Classify Komimurt girl

[Ymyyakhtakh]

https://i.imgur.com/Sq7dqq2.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/YIRjDt2.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/cWuVV3T.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/eRKmlmz.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/jXSkMg5.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/XE15JTV.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/WkmleQ3.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/rZzPQ3l.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/uS7j23J.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/mhO7Wgr.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/WkA0tCc.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/mGqDDZN.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/Ug0gXAV.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/hfJtCVl.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/CMmOUjd.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/jxPwkoq.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/MxOw8O4.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/nLYF7lk.jpg

(Komimurt is one of the endonyms of Komi. "Murt" means "human", like the "murt" in Udmurt and "Mord" in Mordvin. It is a cognate of the English word "mortal".)

These are again old photos from VKontakte, because I hate the Instagram era.

She's from the Priluzsky district of Komi Republic, which was one of the regions sampled in Khrunin et al. 2013 (A genome-wide analysis of populations from European Russia reveals a new pole of genetic diversity in northern Europe) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3591355/).

https://i.ibb.co/7rkz8zv/komi-admixture-khrunin-et-al-2013.png

[Laag]

Uralische/NEUP as always

[Laag]

As many Uralische girls she has a good body and looks like she might have healthy children. Another reason to live in the countryside and have a wife not from the city.

[Kmakkmak]

uralic-turkic(proto) and some european mixed.

[Columella]

Between Baltic/Ladogan and Uralic

[Benyzero]

thicc

[Lemminkäinen]

Uralic-Siberian. Obvious post-ANE Siberian admix, I would say 50%.

[Chris596]

Yes I agree with uralid and older photos look much more natural and closer to reality than Instagram photos today, I can't stand them.

[Lemminkäinen]

Yes I agree with uralid and older photos look much more natural and closer to reality than Instagram photos today, I can't stand them.

I agree. Will give us for classification old photos of Finnish athletes from the time of DDR and anabolic steroids.

[Ymyyakhtakh]

As many Uralische girls she has a good body and looks like she might have healthy children. Another reason to live in the countryside and have a wife not from the city.

Yeah, she seems like someone who has powerful maternal instincts. And girls are supposed to have a wide face and a wide body. What Weston Price wrote (https://archive.org/details/NutritionAndPhysicalDegeneration):


The result of disturbance in the growth of the bones of the head and of the development of general body design is quite regularly a narrowing of the entire body, and often there is a definite lengthening. Statistics have been published relative to the increase in the height of girls in colleges during the last few decades. This is probably a bad rather than a good sign as actually it is an expression of this change in the shape of the body. I am informed by gynecologists that narrowing of the pelvic arch is one of the factors that is contributing to the increased difficulties that are encountered in childbirth by our modern generation.

[...]

It is important to emphasize in connection with the development of the deformities of the face that other skeletal deficiencies or abnormalities result from the same disturbing factors. One of these is the narrowing of the entire body, with a tendency to increase in height. This is shown in many of the family groups of modernized primitives. The effect of this narrowing of the body, which in girls results in the boyish type of figure due to the narrowing of the hips, introduces an entirely new and serious problem in the experience of our modern civilization when confronted with the problems of childbirth.

Among primitive races living in a primitive state childbirth was a very simple and rapid process, accompanied by little fear or apprehension; whereas, in the modernized descendants, even in the first and second generations of those individuals born to parents after they had adopted the foods of modern white civilizations, serious trouble was often experienced.

[...]

The gross physical changes occurring promptly after modernization were not limited to structures of the head. The narrowing and lengthening of the face was usually only a small part of the change in body form. The hips and chest were usually narrowed with a tendency for narrowing throughout the length of the body. As we will see later, the bones of the head, particularly the maxillary bones, seem to suffer most severely.

[Pine]

Yeah, she seems like someone who has powerful maternal instincts. And girls are supposed to have a wide face and a wide body. What Weston Price wrote (https://archive.org/details/NutritionAndPhysicalDegeneration):


The result of disturbance in the growth of the bones of the head and of the development of general body design is quite regularly a narrowing of the entire body, and often there is a definite lengthening. Statistics have been published relative to the increase in the height of girls in colleges during the last few decades. This is probably a bad rather than a good sign as actually it is an expression of this change in the shape of the body. I am informed by gynecologists that narrowing of the pelvic arch is one of the factors that is contributing to the increased difficulties that are encountered in childbirth by our modern generation.

