which muslim race has the most beautiful women?

[Apollyon]

My apologies. I didn't know you are this serious about being white.

We brown people are happy with being brown.

Thank you.

The nations with highest crimes are those most that allow mixing as in Brazil, etc.

Your question is not a question but a failed attempt to downgrade Pashtun's as South Indians, if those that resemble them should move to porkistan or further south. Whites are being discriminated by immigrants who live on their science and technology.

Back on topic, scientist found Europoids and feminism with fair women, hence your "choices"<<.

[Apollyon]

well the bad news for you is that the darker skin people are rising. India is rising, Africa is rising, no wonder whites like you are so insecure now

The problem is the lack of respect that none whites have towards whites, but they have no problem recieving Aid from White nations. The worst part is lack of respect for white history or rather "lack of". If I share ancient Aryan history and correlate it to Pashtuns, you darker inferiors attack because you have history of freeloading, migrating, over breeding, lack of historica or scientific comprehension.

Back on topic, it has been argued that the most feminine women are Northern Nations.

[Zarim]

It's just melanin people. This is such a non-issue...

[Apollyon]

It's just melanin people. This is such a non-issue...

The Panjabi warrior with his Hindu master has entered to deny Genetic science, call it "out of south Asia".

Nice try everyone's skin darkness "to a limit" but has zero effect on their gmaping.

What makes some people so much more alluring than others?
Roger Dobson discovers that good looks and sexiness are determined before we're even born

Attractive people have it all. As babies they get less chastisement, more cuddles, and better presents.

At school they are more popular, have more friends and are less likely to be bullied. And as adults, they have more sexual partners, and are more likely to be married, have a good job, and earn a higher salary – around 10 per cent more than plain Joes and Janes. They are also perceived to be healthier, smarter, and more trustworthy, and if they go into politics they are more likely to be elected. But why are some people seen as attractive and others not? And why have we evolved to find some features attractive and others not?
According to new research, it may all be down to oxidative stress and antioxidants. Psychologists have discovered that men who were rated as the most physically attractive by women have the lowest levels of markers of oxidative stress.
"These findings have several important implications," says psychologist Dr Steven Gangestad who led the study. "They fit in with the idea that women evolved to find particular features attractive because those features are related to low levels of oxidative stress."
Attractiveness has long been a source of fascination for psychologists, anthropologists, behavioural scientists – and singletons. Some have investigated the many life advantages that come with attractiveness, while others have looked at whether or not it is a learned criterion. One school of thought has it that attraction to specific features is not learned, but has evolved over time as a way of distinguishing the virile from the weak. This evolutionary theory is backed up by much research, including studies showing that newborn babies have a preference for attractive faces. It's suggested that physical attractiveness may serve as a biological signal of good health. In ancestral time, being able to spot an attractive, and therefore fit, partner would have carried a huge survival advantage.
Many studies have looked at individual features of attractiveness, from blonde hair and long legs to height, weight, waists and shoulders, but underlying much of the work is what is known as fluctuating asymmetry. Studies have shown that people who have bilateral asymmetry, where features on both sides of the body are the same, are judged to be more attractive.
In people with fluctuating asymmetry some body parts are not symmetrical, and one theory is that this imbalance results from something going wrong at key developmental stages. Fluctuating asymmetry is thought to be visible evidence that the person was exposed to some kind of stressor during early development which he or she was not robust enough to withstand. In evolutionary and survival terms, such a man or woman would be less robust and less attractive as a potential partner.
A possible cause of that fluctuating asymmetry is exposure to oxidative stress in the womb which interferes with proper development. The embryo requires energy to develop properly. As cells use oxygen to make energy, they can create free radicals. These are unstable molecules that can have chemical reactions with other molecules, causing the cell damage known as oxidative stress. Free radicals can be kept in check by antioxidants, but if there is an overabundance of radicals, the resulting oxidative stress can damage DNA and tissue. Oxidative stress is thought to be a major cause of mutations and to play a part in ageing and a host of diseases, including cancer.


Overproduction of free radicals, and the resulting oxidative stress, can be triggered by a number of factors. Maternal smoking has been linked to higher levels, as have infections and other factors during pregnancy, including maternal diabetes and obesity.
In the new research reported in the journal Animal Behaviour, psychologists at the University of New Mexico looked for signs of oxidative stress in men aged 18 to 38.


