Amarna Forum

Full Version: Looksmaxxing, Male Models, Diet, And Optics
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2

HIGHIQSTIMHEAD

I believe that having a good looking face is more important than having a muscular body. I have came to the conclusion that having a good looking face comes from adequate nutrition that you would find mostly in animal foods and that a good looking face goes along with a healthy well developed body and healthy mind. 

I consider the average liberal to have something mentally and or spiritually wrong with them and those who are liberal and may be good looking attractive people are this way because of the modern environment they surround theirselves in. Though they were rewarded their good looks from animal nutrition, breastfeeding, etc., if they decide to have children and feed them modern food, participate in the modern medical system, and spend lots of time in a toxic polluted city instead of a rural area. their children will not be rewarded with the same fate.

Liberalism is very welcoming to and is mostly made up by the dysgenic. Not only does it welcome being dysgenic, it promotes it. Ideas within the fringe of leftism would be the complete destruction of beauty standards. Taking care of your health and the health of your children will be considered fascist, not vaccinating your children with 100 vaccines before they turn 18 will be considered fascist, not trusting modern zogslop "food" will be considered fascist. Being skinny and having good facial structure will be considered fascist. Eating meat, eggs, cheese, and milk will be considered fascist.

I believe that right now within Hollywood and within the fashion industry, Aryan beauty standards are for the most part still being upheld. Runway shows still prefer a cast of majority white thin models. Before the wokeification of Hollywood, you would see mostly attractive white people on TVs, magazines, and movies. Attractive white people are powerful for cultivating the energy of the masses. Young girls would crush on Hollywood white male hunks and young boys would crush on Hollywood symmetrical bimbos. Whether for good or evil, attractive white people are great for marketing a message/distributing information.

Politics and really any serious discussion of the world is being done by average looking men and women, not by the most eugenic. Those in schools whether that be high schools or colleges that are very into the idea of debating usually lack conventionally attractive facial physiognomy and vocal physiognomy. The most eugenic are having sex, partying, modeling, and enjoying life. What the most attractive do not realize is all that is being done behind the scenes to alter their way of life, their way of thinking, the food that they eat, what they can and cannot do moving forward. Those that are discussing it are as I said before, average looking. To some degree I believe political information is distributed by the less attractive more nerdy types for a reason because they may look the part of the job.

When it comes to optics, they are very important for a political movement. The most attractive and high status of say the America First movement is still average leaning towards dysgenic to my standards but this isn't based on physique like so many RWBBers focus on. They look the part for the movement that they are in. Maybe some initially expected attractive 6 foot tall Chads to be vigorously following the movement but those people lacked common sense. I think many understand what optics is but to the degree of not putting ugly and or cringe people to the forefront of your movement, when really it should mean let the most attractive people do the public speaking.

I think that the most attractive looking people should be recruited into right wing movements. With face being the most important part of one's body, people with good facial structure should be selected to make the overall public image look better. The focus on muscles alone sets the RW back. To the outside, we are just face covering lifters and we have very few that are facially attractive and openly based. Understand that being white alone does not make someone eugenic, working out does not make someone eugenic. Face is important and indicative of health. We need male and female models on our side. Don't allow the left to believe we are all chudjaks.
This was a bit garbled and unnecessarily long. I take away from it "we should have more facially attractive people recruited in RW movements".

But, for that matter, "we should have more people recruited in RW movements".

It is wise to vet a spokesperson or a "face" of a movement for attractiveness, but most RW movements are not really in a position to do that. They start up with whatever the best leader is that they have, and don't get to the point of ever needing a second spokesperson in the hierarchy, nor can they be so picky about their membership.
(08-25-2022, 10:05 PM)HIGHIQSTIMHEAD Wrote: [ -> ]I believe that having a good looking face is more important than having a muscular body. I have came to the conclusion that having a good looking face comes from adequate nutrition that you would find mostly in animal foods and that a good looking face goes along with a healthy well developed body and healthy mind.

Good topic worth raising but it feels like you at most put all of five minutes thought into this. You're right to raise the old Weston Price stuff, but you immediately lean away from awareness and understanding of this within your own post.