[...]

It is important to emphasize in connection with the development of the deformities of the face that other skeletal deficiencies or abnormalities result from the same disturbing factors. One of these is the narrowing of the entire body, with a tendency to increase in height. This is shown in many of the family groups of modernized primitives. The effect of this narrowing of the body, which in girls results in the boyish type of figure due to the narrowing of the hips, introduces an entirely new and serious problem in the experience of our modern civilization when confronted with the problems of childbirth.

Among primitive races living in a primitive state childbirth was a very simple and rapid process, accompanied by little fear or apprehension; whereas, in the modernized descendants, even in the first and second generations of those individuals born to parents after they had adopted the foods of modern white civilizations, serious trouble was often experienced.

[...]

The gross physical changes occurring promptly after modernization were not limited to structures of the head. The narrowing and lengthening of the face was usually only a small part of the change in body form. The hips and chest were usually narrowed with a tendency for narrowing throughout the length of the body. As we will see later, the bones of the head, particularly the maxillary bones, seem to suffer most severely.

Why do you obsess over this weird shit? What's your end goal?

[Ymyyakhtakh]

Why do you obsess over this weird shit? What's your end goal?

I don't know, a genocide? I think the world would be a better place if anyone with a convex nasal bridge, negative canthal tilt, or narrow dental arches would be killed.

[Pine]

I don't know, a genocide? I think the world would be a better place if anyone with a convex nasal bridge, negative canthal tilt, or narrow dental arches would be killed.

Wouldn't a girlfriend be better?

[Ymyyakhtakh]

Wouldn't a girlfriend be better?

No because getting a gf = joining the dark side.

Tesla (https://archive.org/details/TeslaManOutOfTime_374):


It was as if he had purposely led the reporter to the next question. Did he believe in marriage "for persons of artistic temperament"?

Tesla considered carefully.

"For an artist, yes; for a musician, yes; for a writer, yes; but for an inventor, no. The first three must gain inspiration from a woman's influence and be led by their love to finer achievement, but an inventor has so intense a nature with so much in it of wild, passionate quality that in giving himself to a woman he might love, he would give everything, and so take everything from his chosen field. I do not think you can name many great inventions that have been made by married men."

Nietzsche (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52319):


It is an accepted and indisputable fact, so long as there are philosophers in the world and wherever philosophers have existed (from India to England, to take the opposite poles of philosophic ability), that there exists a real irritation and rancour on the part of philosophers towards sensuality. Schopenhauer is merely the most eloquent, and if one has the ear for it, also the most fascinating and enchanting outburst. There similarly exists a real philosophic bias and affection for the whole ascetic ideal; there should be no illusions on this score. Both these feelings, as has been said, belong to the type; if a philosopher lacks both of them, then he is--you may be certain of it--never anything but a "pseudo." What does this mean? For this state of affairs must first be, interpreted: in itself it stands there stupid, to all eternity, like any "Thing-in-itself." Every animal, including la bête philosophe, strives instinctively after an _optimum_ of favourable conditions, under which he can let his whole strength have play, and achieves his maximum consciousness of power; with equal instinctiveness, and with a fine perceptive flair which is superior to any reason, every animal shudders mortally at every kind of disturbance and hindrance which obstructs or could obstruct his way to that optimum (it is not his way to happiness of which I am talking, but his way to power, to action, the most powerful action, and in point of fact in many cases his way to unhappiness). Similarly, the philosopher shudders mortally at **marriage**, together with all that could persuade him to it--marriage as a fatal hindrance on the way to the _optimum_. Up to the present what great philosophers have been married? Heracleitus, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Kant, Schopenhauer--they were not married, and, further, one cannot _imagine_ them as married. A married philosopher belongs to _comedy_, that is my rule; as for that exception of a Socrates--the malicious Socrates married himself, it seems, _ironice_, just to prove this _very_ rule. Every philosopher would say, as Buddha said, when the birth of a son was announced to him: "Râhoula has been born to me, a fetter has been forged for me" (Râhoula means here "a little demon"); there must come an hour of reflection to every "free spirit" (granted that he has had previously an hour of thoughtlessness), just as one came once to the same Buddha: "Narrowly cramped," he reflected, "is life in the house; it is a place of uncleanness; freedom is found in leaving the house." Because he thought like this, he left the house. So many bridges to independence are shown in the ascetic idea, that the philosopher cannot refrain from exultation and clapping of hands when he hears the history of all those resolute ones, who on one day uttered a nay to all servitude and went into some _desert_; even granting that they were only strong asses, and the absolute opposite of strong minds. What, then, does the ascetic ideal mean in a philosopher? This is my answer--it will have been guessed long ago: when he sees this ideal the philosopher smiles because he sees therein an _optimum_ of the conditions of the highest and boldest intellectuality; he does not thereby deny "existence," he rather affirms thereby _his_ existence and _only_ his existence, and this perhaps to the point of not being far off the blasphemous wish, _pereat mundus, fiat philosophia, fiat philosophus, fiam!_

