Right. There doesn’t have to be, nor is there, necessarily a perfect correspondence between earlier racialists/Fascists and modern ones. For example, white nationalists, racialists, or Neo-Nazis today aren’t viciously anti-Slav like the Nazis were, and Eastern Euros and Eastern Euro-Americans are accepted for the most part. No doubt the immediate circumstances and goals of the German Nazis had a part in the severe anti-Slavic attitude. Hitler wanted the Slavic lands as German lebensraum, so severe anti-Slavicism served this end.

It’s not like the same wouldn’t hold true of overtly concave noses, which, while very uncommon among humans today, are probably a sort of extreme ethnic trait of whites. (lightly concaved noses are common among alot of northern europeans)

Perhaps that trait just isn’t well expressed among whites, even if it is an ethnic trait.

Basically saying that epicanthic folds and flattened facial profiles seen in a number of genetic disorders was a genetic degeneration caused by mongolian ancestry, who were some terrible, terrible people back in the middle ages.)

The leader’s answer? Something along the lines of “It doesn’t matter what they thought of us, their message of racial preservation holds true for anybody.”

Pretty damn pragmatic, I’d say.

One last thing about the swedes- thanks for clarifying your views on the Turks, Truth. Sorry again about accusing you of nordic fetishism.

In terms of representative frequencies, there’s like 6 million people in Sweden, while 75 million in Turkey.

Turks have always struck me as being rather swarthy too, and most of those students were light skinned.

Thanks for providing the link to the Swedes. Very interesting. And I agree with you, they are not that much different from the European average in phenotype, contrary to claims of some Nordicists.

You also make good points about the Turks and the ‘photogenaity’ (if that is a word) regarding the anthroscape. Overall, I did not mean to imply that the Turks were necessarily ‘ugly’, just very strange looking, as you said, particularly the eye proximity and rather flat noses.

When it comes to aestethics, I often hear about how wonderful swedish women. (even though their great femininity would imply swedish men are highly feminine, which they aren’t.) Although these can’t be particularly representative (although probably more than those Turkish university students), I’m not too impressed by these swedes: http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/1388482/1/

They look pretty much no different from most other european ethnic groups. Maybe the swedes have somewhat more symmetrical facial features or whatever, and a somewhat lower frequency of overtly projecting noses and overtly convex noses (better known as hook noses), but that still doesn’t make them too special.

And older swedish women, man, they age terribly.

It just comes back down to how the average looks of white women are overrated as hell, IMO.

Overall, those turks usually ranged from decent looking to just, well, strange. I noticed alot of them had very closely set eyes (odd considering how alot of mongoloid peoples have rather widely set eyes) and very narrow, compact noses- once again kind of odd considering how so many mongoloid peoples have relatively wider noses.

Kazakhs have a much higher frequency of central asian admixture (they’re close to 50-50 caucasian and central asian), and from my impressions, they look alot better than those Turkish students. Rather good looking people, I’d say.

By the way, Turkey also has a considerable genetic contribution from middle easterners and the like.

It wasn’t exactly a secret.

Exactly Richard, “just” 20% Asiatic, and look how relatively physically and mentally/emotionally different the average modern-day “Turk” is from the rest of the European peoples, in spite of their gene pool being 80% percent Caucasoid. Yeesh.