Ten bilateral features of the men – ear width, ear height, wrist width, elbow width, lengths of four fingers, ankle breadth and foot breadth – were measured and compared. The men's urine was measured for markers of oxidative stress and for hormones, and they were quizzed about any birth complications, such as late or premature birth, which can increase levels of oxidative stress. Finally, a group of women were asked to rate images of the men's bodies and faces for physical attractiveness.


Results show that men who were rated as attractive by the women had significantly lower levels of oxidative stress. And men with more symmetrical bodies had lower levels and were rated as more attractive. Men who had experienced birth problems had higher levels of oxidative-stress markers.
Although the results are robust, there are many other theories. Several researchers have been looking at specific body shapes and dimensions as markers of desirable qualities in a mate. Various body ratios, especially that of the waist-to-hip size, have also been examined. Some studies have shown that men are especially attracted to women with a low hip ratio – small waists and large hips. Just why remains elusive, although suggestions have included better child-bearing abilities, improved health, and greater survival. One University of California study showed that women with larger hips perform better in intelligence tests, as do their children.


Body mass index, a measure of both height and weight, is another dimension that has attracted the attention of researchers. A ratio of 20.85 has been found to be most attractive in women, because, say researchers, it is seen by men as sign of good health and good reproductive potential.
Legs have not escaped the gaze of researchers either. Studies have shown that long legs are preferred in women, while men with legs the same length as the torso are preferred by women. One theory is that long legs are a sign of fitness, with some research suggesting that tall women have wider pelvises than shorter women, allowing easier births and higher birth-weight babies. Longer relative leg length is also associated with reduced risks of heart disease, cancer and diabetes, and lower blood pressure.
It has been argued that women are attracted to men with relatively shorter legs because it makes them look more muscular, and, in evolutionary terms, more useful as a mate.


This ancestral attraction to action men may also be why facial scars in men are seen as attractive, as long as they are the right kind of scar. A facial scar, preferably one that looks like it was inflicted in anger, increases the attractiveness of a man for a short-term relationship, according to a Liverpool University study.
"Women may have rated scarring as an attractive quality for short-term relationships because they found it be a symbol of masculinity, a feature that is linked to high testosterone levels and an indicator of good genetic qualities that can be passed on to offspring," says Dr Rob Burriss, one of the authors of the study. "Men without scars, however, could be seen as more caring and therefore more suitable for long-term relationships."
Elements of personality and behaviour can be attractive too. New research has found genetic evidence that selfless or altruistic behaviour may have evolved because it was one of the qualities our ancestors looked for in a mate. Results suggest that, in our evolutionary past, those with a stronger preference towards altruistic behaviour mated more frequently with more altruistic people.


"The expansion of the human brain would have greatly increased the cost of raising children, so it would have been important for our ancestors to choose mates both willing and able to be good, long-term parents. Displays of altruism could well have provided accurate clues to this, and so led to a link between human altruism and sexual selection," says Dr Tim Phillips whose study with colleagues from the University of Nottingham and Institute of Psychiatry involved identical and non-identical female twins.
Many traits have been investigated for their role in attractiveness, but one question has repeatedly captured the attention of researchers down the years – why do many men prefer blondes? Over time, many explanations have been put forward. It has been suggested that men prefer rounder faces and that blonde hair is kinder to the outline of the face, or that natural blondes have softer skin, which men find attractive. Another suggestion is that blondes were a genetic mutation which men evolved to value as a status symbol because of the original scarcity.


But according to research out of the University of California, the answer is that blonde hair, like the peacock's tail or the rooster's bright-red plumage, is a sign of fitness. The evolutionary reason why men are attracted to blondes is that the hair and skin colour make it easier to spot problems. Anaemia, jaundice, skin infections, cyanosis (a sign of heart disease) and some other conditions, are, these researchers say, much easier to detect in fair-skinned individuals than in brunettes.
So, in ancestral times when bugs and infections were thick on the ground, there was an evolutionary need to be able to pick a mate who would be healthy and have healthy offspring – hence the preference for blondes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-scientific-rules-of-attraction-2115495.html

[Karachi]

The problem is the lack of respect that none whites have towards whites, but they have no problem recieving Aid from White nations. The worst part is lack of respect for white history or rather "lack of". If I share ancient Aryan history and correlate it to Pashtuns, you darker inferiors attack because you have history of freeloading, migrating, over breeding, lack of historica or scientific comprehension.

