Famous GENETIC jewish women

[6KILLER]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRpk4-yGG8A

("Jewish Pride Don't Forget Your Roots")

[Lenny]

Maggie Gyllenhall and Scarlet Johanson are Jewish? That is not possible.

That Brook Burke is clearly mostly black, the Jews would not accept her non-Jewish genetics.

Notice they imply that all Jewish women are so beautiful. But as we know, the average Jewish woman without surgeries or copious amounts of make up is not very pleasant to look at.

Real Jewish women:
http://images.google.com/images?q=betty+friedan
http://images.google.com/images?q=susan+sontag

[The Exorcist]

WAAAAAAAAAAAY to much make up and plastic surgery on those women

[Angocachi]

Johansson and Burke are half Jews, as are many of the women pictured.

There are plenty of gorgeous Jewish women. The stereotype of the ugly Jew comes from Ashkenazi Jewish inbreeding. In the olden Europe days they would only marry and reproduce with their fellow Jews. As their population, and thus their gene pool, was already small it quickly accumulated into a high frequency of bad traits.... some diseases like Tay-Sachs... others features like short limbs, a hooked nose, long coffeecup-handle ears, flabby lips, etc.
http://www.adelaidejmuseum.org/files/Artsroyrene.JPG
Some of these still persist even among half Jews,
http://www.facade.com/celebrity/photo/Howard_Stern.jpg
But other times not so much,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Rachelweisz.jpg/468px-Rachelweisz.jpg

[Hermanric and Horse]

Sephardic Jews are inbred too, as are many peoples throughout the middle east of whatever religion.

Ashkenazi Jews probably started out with a smaller genetic ingroup, thus the inbreeding produced more severe results than larger inbreeding groups in the middle east produced.

Anyway, that video was silly. I stopped watching once I noticed the very large number of half-Jews. Most of the better looking ones were either of mixed ancestry or were obviously from Jews with a heavily European influenced ancestry. And tastes are arbitrary - most guys I know don't find Sarah Jessica Parker very attractive, plus she's only half Jewish, plus her unattractive big nose, long faced features are classic Sephardic/middle eastern features, not European. Other much more attractive half-Jewesses favor their European side: Jennifer Connelly and Sarah Michelle Gellar for instance (although Gellar's nose almost, but not quite, pushes her into the Parker category).

I went to a university that was majority Jewish. The number of "babes on campus" was, IMO, significantly lower than at other universities I had attended. Jews have a very diverse genetic background, in the sense of having many different racial inputs into their genetic pool, which is apparent still in spite of their inbreeding. Thus you get Jews with classic European features, and Jews with classic middle eastern features. And these generally aren't bad looking. It's the weird, incompatible mixtures, especially when exaggerated by inbreeding, that contribute to the bad reputation for physical beauty that is part of the Jewish stereotype.

[gmork]

Howard Stern is actually a full-Jew, not a mamzer. He claims to be a half-Jew to fuck with people.

Though he's apparently about 6'6", so go figure.

[Alison]

Inbreeding in any culture/society is wrong as it causes deformities. I've noticed this among many different peoples.

[Hermanric and Horse]

Inbreeding in any culture/society is wrong as it causes deformities. I've noticed this among many different peoples.Not always; inbreeding increases the frequency of recessive genes, and if those genes cause physical problems, then you get an increase in these problems. But if these recessive genes are not in the ancestral gene pool, you do not get these physical problems. Also inbreeding can increase positive traits, again by increasing certain recessive genes.

You can in fact get away with a lot of inbreeding without getting bad results, if harmful recessive genes either are not present in the inbreeding group, or if they are removed. Animal breeders for instance use inbreeding to isolate and increase desired recessive genes; they avoid the negative aspects of inbreeding by trying to remove negative genes from the gene pool. Humans don't do this, ie, we usually don't use infanticide to remove undesired products of inbreeding, so inbreeding tends to fix and propagate both positive and negative traits.

Inbreeding is quite common in tribal societies such as in the middle east, where often cousins will marry. It keeps tribal groups tightly knit and keeps property together; apart from the physically negative effects, the harm is probably greater in the cultural area, in that these types of tribal societies find it difficult to build up trust between inbreeding groups and the result is something like Iraq where it's impossible to create a feeling of national identity and you need a dictator like Saddam to hold the whole mess together.

[Hermanric and Horse]

Howard Stern is actually a full-Jew, not a mamzer. He claims to be a half-Jew to fuck with people.

Though he's apparently about 6'6", so go figure.Are you sure? I thought his mom was a "shiksa" but I'm only going on what I heard on his radio show; I'd like to know the source of the "full Jew" story.

[WFHermans]

I suppose that if you start with good genes, like the Icelanders, you will be safe from the bad effects of inbreeding.

[Alison]

H&H, your posts are insightful. Thank you. In this instance though, I must disagree. I have seen the effects of inbreeding, especially here in Africa, and the progeny are affected in a detrimental way. I am not talking only about physical problems here either.