Quote:Politics and really any serious discussion of the world is being done by average looking men and women, not by the most eugenic. Those in schools whether that be high schools or colleges that are very into the idea of debating usually lack conventionally attractive facial physiognomy and vocal physiognomy. The most eugenic are having sex, partying, modeling, and enjoying life. What the most attractive do not realize is all that is being done behind the scenes to alter their way of life, their way of thinking, the food that they eat, what they can and cannot do moving forward. Those that are discussing it are as I said before, average looking. To some degree I believe political information is distributed by the less attractive more nerdy types for a reason because they may look the part of the job.

You say that looks are to some significant extent owed to the cultivation one receives from above and environment, and then you say that the best looking people are "the most eugenic". Do you see what you've done here? Your "most eugenic" are by your own definition uninterested in higher pursuits, devoid of concern for their lasting welfare. Basically you make them sound like retarded normalfags. The attempted fix is "enjoying life", I see where you're going, people who are already good don't need to worry. And there's something to that. But you know who else doesn't worry about the future or the world and lives in the moment? Niggers. Niggers and animals.

These people aren't "better", I believe that for the most part they're simply robust. As our standards of living crater harder and harder below a healthy floor these people are the last ones to seriously reflect this state of things in their faces. Do you believe that this is a reflection of their innate quality? Does excellence mean physical "health" (stupid fucking word by the way but I'll save that for another time) comes easily and effortlessly? Here's where I think your critical mistake comes in. Human excellence does not manifest in a flat higher expression of all faculties and attributes. I believe that if you look into the thing intelligently you can only conclude that the key factor is sensitivity. Sensitivity as a more or less evenly distributed force across your entire being. More sensitive mind, more sensitive body. More potential in both directions.

If Weston A. Price was right (as you already said you believe) then the best looking people on the whole are the ones living the best. At the very Least you have to accept the sense behind this. Maybe there could even be a genetic/eugenic element to this as better bred and sharper people will take better care of their own. But then how do we explain sharper and more idealistic people tending to look worse, while the brute-minded normalfags are holding together?

Is developing a cerebral character a cope for ugliness? There is something to this, but it's not the core of what's going on here (as you seem to at least be suggesting).

I'm not happy with how this is coming out so I'll try to cut to the end. The sensitive are our canaries in the coal mine. Everything about our environment hits them first and hardest. A mind sensitive enough to grasp how bad our situation is comes with a body that will also absorb its circumstances more deeply than its peers. If you want to talk "eugenics" this sensitivity is a key factor. Yes "health", or integrity is also a key element. But it sounds like your thinking is steering us towards throwing out humanity's sick thoroughbreds for sturdy draft horses in the name of 'eugenics'. Flowers for weeds. And so on. Our odd looking, dour and unhappy nerds who retain personal integrity and a sense of purpose and vision towards the world are humanity's flowers. Wilted, but still a class of their own and invaluable.

Thomas Boyce wrote a book called 'The Orchid and the Dandelion' about this phenomena. It's one I've been meaning to make a definitive thread on forever. Consider this post another one of my drafts for that. All human sensitivity is interlinked. Humanity's finest specimens take the most after their environments and circumstances, for better or worse. The same genes that produce a crippled nerd probably could have produced a hero if we recognised them and treated them right. Any discussion of 'eugenics' that doesn't address this possibility is doomed to veer into failed normalfag soy-lumberjack lionisation of normalfaggotry as virtue and strength.

Onto the rest of your post. You're right that "good" physique doesn't really reflect character in the 21st century since bodybuilding is about plastic manipulation in the face of nature, but there's no gym for your face and despite our superficiality and insecurity we aren't a big cosmetic surgery culture. Look at a person's face and you can see the tracks of their tears, the strength of their resolve, or their brute-unresponsiveness to the world around them. Of course this do show in the body too, even a plasticly manipulated form tells you a lot (in short that this person fears their nature).

You say that attractive people are needed for "public speaking". What public speaking? It's still illegal to present genuinely good and needed ideas. We are dissidents. The only people into real dissidence are the kinds who will probably if anything be more likely to listen to you if you look like Edward Dutton. We are an underground movement by nature. We can't have a public image because engaging with the public as we are is illegal.

I'll leave the thread with one of my favourite images to contemplate and tie all of this together.