Back on topic, it has been argued that the most feminine women are Northern Nations.

look at all the civilizations of the ancient world, be it Egypt, Mesopotamia, Indus valley, were they white civilization? no, they were all made by darker people. Even so called Aryans you are so proud off were not civilized until they settled down on the Indus valley plains, that is where books like Rig Veda were made and Vedic civilization started. Europe, especially northern parts was known as the land of Barbarians up until only 1000 years ago

[Apollyon]

look at all the civilizations of the ancient world, be it Egypt, Mesopotamia, Indus valley, were they white civilization? no, they were all made by darker people. Even so called Aryans you are so proud off were not civilized until they settled down on the Indus valley plains, that is where books like Rig Veda were made and Vedic civilization started. Europe, especially northern parts was known as the land of Barbarians up until only 1000 years ago

North Africa is closer to middle eastern race, Vedic Civilization may have been built by ancient Aryans no one lived then we simply don't know. Sanskrit was written by Aryans which Hindus read. Zoroaster, Persia, Rome, Greek all White civilizations. The founding fathers of science reason and logic. Mesopotamia was white ever hear of Babylon? The darker races migrated into Rome, Persia etc seeking exactly what is happening today in west.. the light of the world.

[Da Bannu Mazdigar]

[MENTION=4832]Apollyon[/MENTION] this guy is seriously obssesd with white skin.

i am sure if he somehow found out that his God is dark.I am sure he will even leave his religion.


get and life and if your black than it doesnt mean you should indirectly have love for white skin.

There is no Good to be white

[Al Hanif]

North Africa is closer to middle eastern race, Vedic Civilization may have been built by ancient Aryans no one lived then we simply don't know. Sanskrit was written by Aryans which Hindus read. Zoroaster, Persia, Rome, Greek all White civilizations. The founding fathers of science reason and logic. Mesopotamia was white ever hear of Babylon? The darker races migrated into Rome, Persia etc seeking exactly what is happening today in west.. the light of the world.

The majority of North Africans are whiter than the majority of Persians but we don't consider ourselves whites because we don't have an inferiority complex.

Besides this, Persians and Greeks are well known for being homosexuals.

Their litterature is full of homoerotism and Greek is synonymous with gay in Europe.

Iran is the country with the most gender surgery operations per capita.

Bacha Bazi is part of Persian culture.

In the colloseum of Roma, Romans had sex with animals.


Mesopotamians weren't white, they were brown people.




Oh and shall I add that the "light of the world" was living into darkness before we civilized them.

We colonized Spain and Portugal for 900 years and enslaved British people, Irish and other Europeans.


Even semitic Arabs conquered Persia and Greece is now darker than Altaic Turkey.

You have darker skin than me and I have more European features than you.

And I don't consider you as white. Neither are Persians white.

Have a nice day, wannabe "white" guy.

[Karachi]

North Africa is closer to middle eastern race, Vedic Civilization may have been built by ancient Aryans no one lived then we simply don't know. Sanskrit was written by Aryans which Hindus read. Zoroaster, Persia, Rome, Greek all White civilizations. The founding fathers of science reason and logic. Mesopotamia was white ever hear of Babylon? The darker races migrated into Rome, Persia etc seeking exactly what is happening today in west.. the light of the world.

Firstly Middle eastern race isn't white, they have nothing to do with whites of Europe. Aryans may have been white, however they didn't make the Sanskrit language or Vedic Books, all of them were made with in the current boundaries of South Asia by their descendants who longed mixed with dark Indians, thats why Sanskrit isn't spoken anywhere outside south asian boundary, aryans brought proto indo aryan language to south asia, thats about it. Egypt was not a white civilization, in fact recent evidence suggests that the earliest Egyptians may have been Dark Africans or at least mixed Black/middle eastern. Mesopotamia was never white, prove it. Even Rome/Greeks were not really white as in (northern European), they were a tanned Mediterranean group and actually had much more cultural links with Middle East/North Africa, then rest of Europe