These philosophers, you see, are by no means uncorrupted witnesses and judges of the _value_ of the ascetic ideal. They think _of themselves_ --what is the "saint" to them? They think of that which to them personally is most indispensable; of freedom from compulsion, disturbance, noise: freedom from business, duties, cares; of clear head; of the dance, spring, and flight of thoughts; of good air--rare, clear, free, dry, as is the air on the heights, in which every animal creature becomes more intellectual and gains wings; they think of peace in every cellar; all the hounds neatly chained; no baying of enmity and uncouth rancour; no remorse of wounded ambition; quiet and submissive internal organs, busy as mills, but unnoticed; the heart alien, transcendent, future, posthumous--to summarise, they mean by the ascetic ideal the joyous asceticism of a deified and newly fledged animal, sweeping over life rather than resting. We know what are the three great catch-words of the ascetic ideal: poverty, humility, chastity; and now just look closely at the life of all the great fruitful inventive spirits--you will always find again and again these three qualities up to a certain extent. _Not_ for a minute, as is self-evident, as though, perchance, they were part of their virtues--what has this type of man to do with virtues?--but as the most essential and natural conditions of their _best_ existence, their _finest_ fruitfulness. In this connection it is quite possible that their predominant intellectualism had first to curb an unruly and irritable pride, or an insolent sensualism, or that it had all its work cut out to maintain its wish for the "desert" against perhaps an inclination to luxury and dilettantism, or similarly against an extravagant liberality of heart and hand. But their intellect did effect all this, simply because it was the _dominant_ instinct, which carried through its orders in the case of all the other instincts. It effects it still; if it ceased to do so, it would simply not be dominant. But there is not one iota of "virtue" in all this. Further, the _desert_, of which I just spoke, in which the strong, independent, and well-equipped spirits retreat into their hermitage--oh, how different is it from the cultured classes' dream of a desert! In certain cases, in fact, the cultured classes themselves are the desert. And it is certain that all the actors of the intellect would not endure this desert for a minute. It is nothing like romantic and Syrian enough for them, nothing like enough of a stage desert! Here as well there are plenty of asses, but at this point the resemblance ceases. But a desert nowadays is something like this--perhaps a deliberate obscurity; a getting-out-of the way of one's self; a fear of noise, admiration, papers, influence; a little office, a daily task, something that hides rather than brings to light; sometimes associating with harmless, cheerful beasts and fowls, the sight of which refreshes; a mountain for company, but not a dead one, one with _eyes_ (that is, with lakes); in certain cases even a room in a crowded hotel where one can reckon on not being recognised, and on being able to talk with impunity to every one: here is the desert--oh, it is lonely enough, believe me! I grant that when Heracleitus retreated to the courts and cloisters of the colossal temple of Artemis, that "wilderness" was worthier; why do we _lack_ such temples? (perchance we do not lack them: I just think of my splendid study in the _Piazza di San Marco_, in spring, of course, and in the morning, between ten and twelve). But that which Heracleitus shunned is still just what we too avoid nowadays: the noise and democratic babble of the Ephesians, their politics, their news from the "empire" (I mean, of course, Persia), their market-trade in "the things of to-day "--for there is one thing from which we philosophers especially need a rest--from the things of "to-day." We honour the silent, the cold, the noble, the far, the past, everything, in fact, at the sight of which the soul is not bound to brace itself up and defend itself--something with which one can speak without _speaking aloud_. Just listen now to the tone a spirit has when it speaks; every spirit has its own tone and loves its own tone. That thing yonder, for instance, is bound to be an agitator, that is, a hollow head, a hollow mug: whatever may go into him, everything comes back from him dull and thick, heavy with the echo of the great void. That spirit yonder nearly always speaks hoarse: has he, perchance, _thought_ himself hoarse? It may be so--ask the physiologists--but he who thinks in _words_, thinks as a speaker and not as a thinker (it shows that he does not think of objects or think objectively, but only of his relations with objects--that, in point of fact, he only thinks of himself and his audience). This third one speaks aggressively, he comes too near our body, his breath blows on us--we shut our mouth involuntarily, although he speaks to us through a book: the tone of his style supplies the reason--he has no time, he has small faith in himself, he finds expression now or never. But a spirit who is sure of himself speaks softly; he seeks secrecy, he lets himself be awaited, A philosopher is recognised by the fact that he shuns three brilliant and noisy things--fame, princes, and women: which is not to say that they do not come to him. He shuns every glaring light: therefore he shuns his time and its "daylight." Therein he is as a shadow; the deeper sinks the sun, the greater grows the shadow. As for his humility, he endures, as he endures darkness, a certain dependence and obscurity: further, he is afraid of the shock of lightning, he shudders at the insecurity of a tree which is too isolated and too exposed, on which every storm vents its temper, every temper its storm. His "maternal" instinct, his secret love for that which grows in him, guides him into states where he is relieved from the necessity of taking care of _himself_, in the same way in which the "_mother_" instinct in woman has thoroughly maintained up to the present woman's dependent position. After all, they demand little enough, do these philosophers, their favourite motto is, "He who possesses is possessed." All this is _not_, as I must say again and again, to be attributed to a virtue, to a meritorious wish for moderation and simplicity; but because their supreme lord so demands of them, demands wisely and inexorably; their lord who is eager only for one thing, for which alone he musters, and for which alone he hoards everything--time, strength, love, interest. This kind of man likes not to be disturbed by enmity, he likes not to be disturbed by friendship, it is a type which forgets or despises easily. It strikes him as bad form to play the martyr, "to _suffer_ for truth"--he leaves all that to the ambitious and to the stage-heroes of the intellect, and to all those, in fact, who have time enough for such luxuries (they themselves, the philosophers, have something _to do_ for truth). They make a sparing use of big words; they are said to be adverse to the word "truth" itself: it has a "high falutin'" ring. Finally, as far as the chastity of philosophers is concerned, the fruitfulness of this type of mind is manifestly in another sphere than that of children; perchance in some other sphere, too, they have the survival of their name, their little immortality (philosophers in ancient India would express themselves with still greater boldness: "Of what use is posterity to him whose soul is the world?"). In this attitude there is not a trace of chastity, by reason of any ascetic scruple or hatred of the flesh, any more than it is chastity for an athlete or a jockey to abstain from women; it is rather the will of the dominant instinct, at any rate, during the period of their advanced philosophic pregnancy. Every artist knows the harm done by sexual intercourse on occasions of great mental strain and preparation; as far as the strongest artists and those with the surest instincts are concerned, this is not necessarily a case of experience--hard experience--but it is simply their "maternal" instinct which, in order to benefit the growing work, disposes recklessly (beyond all its normal stocks and supplies) of the _vigour_ of its _animal_ life; the greater power then _absorbs_ the lesser. Let us now apply this interpretation to gauge correctly the case of Schopenhauer, which we have already mentioned: in his case, the sight of the beautiful acted manifestly like a resolving irritant on the chief power of his nature (the power of contemplation and of intense penetration); so that this strength exploded and became suddenly master of his consciousness. But this by no means excludes the possibility of that particular sweetness and fulness, which is peculiar to the æsthetic state, springing directly from the ingredient of sensuality (just as that "idealism" which is peculiar to girls at puberty originates in the same source)--it may be, consequently, that sensuality is not removed by the approach of the æsthetic state, as Schopenhauer believed, but merely becomes transfigured, and ceases to enter into the consciousness as sexual excitement. (I shall return once again to this point in connection with the more delicate problems of the _physiology of the æsthetic_, a subject which up to the present has been singularly untouched and unelucidated.)

