This is not true. There are a number of next-door neighbours where the gap in looks is larger. Hell, you can see it in Australia where racial groups are intermingled.

You know full well we are talking about origins of people. Not immigrants. Hell, Indians are unattractive, so whenever an Indian goes to a white country, there is an immense gap just among neighbors. That is not what we are talking about.

We are talking about indigenous places of origin. The gap between Iran and India, while under 400 miles at its closest point, is the largest in the world among indigenous locations.

You didn't comment on the Austronesian genetic component being a large part of this.

It is still an extremely short distance for the looks of women to be so different. For example, there is not a similarly large gap between Spain and Italy, in terms of the looks of women.

Second, there is an entire country in between the two closest points of India and Iran. It's called "Pakistan" – you might have heard of it? And the people within it are culturally, linguistically, religiously, and ethnically quite different from Indians.

I hope you know that Pakistan didn't exist until 1947. Up to that time, the boundary of British India extended up to Iran.

Plus, Pakistan has a language that verbally is nearly identical to Hindi (even if the script is different), and Pakistan follows the same sports, consumes the same music, has almost the same cuisine, etc. as India. Their cultures are very similar. India has Muslims too, you know.

It seems your knowledge of the Subcontinent is limited to the Eastern half of it. Nothing wrong with that, but at least be aware of it.

Now, on to the primary topic :

I said the bartender happens to be broke. But we cannot assume that the bartender is less inclined towards self-improvement than the upper class Indian. While you correctly point out that the Indian *could* do more because he has money, the barrier he has to overcome is higher, not the least of which is getting out of India itself (which is not easy).

Your premise is that the Indian is more inclined towards self-improvement, which we cannot assume.

My initial comparison made no indication that one of the men is more inclined towards self-improvement than the other. You are inserting that assumption.

I inserted nothing. These were your precise words:

A broke white guy in the West who is a bartender. He never has much in the way of savings

In other words, he is doing nothing to build up savings and stability. Which means that traveling will be very hard for him to do. Which means that getting any sort of serious education will be difficult. Which means that he will have a tough time setting up a side hustle.

Which simply means that he is always going to have a very hard time becoming the kind of valuable and valued man who can make progress in life.

At the narrowest part (the Westernmost extremity of India, called 'Kachh' or something, vs. the Easternmost part of Iran), the two are only 400 miles apart or so.

First, 400 miles is the driving distance from New York City to Niagara Falls. It takes the better part of 10 hours to go that far, and that involves crossing into a completely different world. I know, I've driven it. That ain't exactly "such a short geographical distance".

Second, there is an entire country in between the two closest points of India and Iran. It's called "Pakistan" – you might have heard of it? And the people within it are culturally, linguistically, religiously, and ethnically quite different from Indians.

And third, your specific claim was that "there is nowhere else in the world where such a short geographic distance has such a large gap in looks". This is not true. There are a number of next-door neighbours where the gap in looks is larger. Hell, you can see it in Australia where racial groups are intermingled.

Hence, an Indian woman born in the West is more likely to be better looking than her cousin born in India.

Provided she takes good care of herself. Which Sunny Leone and Katrina Kaif obviously have. There is an emphasis on fitness culture in the West and Eastern Europe that simply does not exist in India to anything like the same degree.

But the majority of Indian women outside of India do not look after themselves and mix in the absolute worst of both Indian and Western culture.

My initial comparison made no indication that one of the men is more inclined towards self-improvement than the other. You are inserting that assumption.

If anything, the bartender does not have to change his country or even his metropolitan area. The upper-class Indian has to go to another country (which is difficult, as you know).

Iran is quite a long ways off from India, check your map.

False. At the narrowest part (the Westernmost extremity of India, called 'Kachh' or something, vs. the Easternmost part of Iran), the two are only 400 miles apart or so.

No. They get WORSE outside of India.

Didn't you say in the main article that the prettiest of the five actresses is 'unsurprisingly' the one born in the West? By saying 'unsurprisingly' you indicate that this is a common pattern, and you also use the Sunny Leone example to further the point.

Hence, an Indian woman born in the West is more likely to be better looking than her cousin born in India.

It is not a 'missed point'. I simply chose two men who I thought were equal but different. One with much hotter women, and the other with material wealth.

They are not even remotely equal and I explained exactly why.

Remember, in the 'sphere we know how bad Marriage 2.0, and how everyone from Heartiste to Blackdragon to the Misandry Bubble has advised men not to marry.

