>>17899779
>The problem with this reasoning is that in antiquity the genetically superior men would kill or enslave the dysgenic men and take their women due to the nature of warfare.
Ridiculously stupid idea, retard. War and combat in humans is not some genetic test where the greatest specimen wins out. We’re humans. We have opposable thumbs. We use tools. Some ugly hunchback can bonk Gigachad in the head with a rock while Gigachad sleeps. He can cut off Gigachad’s balls with a knife, and then he’ll take Gigachad as his slave.
Humans are not the same as elk, who fight with their antlers until the weaker set of antlers snap. Our behavior is too complex. Some British midget with a musket will BTFO some tall, strong Zulu warrior.
If you want to see eugenics in action, look at the mating practices of wealthy women. Fuck, we see it everyday in the USA, and the men who complain about it.
>Women here only want 6’0”+ men
>They only want big dicks
>They only want handsome faces
Men in the USA are constantly bitching that wealthy Western woman don’t care about their job or their personality or their loyalty. They just want large, handsome, well-endowed men.
Because women in the USA do not risk starvation if they don’t find a husband. Sub-par men needed a social structure that threatened women with death if they did not mate with them.
So you faggots come on here and screech about
>Survival of the fittest
But you’re living in the most eugenics society ever, and you hate it. Make up your minds. Is your only point of pride just mogging some old, tiny, starving, Asian dude from 100 years ago?