[Image: image.png]

Eugenics doesn't have to agree with this. But it has to consider it.
(08-25-2022, 10:05 PM)HIGHIQSTIMHEAD Wrote: [ -> ]I consider the average liberal to have something mentally and or spiritually wrong with them and those who are liberal and may be good looking attractive people are this way because of the modern environment they surround theirselves in. Though they were rewarded their good looks from animal nutrition, breastfeeding, etc., if they decide to have children and feed them modern food, participate in the modern medical system, and spend lots of time in a toxic polluted city instead of a rural area. their children will not be rewarded with the same fate.
typical libtard journoshit origin story: boy/girl born to socially conservative small-town family -> has a stable childhood environment, does well in school, moves to college town / big city -> develops libtarded worldview founded on seething resentment of his parents and hometown -> writes op-eds with titles like "Is Monogamy Dead?" or "The Unbearable Whiteness of Olympic Curling" -> gets stuck in cosmopolitan-serial-monogamy-loop until his/her nutsack/womb dries up -> leaves no posterity

(08-25-2022, 10:05 PM)HIGHIQSTIMHEAD Wrote: [ -> ]Liberalism is very welcoming to and is mostly made up by the dysgenic. Not only does it welcome being dysgenic, it promotes it. Ideas within the fringe of leftism would be the complete destruction of beauty standards. Taking care of your health and the health of your children will be considered fascist, not vaccinating your children with 100 vaccines before they turn 18 will be considered fascist, not trusting modern zogslop "food" will be considered fascist. Being skinny and having good facial structure will be considered fascist. Eating meat, eggs, cheese, and milk will be considered fascist.
your argument is weakened by how frequently you confuse "dysgenic" and "maldeveloped" - unless you're factoring in epigenetic changes due to malnutrition, which in my opinion make up only a small portion of the problem and are reparable within a generation. dysgenic fertility is real but its effect is negligible in the first world (something like -1.5 IQ points per generation, consider what the looks equivalent of that is) and can be conclusively curbed with the right system of incentives.

the sea change in the appearance of the (white) american population can be explained almost solely by ENVIRONMENT and UPBRINGING. the archive of viriculture gives the example of frederick douglass and his children:
[Image: doug0.png]
 [Image: doug1.png]
a family's genome does not change significantly in the space of a generation

(08-25-2022, 10:05 PM)HIGHIQSTIMHEAD Wrote: [ -> ]The most eugenic are having sex, partying, modeling, and enjoying life. What the most attractive do not realize is all that is being done behind the scenes to alter their way of life, their way of thinking, the food that they eat, what they can and cannot do moving forward. Those that are discussing it are as I said before, average looking.

the lookism fallacy: division of the world into "neurotic incels" and "thoughless chads". assuming that having an attractive person's looks somehow precludes thoughtfulness or insight is a nigh-textbook display of ressentiment. one of the greatest incel-posters of all time diagnosed this complex in himself and excised it as if it were a parasitic worm burrowing into his skin:

Quote:[Incel sociology] is pure intellectual comfort food. You surround yourself with people of similar views so as not to challenge yourself. You read the threads and replies that conform to your preexisting beliefs and philosophy, and you actively ignore, forget, or dismiss information to the contrary. You allow your unconscious mind to actively cultivate a warped perception, and you like it. You've made yourself into a zombie. It's classic confirmation bias, a cardinal sin of intellectual rigor, but an incredibly seductive trap that all human beings fall into.

Furthermore, you then take this worldview (the one reinforced by the confirmation bias echo-chamber) and use it as a salve for the ego, i.e. "The game is rigged, the world did this to me, but at least I know what's truly going on behind the corrupt social curtain, unlike most of the sheeple."
(08-26-2022, 08:23 PM)Chud Wrote: [ -> ]the lookism fallacy: division of the world into "neurotic incels" and "thoughless chads". assuming that having an attractive person's looks somehow precludes thoughtfulness or insight is a nigh-textbook display of ressentiment. one of the greatest incel-posters of all time diagnosed this complex in himself and excised it as if it were a parasitic worm burrowing into his skin:

Quote:[Incel sociology] is pure intellectual comfort food. You surround yourself with people of similar views so as not to challenge yourself. You read the threads and replies that conform to your preexisting beliefs and philosophy, and you actively ignore, forget, or dismiss information to the contrary. You allow your unconscious mind to actively cultivate a warped perception, and you like it. You've made yourself into a zombie. It's classic confirmation bias, a cardinal sin of intellectual rigor, but an incredibly seductive trap that all human beings fall into.