Yes, and that is because they are not looking at marriage from a Christian perspective. They are looking at it from at best a secular perspective. Even Roissy, as good as he is at breaking down the awful state of the current MMP, does not understand that the only realistic way to fix the problem is by returning to Christian morality – because doing so requires a near-total rejection of easy sex and a serious reining in of male as well as female promiscuity.

As for Blackdragon's views on marriage – I think he looks at everything from a purely secular perspective simply to justify a highly hedonistic lifestyle and I do not take his words on the subject with much seriousness anymore. I advise caution to anyone who looks to him as a role model. I do not consider him one anymore, even though I used to follow his work pretty closely for years.

I think it is extremely difficult to build any muscle in India. The environment is too toxic, the food too carb-heavy, and the gyms probably pathetic.

Wrong, wronger, and REALLY wrong. It's not "extremely" difficult. It's possible. You just have to have the resources to do it. Gyms in India are not that bad. You have to know where to look. In some cities it is easier than in others. Calcutta is pretty pathetic – there is only one fitness chain in the city that offers anything like Western standards of equipment and facilities, and it is very expensive. But other cities like Hyderabad, Bombay, Delhi, and even smaller towns like Jodhpur, offer a lot of options. They have much more of a gym culture.

And an Indian man with means can easily change his diet to a protein-heavy, carb-lite approach – IF he has the will to do so.

I dare say that the broke bartender is doing slightly more to improve himself than the typical wealthy Indian young man.

Not if he's merely working in a bar and doing nothing to build savings and stability or travel or get an education or build a side hustle.

The Indian environment is toxic, so Indian women born in the West can become much better looking than even the rich ones born in India.

No. They get WORSE outside of India. In the West they become utter hambeasts due to a combination of high-carb diets both at home and outdoors, and an even more sedentary lifestyle than they get in India.

nearby Iranian women are SO much better looking than Indian women; there is nowhere else in the world where such a short geographical distance has such a large gap in looks

A) Iran is quite a long ways off from India, check your map.

B) There are numerous examples around the world of countries that are practically next-door neighbours where the women in one are vastly more attractive than the women in the other. Georgia vs Turkey comes to mind, as does Morocco vs Algeria.

I know a few of those who think they've won the National Lottery with an Indian chick.

True, but that is because those pairings involve a low SMV/MMV man dating and marrying a low SMV (though not necessarily low MMV) Indian woman.

if there is no improving the fundamental state of existence of a man, then why should the world around him waste any resources on him?

Again, that comes back to the man in question. We men do not find ourselves, we make ourselves. A man who simply refuses to improve himself in any way, indeed is not a man upon whom resources should be wasted.

It is not a 'missed point'. I simply chose two men who I thought were equal but different. One with much hotter women, and the other with material wealth.

Now, onto the main topic.

I disagree that the white bartender does not have options. Remember, in the 'sphere we know how bad Marriage 2.0, and how everyone from Heartiste to Blackdragon to the Misandry Bubble has advised men not to marry. How many American men have been separated from their kids and make alimony payments under threat of prison?
The bartender can marry, even if he is broke (broke people do marry), and his high SMV makes for a moderately high MMV even if he is broke.

Plus, of the Indian guy (mind you, this is a Top 0.1% Indian guy wealth-wise), how many can even begin to do what you say. I think it is extremely difficult to build any muscle in India. The environment is too toxic, the food too carb-heavy, and the gyms probably pathetic. Plus, getting out of India is not easy. You yourself have trouble getting out, despite everything you know.

I dare say that the broke bartender is doing slightly more to improve himself than the typical wealthy Indian young man. He also doesn't have to immigrate to another country to undertake his self-improvement.

Indian women :

I realize that both Indian men and women are super-low SMV, so are not mismatched with each other. They just have too little exposure to the outside world so are each oblivious that they rank at the bottom.

But your article alludes to two factors regarding Indian women : genetics and environment. The Indian environment is toxic, so Indian women born in the West can become much better looking than even the rich ones born in India. At the same time, the Indian genome is a hybrid of Caucasoids and Austronesians, and the Austronesian component is enough to obliterate looks (which is why nearby Iranian women are SO much better looking than Indian women; there is nowhere else in the world where such a short geographical distance has such a large gap in looks).

Which factor is dominant.

On the other hand, if you're an exceedingly ugly man in America, the UK, or Europe …

I know a few of those who think they've won the National Lottery with an Indian chick.

But the deeper query is this: if there is no improving the fundamental state of existence of a man, then why should the world around him waste any resources on him?