[randolph85]

master race

[Apollyon]

Firstly Middle eastern race isn't white, they have nothing to do with whites of Europe. Aryans may have been white, however they didn't make the Sanskrit language or Vedic Books, all of them were made with in the current boundaries of South Asia by their descendants who longed mixed with dark Indians, thats why Sanskrit isn't spoken anywhere outside south asian boundary, aryans brought proto indo aryan language to south asia, thats about it. Egypt was not a white civilization, in fact recent evidence suggests that the earliest Egyptians may have been Dark Africans or at least mixed Black/middle eastern. Mesopotamia was never white, prove it. Even Rome/Greeks were not really white as in (northern European), they were a tanned Mediterranean group and actually had much more cultural links with Middle East/North Africa, then rest of Europe

Sanskrit was written in Afghanistan Pashto region second option Northeastern Iran. Sanskirt has close affinities to Avesta, the closet language to Avesta is Pashtu.

Dark Indians carry Aboriginal and Afro genetics, the north Indians who carry R1A is due to Aryan slavery as noted in Vedic Hindu texts, confirmed by Indian scholars, who are desperately re writing ancient Indian history as 10,000 years old, vs 2000 BC Aryan Invasion.

The Ponjabs are the Jat people the birth of filthy Gypsies, who converted to Islam or Christianity in Europe.

According to modern science, peoples from Persia-Afghan-Arab-Iraq included, North African share close genetic makeup supporting the out of Kurgan region migration theory hence their similar genetics.

[Apollyon]

The majority of North Africans are whiter than the majority of Persians but we don't consider ourselves whites because we don't have an inferiority complex.

Besides this, Persians and Greeks are well known for being homosexuals.

Their litterature is full of homoerotism and Greek is synonymous with gay in Europe.

Iran is the country with the most gender surgery operations per capita.

Bacha Bazi is part of Persian culture.

In the colloseum of Roma, Romans had sex with animals.


Mesopotamians weren't white, they were brown people.




Oh and shall I add that the "light of the world" was living into darkness before we civilized them.

We colonized Spain and Portugal for 900 years and enslaved British people, Irish and other Europeans.


Even semitic Arabs conquered Persia and Greece is now darker than Altaic Turkey.

You have darker skin than me and I have more European features than you.

And I don't consider you as white. Neither are Persians white.

Have a nice day, wannabe "white" guy.

The confusion on your part is an assault by inferior people not really your fault, Hindus and lower cast wish to rewrite history, this is an all out secular attack a revenge for the previous invading whites.

1. Noah was white
2. Abraham was white
3. Mohamed pbuh was white
4 Arabs are white
5 Persians are white
6. N Africans are white

I can continue and give you historical geo-demographic studies* refer to the Macedonian thread for deeper focus.

regards

[Apollyon]

master race

See the symbol has the Farhavar and Roman eagle, and Hindu svastic. The Aryan certificate.

Read my signature, I am never wrong and the good thing is your learning from me.

[Apollyon]

The punjabi vote wasn't done by pakistani punjabis, it was done by sikhs

The Europeans were right for expelling the Jat population (Ponjabi Gypse) out of Germany and Europe.

[Karachi]

Sanskrit was written in Afghanistan Pashto region second option Northeastern Iran. Sanskirt has close affinities to Avesta, the closet language to Avesta is Pashtu.

Dark Indians carry Aboriginal and Afro genetics, the north Indians who carry R1A is due to Aryan slavery as noted in Vedic Hindu texts, confirmed by Indian scholars, who are desperately re writing ancient Indian history as 10,000 years old, vs 2000 BC Aryan Invasion.

The Ponjabs are the Jat people the birth of filthy Gypsies, who converted to Islam or Christianity in Europe.

According to modern science, peoples from Persia-Afghan-Arab-Iraq included, North African share close genetic makeup supporting the out of Kurgan region migration theory hence their similar genetics.

Then why isn't there any evidence of Sanskrit being present there in those regions? surely there must be some archeological evidence. Much of Sanskrit and Rig veda was made in what is from Peshawar to Haryana area, there is a lot evidence from with in the Sanskrits books, which give the locations.


also your last post regarding genetics is retarded, genetically all those people you mentioned are very different