Furthermore, you then take this worldview (the one reinforced by the confirmation bias echo-chamber) and use it as a salve for the ego, i.e. "The game is rigged, the world did this to me, but at least I know what's truly going on behind the corrupt social curtain, unlike most of the sheeple."

To be fair, he did specify beyond that the people who are partying rather than worrying. If that's the way you're living in the 21st century you ARE retarded. We are beyond merely being in danger, the ship hit the iceberg and tore a massive gash in the side and half of the passengers are already drowned. If you aren't concerned you are fucking dumb. Sorry to kick your hero here but humiliad author is being a faggot in this part and letting his inner Aaron Sorkin win. When re-reading this part I was honestly expecting him to tell me to be a good fucking person because that's been my problem all along.

Otherwise solid post, we seem to agree on just about everything, and I like the term 'maldeveloped'. Might use it for a while and see how it fits.
Anthony is right about the flowers. Humble self hatred is just as much of an incel bias as hating Chads, if not more so. Yeah positive traits are correlated cause of mutational load and assortative mating etc., but denying that nerds and jocks exist is just nonsense.
(08-26-2022, 09:02 PM)anthony Wrote: [ -> ]If that's the way you're living in the 21st century you ARE retarded. We are beyond merely being in danger, the ship hit the iceberg and tore a massive gash in the side and half of the passengers are already drowned. If you aren't concerned you are fucking dumb. Sorry to kick your hero here but humiliad author is being a faggot in this part and letting his inner Aaron Sorkin win. When re-reading this part I was honestly expecting him to tell me to be a good fucking person because that's been my problem all along.
i didn't mean to imply that the people "being heckin' normal" are inherently superior, just that "i may be a loser, but at least i can see!" is a persistent and insidious cope. being a "loser" doesn't magically imbue you with a correct view of things, nor does non-"loserdom" preclude it - i think of mena poasts on how dead he felt after fetching yet another warm cocksleeve off tinder.

that isn't to say that incels are bereft of vision - in fact, they often abound with insights, because feeling detached from the normal flow of things allows you to view the lives of others from an outsider perspective. but most are unable to truly detach with intact psyche. most have a troonish dilation-drive, a need to let every wound rot and fester within them, to box themselves into this parochial solipsistic headspace where everything in life revolves around their perceived failures and nothing can be understood outside of that frame of reference.

side-note: for some reason, when i post in lowercase my posts are more articulate and less forced, and the act of posting itself suddenly enjoyable. will have to keep doing this
(08-26-2022, 09:02 PM)anthony Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry to kick your hero here but humiliad author is being a faggot in this part and letting his

"Mein Führer, he did not capitalize it"
OP is onto something here, although others were correct to criticize the one-track idea that "more sexy = more virtue". My grandmother once told me that she never saw a handsome Chinaman, but has seen handsome Japanese. I'd be interested in any examples of ugly superior races. As far as I can tell higher types are on the whole more physically beautiful. Compare the tiger with the slime-mold.

Quote:I believe that if you look into the thing intelligently you can only conclude that the key factor is sensitivity.


Does sensitivity entail a corresponding DEPTH? There is so much depth to be read in the face.

[Image: Stkik4E.jpg]

Guest

daily reminder that your state assigned girlfriend would've been a 3/10 fatty and the entire idea is to pacify you no matter who is the ruler
(08-27-2022, 03:21 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]daily reminder that your state assigned girlfriend would've been a 3/10 fatty and the entire idea is to pacify you no matter who is the ruler

I think it's generally taken for granted when talking about this that a state that would go to deliberate lengths to ensure the formation of families would also be one that would go to deliberate lengths to maintain the integrity of individuals. It's not hard to prevent 3/10 society. Fix the food and stop making kids spend their entire youths sitting in place in roastie struggle-sessions (school) and we're back to pre-WW2 standards of hard bodies and bony faces.
Facial aesthetics are an interesting one and can go a number of different ways, not to take too much from the schizo-fags but everything even in material reality can be said to be symbolic. The face is a medium of communication just as any other visual thing, as is established by its use in communicating emotions and intent behind words. Whether a face is appealing or "appreciable" I think is a matter of consistency of features with personality and reflects the mind at least a little bit in the sense that one has choice over public presentation. Nobody faults Sam Hyde for not being handsome because his look is highly consistent with his presence. Above all I would say have an appearance that reflects some sense of actual awarness of yourself. 