[Pine]

No because getting a gf = joining the dark side.

Tesla (https://archive.org/details/TeslaManOutOfTime_374):


It was as if he had purposely led the reporter to the next question. Did he believe in marriage "for persons of artistic temperament"?

Tesla considered carefully.

"For an artist, yes; for a musician, yes; for a writer, yes; but for an inventor, no. The first three must gain inspiration from a woman's influence and be led by their love to finer achievement, but an inventor has so intense a nature with so much in it of wild, passionate quality that in giving himself to a woman he might love, he would give everything, and so take everything from his chosen field. I do not think you can name many great inventions that have been made by married men."

Nietzsche (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52319):


It is an accepted and indisputable fact, so long as there are philosophers in the world and wherever philosophers have existed (from India to England, to take the opposite poles of philosophic ability), that there exists a real irritation and rancour on the part of philosophers towards sensuality. Schopenhauer is merely the most eloquent, and if one has the ear for it, also the most fascinating and enchanting outburst. There similarly exists a real philosophic bias and affection for the whole ascetic ideal; there should be no illusions on this score. Both these feelings, as has been said, belong to the type; if a philosopher lacks both of them, then he is--you may be certain of it--never anything but a "pseudo." What does this mean? For this state of affairs must first be, interpreted: in itself it stands there stupid, to all eternity, like any "Thing-in-itself." Every animal, including la bête philosophe, strives instinctively after an _optimum_ of favourable conditions, under which he can let his whole strength have play, and achieves his maximum consciousness of power; with equal instinctiveness, and with a fine perceptive flair which is superior to any reason, every animal shudders mortally at every kind of disturbance and hindrance which obstructs or could obstruct his way to that optimum (it is not his way to happiness of which I am talking, but his way to power, to action, the most powerful action, and in point of fact in many cases his way to unhappiness). Similarly, the philosopher shudders mortally at **marriage**, together with all that could persuade him to it--marriage as a fatal hindrance on the way to the _optimum_. Up to the present what great philosophers have been married? Heracleitus, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Kant, Schopenhauer--they were not married, and, further, one cannot _imagine_ them as married. A married philosopher belongs to _comedy_, that is my rule; as for that exception of a Socrates--the malicious Socrates married himself, it seems, _ironice_, just to prove this _very_ rule. Every philosopher would say, as Buddha said, when the birth of a son was announced to him: "Râhoula has been born to me, a fetter has been forged for me" (Râhoula means here "a little demon"); there must come an hour of reflection to every "free spirit" (granted that he has had previously an hour of thoughtlessness), just as one came once to the same Buddha: "Narrowly cramped," he reflected, "is life in the house; it is a place of uncleanness; freedom is found in leaving the house." Because he thought like this, he left the house. So many bridges to independence are shown in the ascetic idea, that the philosopher cannot refrain from exultation and clapping of hands when he hears the history of all those resolute ones, who on one day uttered a nay to all servitude and went into some _desert_; even granting that they were only strong asses, and the absolute opposite of strong minds. What, then, does the ascetic ideal mean in a philosopher? This is my answer--it will have been guessed long ago: when he sees this ideal the philosopher smiles because he sees therein an _optimum_ of the conditions of the highest and boldest intellectuality; he does not thereby deny "existence," he rather affirms thereby _his_ existence and _only_ his existence, and this perhaps to the point of not being far off the blasphemous wish, _pereat mundus, fiat philosophia, fiat philosophus, fiam!_