[Hermanric and Horse]

I suppose that if you start with good genes, like the Icelanders, you will be safe from the bad effects of inbreeding.Up to a point. Sooner or later negative recessive genes will show up in any group. Nature and culture will then determine whether the gene is increased, decreased, or eliminated in the population. I.e., both natural selection and cultural selection will influence genetic inheritance in the group.

The Icelanders didn't inbreed anyway. If you want to see extreme examples of inbreeding, you can look at some Egyptian dynasties, where many generations of dynasties used brother-sister marriages for political reasons. The resulting children were usually fine. They weren't monsters. But that was only for a single family over a handful of generation; entire cultures did not adopt brother-sister marriages. The Macedonian Ptolemy dynasty that ruled Egypt also adopted this kind of incestuous inbreeding. Cleopatra was a product of this, IIRC. The Magian priests of Persia also advocated brother-sister marriages. Elite groups seem to have been able to get away with this kind of inbreeding, at least for a while. But sooner or later you get bad genes that spread through these elite inbreeding groups, such as the hemophilia that the last Czar's son suffered from.

[Angocachi]

Or the under bite and chimp ears the English royal family can't shake off.

[Hermanric and Horse]

H&H, your posts are insightful. Thank you. In this instance though, I must disagree. I have seen the effects of inbreeding, especially here in Africa, and the progeny are affected in a detrimental way. I am not talking only about physical problems here either.I'm just pointing out that the negative effects of inbreeding are not inevitable or immediate in all cases; you have to understand the causality at work (ie, genes). If you only look at the negative examples you are not looking at the whole picture.

Humans have been using inbreeding techniques to selectively shape plants and animals for thousands of years. We just don't seem capable of looking at human reproduction in the same objective fashion; we create taboos instead. A taboo against inbreeding is no doubt a good thing, ie, socially useful; but it isn't an objective or scientific way to look at the problem.

[Alison]

LOL, A.

[Hermanric and Horse]

Or the under bite and chimp ears the English royal family can't shake off.
Good point; although the young princes seem to have done so, thanks to Diana. There's a theory that Prince Charles isn't the father; but whatever. The Hanoverian ears and chin seem to be gone in either case.

[Alison]

I'm just pointing out that the negative effects of inbreeding are not inevitable or immediate in all cases; you have to understand the causality at work (ie, genes). If you only look at the negative examples you are not looking at the whole picture.

Humans have been using inbreeding techniques to selectively shape plants and animals for thousands of years. We just don't seem capable of looking at human reproduction in the same objective fashion; we create taboos instead. A taboo against inbreeding is no doubt a good thing, ie, socially useful; but it isn't an objective or scientific way to look at the problem.

True, H&H, but humans haven't done it with humans, hence the bad effects of inbreeding. Until the scientists come up with the goods, and people accept the theories, it's not going to happen, especially with certain religious/societal taboos.

Consider that humans regards plants and other animals as lessor inhabitants of the earth, but have accepted genetically modified species. What does that say about us? We are arrogant.

Take this scenario: H&H is my brother. We have a perfect genetic match to create a perfect, inbred species. You are my older brother. I remember you pulling my hair and teasing me mercilessly. I think you smell and have bad breath. Besides which, we have been programmed to believe that incest is wrong.

Scientists come along and say we must procreate to create a perfect race. No WAY!

I think this is just your way of getting me on Jerry Springer, dollink. :loveeyes:

[Angocachi]

"It's hot because its wrong!" -Appalachian

[Hermanric and Horse]

True, H&H, but humans haven't done it with humans, hence the bad effects of inbreeding. Until the scientists come up with the goods, and people accept the theories, it's not going to happen, especially with certain religious/societal taboos.

Consider that humans regards plants and other animals as lessor inhabitants of the earth, but have accepted genetically modified species. What does that say about us? We are arrogant.

Take this scenario: H&H is my brother. We have a perfect genetic match to create a perfect, inbred species. You are my older brother. I remember you pulling my hair and teasing me mercilessly. I think you smell and have bad breath. Besides which, we have been programmed to believe that incest is wrong.

Scientists come along and say we must procreate to create a perfect race. No WAY!

I think this is just your way of getting me on Jerry Springer, dollink. :loveeyes:Uh, no. I'm talking science, and you think I'm advocating changes in social taboos? Where did I ever advocate any change at all in our attitudes to inbreeding? This is precisely why democracy doesn't work. It's impossible to have meaningful discussions on certain topics without excluding large portions of the public from the discussion. It's also why science can't defend itself in a democracy. Most people have no desire for a disinterested understanding of how Nature works; they see every scientific discussion as either beyond their understanding (and therefore elitist and undemocratic) or a plot of some kind against their religion or their culture. The idea of a disinterested desire to know how things actually work simply does not enter the heads of most people. They see it as a threat. The greater the taboo being discussed, the greater the perceived threat.

[Fenian]

After seeing this no one should wonder why there are so few true beauties among Hollywood actresses.