With leftist faces and bodies, there is usually a specific kind of discord that really creates a deep, resonant ugliness. That screechy Dash Dobrofsky guy is pretty much the archetypical example, at least to me he is monstrously ugly yet what feature can specifically be said to be ugly about his face? He just seems to be totally unconstructed, like some clattering nightmarish animatronic. Leftists have no sense of moral or intellectual consistency and it seems to manifest in their face. Again I emphasize self awareness, which in their case is totally lacking and hinders their ability to present themselves well (see also: hideous troons calling themselves hot).
(08-27-2022, 12:54 AM)Chud Wrote: [ -> ]that isn't to say that incels are bereft of vision - in fact, they often abound with insights, because feeling detached from the normal flow of things allows you to view the lives of others from an outsider perspective. but most are unable to truly detach with intact psyche. most have a troonish dilation-drive, a need to let every wound rot and fester within them, to box themselves into this parochial solipsistic headspace where everything in life revolves around their perceived failures and nothing can be understood outside of that frame of reference.

Can't emphasize this point enough. So many brain-dead right wing poasters who just parrot "incel? BASED" without seeing the rotten mentality. "Dilation-drive" is the perfect comparison. This is not simply a group studying imbalanced gender relations or warning young men to the sisyphean struggle of dating, it is a group of people who take pride in being inferior. That video of an incel livestreamer "trolling" a Starbucks really stands out in my mind as a perfect example. When a guy confronts him, he immediately blurts out "this guy is a Chad, he could totally kick my ass!" He is not protesting the treatment of sub-8 men, he is reveling in it. Disgusting, masochistic, pathetic.

Even the "incel community" feels like tranny groomers on Discord. Young right wing kids enter because it's one of the only spaces left online to shit on women and they end up spiritually dead as a result. It used to be you got called fakecel if you didn't try (or pretend to try) hundreds or thousands of times to make a connection with a woman. One glance at incels.is and all you see is people 18 and under asking if they should rope because their crush doesn't like them and the old posters squeezing out any fight left in them before they even leave high school. They are only vaguely aware of the useful insights like lookism or Pareto distributions on Tinder. They just go there to dump teenage angst, even when they're far past their teenage years.

To destroy this mentality, you need to get down to the core of the Elliot Rodger myth. He's portrayed as this great equalizer, a specter of vengeance for incels everywhere. In reality he was just an angst-ridden rich kid, an assburger with an absent father figure. His manifesto is the height of ironic comedy:
  • He has a grandiose sense of self but spends the whole manifesto crying about how IT'S NOT FAIR.
  • He plans this great act of revenge but his plan fails miserably.
  • He gets caught after dumping his manifesto and backing out, but somehow still gets away with it. The police know what he's planning and decide he's not a real threat.
  • He constantly whines about being mogged by roommates, and ends up having to kill his presumably-fellow-incel Asian roommates to advance his master plan, but he could've easily afforded a single apartment or some other space to store his victims. (This would've never worked anyway because he planned on luring people back there, like he forgot why he started this whole thing.)
  • He plans on unleashing his rage on a sorority house but gives up when they simply don't let him in. His great act of vengeance boiled down to niggerishly firing at random people until he crashed his car and shot himself.
The trannyesque Incel Mindset will remain until Elliot is turned back into an object of mockery.
great points chud and frank
(08-30-2022, 01:12 PM)Frank Wrote: [ -> ]This is not simply a group studying imbalanced gender relations or warning young men to the sisyphean struggle of dating, it is a group of people who take pride in being inferior. That video of an incel livestreamer "trolling" a Starbucks really stands out in my mind as a perfect example. When a guy confronts him, he immediately blurts out "this guy is a Chad, he could totally kick my ass!" He is not protesting the treatment of sub-8 men, he is reveling in it. Disgusting, masochistic, pathetic.
A large part of this is just fear of uncertainty - the PSL worldview is fundamentally about denying the existence of one's own soul. Subjective factors are "cope", romance is "cope", wanting the world to be different is "giga-cope" and de facto proof of your palpable inferiority and res(s)ent(i)ment (in that way it's kind of a reflection of society at large, which loves to stick the resentment label on "chuds" but never its pet minorities). That's the core message. Everything is eternal, everything is predictable, and the contents of your mind do not matter one bit.