These philosophers, you see, are by no means uncorrupted witnesses and judges of the _value_ of the ascetic ideal. They think _of themselves_ --what is the "saint" to them? They think of that which to them personally is most indispensable; of freedom from compulsion, disturbance, noise: freedom from business, duties, cares; of clear head; of the dance, spring, and flight of thoughts; of good air--rare, clear, free, dry, as is the air on the heights, in which every animal creature becomes more intellectual and gains wings; they think of peace in every cellar; all the hounds neatly chained; no baying of enmity and uncouth rancour; no remorse of wounded ambition; quiet and submissive internal organs, busy as mills, but unnoticed; the heart alien, transcendent, future, posthumous--to summarise, they mean by the ascetic ideal the joyous asceticism of a deified and newly fledged animal, sweeping over life rather than resting. We know what are the three great catch-words of the ascetic ideal: poverty, humility, chastity; and now just look closely at the life of all the great fruitful inventive spirits--you will always find again and again these three qualities up to a certain extent. _Not_ for a minute, as is self-evident, as though, perchance, they were part of their virtues--what has this type of man to do with virtues?--but as the most essential and natural conditions of their _best_ existence, their _finest_ fruitfulness. In this connection it is quite possible that their predominant intellectualism had first to curb an unruly and irritable pride, or an insolent sensualism, or that it had all its work cut out to maintain its wish for the "desert" against perhaps an inclination to luxury and dilettantism, or similarly against an extravagant liberality of heart and hand. But their intellect did effect all this, simply because it was the _dominant_ instinct, which carried through its orders in the case of all the other instincts. It effects it still; if it ceased to do so, it would simply not be dominant. But there is not one iota of "virtue" in all this. Further, the _desert_, of which I just spoke, in which the strong, independent, and well-equipped spirits retreat into their hermitage--oh, how different is it from the cultured classes' dream of a desert! In certain cases, in fact, the cultured classes themselves are the desert. And it is certain that all the actors of the intellect would not endure this desert for a minute. It is nothing like romantic and Syrian enough for them, nothing like enough of a stage desert! Here as well there are plenty of asses, but at this point the resemblance ceases. But a desert nowadays is something like this--perhaps a deliberate obscurity; a getting-out-of the way of one's self; a fear of noise, admiration, papers, influence; a little office, a daily task, something that hides rather than brings to light; sometimes associating with harmless, cheerful beasts and fowls, the sight of which refreshes; a mountain for company, but not a dead one, one with _eyes_ (that is, with lakes); in certain cases even a room in a crowded hotel where one can reckon on not being recognised, and on being able to talk with impunity to every one: here is the desert--oh, it is lonely enough, believe me! I grant that when Heracleitus retreated to the courts and cloisters of the colossal temple of Artemis, that "wilderness" was worthier; why do we _lack_ such temples? (perchance we do not lack them: I just think of my splendid study in the _Piazza di San Marco_, in spring, of course, and in the morning, between ten and twelve). But that which Heracleitus shunned is still just what we too avoid nowadays: the noise and democratic babble of the Ephesians, their politics, their news from the "empire" (I mean, of course, Persia), their market-trade in "the things of to-day "--for there is one thing from which we philosophers especially need a rest--from the things of "to-day." We honour the silent, the cold, the noble, the far, the past, everything, in fact, at the sight of which the soul is not bound to brace itself up and defend itself--something with which one can speak without _speaking aloud_. Just listen now to the tone a spirit has when it speaks; every spirit has its own tone and loves its own tone. That thing yonder, for instance, is bound to be an agitator, that is, a hollow head, a hollow mug: whatever may go into him, everything comes back from him dull and thick, heavy with the echo of the great void. That spirit yonder nearly always speaks hoarse: has he, perchance, _thought_ himself hoarse? It may be so--ask the physiologists--but he who thinks in _words_, thinks as a speaker and not as a thinker (it shows that he does not think