[Alison]

Uh, no. I'm talking science, and you think I'm advocating changes in social taboos? Where did I ever advocate any change at all in our attitudes to inbreeding? This is precisely why democracy doesn't work. It's impossible to have meaningful discussions on certain topics without excluding large portions of the public from the discussion. It's also why science can't defend itself in a democracy. Most people have no desire for a disinterested understanding of how Nature works; they see every scientific discussion as either beyond their understanding (and therefore elitist and undemocratic) or a plot of some kind against their religion or their culture. The idea of a disinterested desire to know how things actually work simply does not enter the heads of most people. They see it as a threat. The greater the taboo being discussed, the greater the perceived threat.

Not at all. what I am saying is that the scientists haven't come up with a solution that adequately convinces people. I never said that you advocated changes in social taboos. What I said was that humans would find it difficult to rid themselves of social/religious taboos.

Naturally, one would want to include the major population groups, but face it - nobody in their right mind, unless they are socially inferior, as determined by our standards, would sleep with their brother.

I most definitely wouldn't want to. I married my husband because I love him, and our children are delightful. If someone told me that having my brother's children would result in genetically perfect children, I would prefer to be childless.

That is the taboo/religious stigma I am speaking about here. Now stop being so sensitive, or I may have to ask you to show me your bottom. :)

[Alison]

Fenian, it's cos I live in South Africa and there are too many beautiful woman here, so I didn't try to compete.

[WFHermans]

I think there is a natural abhorrence in many animals against procreating with their own close family. I read somewhere that rats try to avoid it. On the long term it is detrimental, but not necessary on the shorter term. Cleopatra was the endresult of many brother-sister marriages, and she almost made it to be the first Empress of the Roman Empire.

[Alison]

Perhaps it is my pre-conceived ideas or as a result of brainwashing, but it just seems abhorrent to me.

[Fenian]

Fenian, it's cos I live in South Africa and there are too many beautiful woman here, so I didn't try to compete.

Can you explain? :)

[Alison]

Well, could I ever compete with the likes of Charlize Theron? Not a chance. :)

[Fenian]

Well, could I ever compete with the likes of Charlize Theron? Not a chance. :)

I said the reason Hollywood actresses aren't as pretty as they could be is because there are so many that are Jewish.

And then you said you couldn't compete in SA?

There are a lot of Jewesses in SA, aren't there?

[MANGO!]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRpk4-yGG8A

("Jewish Pride Don't Forget Your Roots")

They forgot one:

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/8410/terroristsjdlsalutetoisaj8.jpg

[Angocachi]

The JDL uses her to scare all the Islamo-fascists away.

[Angocachi]

I said the reason Hollywood actresses aren't as pretty as they could be is because there are so many that are Jewish.

Well if Italians had taken over the film industry like they were supposed to...
http://home.grandecom.net/~smoore/liberty/girls/mb.jpg

[6KILLER]

They forgot one:

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/8410/terroristsjdlsalutetoisaj8.jpg

Damned, that's the definition of Turbo-Diesel-Bull-Dyke. :puke:

[Angocachi]

It's even married. :confused:

[gmork]

Are you sure? I thought his mom was a "shiksa" but I'm only going on what I heard on his radio show; I'd like to know the source of the "full Jew" story.

I read it on Jewhoo a while back, but that site has apparently imploded. :( As best I recall, it listed his mother's maiden name and gave brief (Jewish) biographies for both parents.

The best I can do at this point is either wikipedia or the faq to a fan maillist...but (a) I'm not exactly thrilled with either source and (b) you can google them up at least as well as I can. Sorry I can't offer anything more definitive, at least at present.

[Hermanric and Horse]

I read it on Jewhoo a while back, but that site has apparently imploded. :( As best I recall, it listed his mother's maiden name and gave brief (Jewish) biographies for both parents.

The best I can do at this point is either wikipedia or the faq to a fan maillist...but (a) I'm not exactly thrilled with either source and (b) you can google them up at least as well as I can. Sorry I can't offer anything more definitive, at least at present.
Right you are. The wiki lists his Jewish maternal grandparents too, so that sounds pretty solid. I don't see any reason why someone would want to fake that kind of info, or why wiki would let that pass through their editorial process unchallenged. Wiki isn't that bad a site, if you keep in mind that it's going to reflect the bias of the "dominant paradigm"; but then, that's true for all of the regular encyclopedias, too.

[Hermanric and Horse]

Not at all. what I am saying is that the scientists haven't come up with a solution that adequately convinces people.It isn't the job of scientists to "come up with a solution that adequately convinces people". That's my entire point. Scientists want to understand causality. They aren't in the business of "coming up with solutions that adequately convinces people" of anything. Scientists who think otherwise are engaging in politics, not science. I was trying to explain the mechanics of why inbreeding does what it does. That's it.

[WFHermans]

Years before I became semitically aware, the actress Jane Seymour was presented as a beautiful woman, which she clearly was not.