If you reduce your whole understanding of social relations to maxillary projection and wrist diameter and tangled pubic ouroboroi of "mogging", you may judge yourself to be inferior, but your understanding of the world and your place in it is rock-solid. A tempting recourse for the Ur-Loser.
I intend to make an incel/loser sociology kind of thread soon, maybe later today. A few people here already know of this one youtube vlogger channel I've been studying. A lot of the stuff raised above has been on my mind. Also want to raise this new framing I've thought of. "Inverse Bluepill".

(08-30-2022, 05:20 AM)a system is failing Wrote: [ -> ]Facial aesthetics are an interesting one and can go a number of different ways, not to take too much from the schizo-fags but everything even in material reality can be said to be symbolic. The face is a medium of communication just as any other visual thing, as is established by its use in communicating emotions and intent behind words. Whether a face is appealing or "appreciable" I think is a matter of consistency of features with personality and reflects the mind at least a little bit in the sense that one has choice over public presentation. Nobody faults Sam Hyde for not being handsome because his look is highly consistent with his presence. Above all I would say have an appearance that reflects some sense of actual awarness of yourself.

I'm very big on this kind of thinking. I dislike conscious plastic manipulation of appearance because I think it obfuscates essence. Also I believe that there's a kind of beauty or character that can only be achieved through this kind of holistic harmony of appearance and character.

[Image: image.png]

This is a face with character. That character is sad, uncomfortable, and awkward. But it's substantial and real.

Guest

What does "essence" mean?
(08-31-2022, 12:00 AM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]What does "essence" mean?

Fundamental baseline stuff. In terms of people, unmediated and undoctored you. If Brian De Palma were to get a hair transplant it would disrupt his essence. Baldness is a trait that runs deeper than the scalp. In the state of his hair we can see his pain, stress, and inner conflict. Who he is is written all over his surface for those with eyes to see.
(08-30-2022, 09:41 PM)anthony Wrote: [ -> ]I intend to make an incel/loser sociology kind of thread soon, maybe later today. A few people here already know of this one youtube vlogger channel I've been studying. A lot of the stuff raised above has been on my mind. Also want to raise this new framing I've thought of. "Inverse Bluepill".

(08-30-2022, 05:20 AM)a system is failing Wrote: [ -> ]Facial aesthetics are an interesting one and can go a number of different ways, not to take too much from the schizo-fags but everything even in material reality can be said to be symbolic. The face is a medium of communication just as any other visual thing, as is established by its use in communicating emotions and intent behind words. Whether a face is appealing or "appreciable" I think is a matter of consistency of features with personality and reflects the mind at least a little bit in the sense that one has choice over public presentation. Nobody faults Sam Hyde for not being handsome because his look is highly consistent with his presence. Above all I would say have an appearance that reflects some sense of actual awarness of yourself.

I'm very big on this kind of thinking. I dislike conscious plastic manipulation of appearance because I think it obfuscates essence. Also I believe that there's a kind of beauty or character that can only be achieved through this kind of holistic harmony of appearance and character.

[Image: image.png]

This is a face with character. That character is sad, uncomfortable, and awkward. But it's substantial and real.

Yes, Contemporary Leftist politics are a crude make to conceal reality as is. Last BAPcast w/ ZeroHPLovecraft addressed this phenomenon very well.

An ugly man is capable of acknowledging himself as such if he isn't wholly enslaved. One contrasts him with a "Transgendered Person".
Interesting passage courtesy of the Nigerian academe:

Quote:Certain preconceptions about 'blacks' in predominantly 'white' societies have distorted modern visions of the ways in which Aethiopes were perceived in Roman society, resulting in much misinterpretation of the relevant texts. In Roman perceptions categories like black African, white, 'paleface' and swarthy were neither communities nor socially defined 'races' with ascribed group-statuses. Categorisation was determined by the physical appearance of the individual person, not by parentage or 'blood'.

https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/ElA...mpson.html
Pages: 1 2