of objects or think objectively, but only of his relations with objects--that, in point of fact, he only thinks of himself and his audience). This third one speaks aggressively, he comes too near our body, his breath blows on us--we shut our mouth involuntarily, although he speaks to us through a book: the tone of his style supplies the reason--he has no time, he has small faith in himself, he finds expression now or never. But a spirit who is sure of himself speaks softly; he seeks secrecy, he lets himself be awaited, A philosopher is recognised by the fact that he shuns three brilliant and noisy things--fame, princes, and women: which is not to say that they do not come to him. He shuns every glaring light: therefore he shuns his time and its "daylight." Therein he is as a shadow; the deeper sinks the sun, the greater grows the shadow. As for his humility, he endures, as he endures darkness, a certain dependence and obscurity: further, he is afraid of the shock of lightning, he shudders at the insecurity of a tree which is too isolated and too exposed, on which every storm vents its temper, every temper its storm. His "maternal" instinct, his secret love for that which grows in him, guides him into states where he is relieved from the necessity of taking care of _himself_, in the same way in which the "_mother_" instinct in woman has thoroughly maintained up to the present woman's dependent position. After all, they demand little enough, do these philosophers, their favourite motto is, "He who possesses is possessed." All this is _not_, as I must say again and again, to be attributed to a virtue, to a meritorious wish for moderation and simplicity; but because their supreme lord so demands of them, demands wisely and inexorably; their lord who is eager only for one thing, for which alone he musters, and for which alone he hoards everything--time, strength, love, interest. This kind of man likes not to be disturbed by enmity, he likes not to be disturbed by friendship, it is a type which forgets or despises easily. It strikes him as bad form to play the martyr, "to _suffer_ for truth"--he leaves all that to the ambitious and to the stage-heroes of the intellect, and to all those, in fact, who have time enough for such luxuries (they themselves, the philosophers, have something _to do_ for truth). They make a sparing use of big words; they are said to be adverse to the word "truth" itself: it has a "high falutin'" ring. Finally, as far as the chastity of philosophers is concerned, the fruitfulness of this type of mind is manifestly in another sphere than that of children; perchance in some other sphere, too, they have the survival of their name, their little immortality (philosophers in ancient India would express themselves with still greater boldness: "Of what use is posterity to him whose soul is the world?"). In this attitude there is not a trace of chastity, by reason of any ascetic scruple or hatred of the flesh, any more than it is chastity for an athlete or a jockey to abstain from women; it is rather the will of the dominant instinct, at any rate, during the period of their advanced philosophic pregnancy. Every artist knows the harm done by sexual intercourse on occasions of great mental strain and preparation; as far as the strongest artists and those with the surest instincts are concerned, this is not necessarily a case of experience--hard experience--but it is simply their "maternal" instinct which, in order to benefit the growing work, disposes recklessly (beyond all its normal stocks and supplies) of the _vigour_ of its _animal_ life; the greater power then _absorbs_ the lesser. Let us now apply this interpretation to gauge correctly the case of Schopenhauer, which we have already mentioned: in his case, the sight of the beautiful acted manifestly like a resolving irritant on the chief power of his nature (the power of contemplation and of intense penetration); so that this strength exploded and became suddenly master of his consciousness. But this by no means excludes the possibility of that particular sweetness and fulness, which is peculiar to the æsthetic state, springing directly from the ingredient of sensuality (just as that "idealism" which is peculiar to girls at puberty originates in the same source)--it may be, consequently, that sensuality is not removed by the approach of the æsthetic state, as Schopenhauer believed, but merely becomes transfigured, and ceases to enter into the consciousness as sexual excitement. (I shall return once again to this point in connection with the more delicate problems of the _physiology of the æsthetic_, a subject which up to the present has been singularly untouched and unelucidated.)

