CH came up with a fecund hypothesis as a comment to a comment on the post “Exquisite European Beauty,” dated 6 September and made it the crux of its own post “Bone Zones,” dated 7 September 2017.
for reasons that are a bit beyond my ken atm, striking white female beauty seems to emerge more often and with greater intensity of flourish from mountainous regions. though not always. if we designate hot spots of white female beauty — call them Boner Zones — then the big three would be the Italian Alps, the Ukraine steppe, and the Baltic seacoast.
To that a reader of CH added:
Remember, ABD: Always be Darwinian.
Why would female beauty emerge anywhere? Because there is a shortage of men, and women have to compete for men, which is not the usual thing. Where do women have to compete for men? Where the men are engaging extremely dangerous occupations and lots of them get killed, occurred in Northwestern Europe over the centuries. Working in the mountains, logging, mining, fishing in the North Sea, all very dangerous ways to make a living. Or in places where there has been sustained violent conflict and huge numbers of men were killed off. Beautiful women in Kiev? World War I, Red Revolution, Holodomor, Great Purge, Barbarossa, Nazi occupation … . All of Eastern Europe is similar. The Baltics were especially hard hit.
Female beauty is nature reasserting life and fertility in the face of bloodshed and slaughter.
Sadly to me, sheeple left and right can’t be objectively logical and adapt their emotions accordingly.
But…fantastic hypothesis!
I think I can improve it somewhat. In a word: wealth.
Female beauty means high value as breading stock. ‘…the big three would be the Italian Alps, the Ukraine steppe, and the Baltic seacoast.’ Trade between East and West dominated the progress of humanity and those areas until the Portuguese established a sea route around the Cape of Good Hope. Being productive and useful, or having that capacity, is being beautiful.
Blacks in sub-Saharan Africa have never been productive and useful to any meaningful degree. Extreme heat does things to a man’s mind. There were not animals worth domesticating either. Maybe savages eat first and ask questions later. Christopher Columbus reintroduced the horse to America, but before that Bedouins were right in the middle of Old World trade. They are the consummate savages of the world, and Caucasian. When they took black slave-concubines, they preferred, everybody preferred, Ethiopian women, women from the Horn of Africa, between Egypt and Arabia and the Red Sea, which connects to the East by land or sea. The admixture of lighter Christian and Jewish blood is a better explanation of their relative beauty, as judged by moneyed Caucasian standards, but there is the Ethiopian economy and the economies of harem master to consider as a behavior modifier of Ethiopian women.
Trade presumably ran through the Ukrainian steppe, based on its geographical location and easily traversable terrain. The Italians traded over the Alps with Germany and beyond. Think Genoa and Venice. Columbus was Genoese. The Vikings acquired wealth at least, and the listed Scandinavian occupations are both productive and manly. If the Mediterranean basin was the cradle of classical Western civilization, then the Baltic basin was the cradle of Modern civilization, the cradle of Germanic men, men less institutionally sycophantic than the Hispanic/Iberian men who started the Age of Discovery. The latter has notable infusions of Moor and Jewish blood and were not surprisingly hive-minded absolutists.
Women who are not economically useful beyond busting a nut are not as beautiful by producer standards as those who are, and in an economy without institutional welfare and control most men are gloriously saddled with being authoritative producers. Kings were saddled with the tie between economic power and military power. The economic law can be suspended but not broken or abolished. Consumption can’t exceed production by the law of conservation.
Investment in vagina by the alpha cad (of no or little cultural value) and by the beta producer (high cultural value) in mating is very different: quantity vs. quality. The standards of black men are well-know by ubiquitous anecdotal observation. All men want a physically attractive woman per the instincts, but only high-culture men who are not degenerate nobles care about female disposition and higher-order economic utility, especially if those men are of a healthy patriarchy.
Women are finicky containers, of behaviors also. I suggest that natural selection of ability at home-making and other helpmate services is not unlike natural selection for farming families. Farm men must be strong emotionally and physically, though not so much as philosophers or objective thinkers about social order. If women are selected based substantially on their economic utility to husbands (as opposed to the bureaucrats and their institutional overlords), that selective pressure is a higher order selectivity, and that means a higher order female beauty if beauty is functional capacity and functional expression.
Is Trump a higher order attractiveness to women despite being 70 and with the world’s most obvious combover? Yes, because wealth changes the biological game, for good in high culture, i.e. a patriarchy, and for bad under institutional control too big to fail. The difference is self-policed producer cooperation by voluntary agreement vs. emasculation and exploitation, to which a clique of Jews once applied the salve of Jesusology. Religion cultivates obedience as much as cohesion. Cooperation has presumably evolved and today religion is no state-of-the-art morality, ever since Aristotle died and a Jewish writer claimed that Jesus was the ‘logos’, the philosophy, the truth.
Helping the ‘victims’ of hurricanes, etc. is destructive of beauty based on competence, excellence, self-reliance, etc., but the believing Christians of the limbic locus love to virtue signal in their less plainly recognized way. I mean just look at the efforts they are making. Those efforts sealed the soft kill of my miserable life, as it turns out. Thanks, beta-drone garbage.
The best governance prevents help more than it provides it.
The enumerated powers of Congress alone per the Constitution, article 1, section 8 and the Bill of Rights are noteworthy only by what they prohibit government from doing.
Nature has been doing life for eons. The audacity of those who feel they can humanize it is quite the cowardice in disguise. Help by compulsion is the problem. Help by herd sympathies is the problem.
To the mix of beauty and wealth add high-culture cooperation, where men take the law into their own hands, verses institution control where they dare not. Call it patriarchy, call it culture, I’m not sure of what one word could represent that crucial ingredient. The two words individual accountability is what I mean. One word might be self-interest, but not from a sheeple perspective. Beauty, wealth, self-actuation: there it is.
Dynasty inbreeding and circle jerk affirmation is a known cause, if not the known cause, of dynastic exhaustion. Consider again the three geographical areas: the Italian Alps, the Ukraine steppe, and the Baltic sea coast. Consider the lack of institutional control. I don’t know if Roman women were particularly beautiful during the classical period or not, but who does? And then there would have to be factored in a reproductive lag time. The attractiveness of Roman women of the imperial period could owe to the excellence of the zeitgeist of the early Roman Republic or many others for the influx of foreign peoples.
What we see today of female beauty from the three places comes from a long history after Roman times of do-it-yourself living where cooperation was an advantage but not an imperial requirement, at least relatively speaking. Rational cooperation is not slavery, serfdom, vassalage, or vessel-age, which is why women not subjugated can only chase social ugliness and wonder what went wrong post-wall. Women are only liberated intermittently by subsidy from imperial corruption in zeitgeists of breathtaking decline. No woman wants to be without an authority figure, but she will only accept one at a time. If producer men knew and cared how their fruits would be wasted, would civilization ever get built in the first place?
Morality that makes cooperation a compulsion is no morality because it is and begets ugliness.
To patriarchy,
—‘Reality’ Doug, 7 September 2017
P.S. Our monarchist friend just posted a warning about a surprising new tactic from the institutional powers that be. As a student of history myself, I am also surprised and alarmed. It’s not like corruption creates beauty or does not create ugliness like clockwork. The emotionally damaged vessels of conditioned servitude to other organisms’ will will always be shocked. Shocked I tell ya! The instinctive will pretend to be shocked to condition hosts for dutiful sacrifice. In times of decline the rational will also pretend but harbor self-reliance.
