazism would "save" Haiti, then I think you can get moderate to high IQ immigrants to aspire to American values and beliefs. I've always found it weird that the white nationalists and some race realists have viewed white culture as weak and fragmented when, IMHO, it's much stronger and easily exportable. Hell, there are kids in Kenya singing "Happy Birthday" and Muslims drinking localized versions of soft drinks while Asians aspire to drink Champagne and buy Western luxury products while Caribbeans feel the need to visit the capitals of their former colonial rulers in a Mecca like fashion. Deep down inside, everybody wants to be a little white.

Enough Nazis, what about the fatties?

The comments to this entry are closed.