Do you consider yourself good looking? Do you want to be good looking for the sake of being good looking?

[Lemminkäinen]

Weston Price seems to be wrong, at least as to the Finnish and Scandinavian skiing athletics. While we in Finland are disappointed to the success of our skiers, Scandinavian skier with their thin bones and narrow faces leave our robust skiers minutes behind. We did have succes years back when Finnish female skiers were beautiful and slim. But today only ugly people want to have future in sports.

Our best female skier 15 years ago

https://live.staticflickr.com/2789/4400126189_d26905d884_b.jpg

and today

https://kuvat.kaakonviestinta.fi/img/855/ec0aa3428cb6dc9cdb01f2e2b432364f

[IrisSelene]

She looks HELLA similar to a Lithuanian friend I had

[Ymyyakhtakh]

Weston Price seems to be wrong, at least as to the Finnish and Scandinavian skiing athletics. While we in Finland are disappointed to the success of our skiers, Scandinavian skier with their thin bones and narrow faces leave our robust skiers minutes behind. We did have succes years back when Finnish female skiers were beautiful and slim. But today only ugly people want to have future in sports.

Our best female skier 15 years ago

https://live.staticflickr.com/2789/4400126189_d26905d884_b.jpg

and today

https://kuvat.kaakonviestinta.fi/img/855/ec0aa3428cb6dc9cdb01f2e2b432364f

Females aren't even supposed to be optimized for fast locomotion. It makes sense that freakish tomboyish leptomorphic gracile Nordids would be optimized for something like moving fast.

There's also like 3 times as many Swedes and Norwegians than Finns. Maybe Uralics would seem more formidable in winter sports if there were 10 million Komis and 5 million Saami.

However our best female skier 32 years ago still looked nice and robust and Uralische:

https://is.mediadelivery.fi/img/468/e49197cf21da49a1914f0d46d860ac01.jpg

Also Krista Pärmäkoski clearly wins phenotypically over Therese Johaug. Johaug looks like a depigmented wog, and she has yellow skin, bad eyebags, an elongated horse face, a downturned Jew nose, and a protruding witch chin. Therese Johaug is only 2 years older, but she already looks really old and dried up.

https://im.mtv.fi/image/7299256/landscape16_9/1106/622/d31724495aacb71e7188e7e6b60a1402/fh/SomeSharing/therese-johaug-ja-krista-parmakoski.jpg

[Lemminkäinen]

Females aren't even supposed to be optimized for fast locomotion. It makes sense that freakish tomboyish leptomorphic gracile Nordids would be optimized for something like moving fast.

There's also like 3 times as many Swedes and Norwegians than Finns. Maybe Uralics would seem more formidable in winter sports if there were 10 million Komis and 5 million Saami.

However our best female skier 32 years ago still looked nice and robust and Uralische:

https://is.mediadelivery.fi/img/468/e49197cf21da49a1914f0d46d860ac01.jpg

Also Krista Pärmäkoski clearly wins phenotypically over Therese Johaug. Johaug looks like a depigmented wog, and she has yellow skin, bad eyebags, an elongated horse face, a downturned Jew nose, and a protruding witch chin. Therese Johaug is only 2 years older, but she already looks really old and dried up.

https://im.mtv.fi/image/7299256/landscape16_9/1106/622/d31724495aacb71e7188e7e6b60a1402/fh/SomeSharing/therese-johaug-ja-krista-parmakoski.jpg

Disagree. Fight or run reaction was essential during the beginning of our prehistory. Who was not strong enough to fight had to run. Saying it simply, today in Finland good athletic types are not interested in small potatoes they can get from our corrupted sports organizations.

[Benyzero]

Females aren't even supposed to be optimized for fast locomotion. It makes sense that freakish tomboyish leptomorphic gracile Nordids would be optimized for something like moving fast.

There's also like 3 times as many Swedes and Norwegians than Finns. Maybe Uralics would seem more formidable in winter sports if there were 10 million Komis and 5 million Saami.

However our best female skier 32 years ago still looked nice and robust and Uralische:

https://is.mediadelivery.fi/img/468/e49197cf21da49a1914f0d46d860ac01.jpg

You need muscle mass on your leg to hold you while skiing, so stocky muscular types makes better athletes in winter sports.

[Lemminkäinen]

You need muscle mass on your leg to hold you while skiing, so stocky muscular types makes better athletes in winter sports.

Nope. But long muscles with a good ability to take oxygen are essential features. In skiing you need to be a wolf type. Wolves have almost three times better ability to use oxygen than best skiers. Wolves have also slim body and limbs. You described a wrestler type.

[Benyzero]

Nope. But long muscles with a good ability to take oxygen are essential features. In skiing you need to be a wolf type. Wolves have almost three times better ability to use oxygen than best skiers. Wolves have also slim body and limbs. You described a wrestler type.

Yes my describtion wasn't perfectly on point. Oxigen usage of the body could be a key yes especially on mountains. Best skier types may be similar to those cyclist of tour de france, in terms of stature.

[Benyzero]

Iam a pretty good skier although I won't necessary make a good competitor, even if trained professionally

[Laag]

Why do you obsess over this weird shit?

This is not shit. We just want our girls to still look Uralische/NEUP.


https://i.imgur.com/sKGTnll.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/AzaoQPg.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/uWDMu2y.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/xZe6Bk5.jpg


Not like this girl.

https://i0.wp.com/babambitola.mk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FB_IMG_1557685742616.jpg?w=667&ssl=1


Nothing wrong with this.

[Pine]

This is not shit. We just want our girls to still look Uralische/NEUP.


https://i.imgur.com/sKGTnll.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/AzaoQPg.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/uWDMu2y.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/xZe6Bk5.jpg


Not like this girl.

https://i0.wp.com/babambitola.mk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FB_IMG_1557685742616.jpg?w=667&ssl=1


Nothing wrong with this.

Nice troll.

[aherne]

https://i.imgur.com/xZe6Bk5.jpg

This girl is beautiful actually: a mix of Corded and Uralic. I've seen Hungarians with this look (among Romanians it's absolutely non-existant): probably this is how many ancient Magyars looked like. OP one looks Uralic mixed with Turkic: far more mongoloid than the average. What about this selection of Komi:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?271778-Classify-Komi-people

Above seem very different from those you are posting. They are heavily influenced by Aryan...