Serious Do you think prehistoric insecure beta uprisings are the reason chads are so distinct/ rare today?

[Pinpoint]

I personally think so, which actually would imply that in the real world being a dirty fighter and taking the easy way always defeats the manly way.
Everyone wants to look the most distinct in the gorup. But too much distinction makes you a target. If you look at communist russia you can see similar patterns. IF you see how jews/ gooks/ or nonwhites hate the white man, then that's the reason why.
We're seeing prehistorical events replay out on the white race with everyone ganging up on them through humanitarian ideology.
Where quality is targetry, rather than dominance.
Especailly when times were less interlinked I could see this happening. What do you all think?

The ratio of white chads/ or chads in general might be taking a turnaround these days, but back in the day I could imagine that there was a huge deficit of it a long time ago during mongol raids/ or bronze age/ or times way before that right after humanity had stomached enough volatile masculinity from the ice age. Not even foids could protect the chads/ or sigmas from beta wrath.

In a way it's poetically ironic because betakind is suffering for it today because in the smarpthone era, the rarity of chad just makes them more ideal.

 

[Cuyen]

No. Chads being rare is for the balance of nature.

 

[Pinpoint]

No. Chads being rare is for the balance of nature.

explain.
I personally think so. There's just too much anthropological evidence supporting it.

 

[Cuyen]

explain.
I personally think so. There's just too much anthropological evidence supporting it.

What are these evidences supporting it?

I personally think they are rare, yes because of its nature balance itself. and it's like asking why there are many deads, there are because nature needs to balance itself also you see alpha animals are not making up majority of the species
for example, not every animal in a pack is alpha. same goes for the humans if you ask me.

 

[Nothingness]

Sure. And we have to finish what our ancestors did not. If every incel had such hate and determination as i do have none of chads were left. But my bretheren are too weak.

 

[Pinpoint]

What are these evidences supporting it?

I personally think they are rare, yes because of its nature balance itself. and it's like asking why there are many deads, there are because nature needs to balance itself also you see alpha animals are not making up majority of the species
for example, not every animal in a pack is alpha. same goes for the humans if you ask me.

big evidence is religion and monogamy.
the most generalized form of evil across almost all religion, I.E. vanity/ bullheadedness/ superficiality are female/ chad traits.
I'm sure a lot of people attended religion because it gave abstract dominance/ monogamy to men who weren't chad.
the fact human beings used to be far larger/ more cro magnon.
and alpha is relative to who is around you. I am just saying there aren't super gargantuan people anymore because people would have tag teamed together to take them down by numbers.
There were humans that were 10 ft tall.
If you're small how are you gonna make people follow you?
Yep, by playacting power from the unknown/ everything around you (religion)
Jews are the perfect perpetrators of this kind of mentality. I mean why else is the hebrew god the whites worship? think about it in abstract, and thematically it resonates.
Christianity is a huge perpetrator of killing chad off. Their whole morality basically speaks against chad dominance.

 

[Cuyen]

big evidence is religion and monogamy.
the most generalized form of evil across almost all religion, I.E. vanity/ bullheadedness/ superficiality are female/ chad traits.
I'm sure a lot of people attended religion because it gave abstract dominance/ monogamy to men who weren't chad.
the fact human beings used to be far larger/ more cro magnon.
and alpha is relative to who is around you. I am just saying there aren't super gargantuan people anymore because people would have tag teamed together to take them down by numbers.
There were humans that were 10 ft tall.

what you're telling is subjective so I don't see it as evidence. You say a lot of people attended religion because it gave them dominance over chads, but then one would say people attended religion because they wanted to feel a thing with unlimited power cure their problems, one would say that religion was a cope being created for the people that have been having harsh times and wanted to cope with their miserable lives.

But what I'm trying to say is more scientific
and can be proven by just looking at the nature

 

[Pinpoint]

what you're telling is subjective so I don't see it as evidence. You say a lot of people attended religion because it gave them dominance over chads, but then one would say people attended religion because they wanted to feel a thing with unlimited power cure their problems, one would say that religion was a cope being created for the people that have been having harsh times and wanted to cope with their miserable lives.

But what I'm trying to say is more scientific
and can be proven by just looking at the nature

it's not subjective. and objectivity is generally impossible considering so much about sociology is hardly proven without a doubt, and hazed from variance. If you look at the patterns you can infer something however rather solid about mankind.
No, I'd say that religion is attractive to power seekers because virtue is something humanity has psychological reserves for that chad acts against, and women like that.
You can have moralfags find reason to beatdown chads for being unholy for the sake of justice. Religion is an instrument of beta revenge.
None of this can be objectualized because it is not self-apparent through any means of scientific substantiation. Unless we had something that could get into another layer of semantics of "substance" like looking into the past.
But even if what I said is true, we're all reductionists and so science is folly. It gets compartmentalized in our brains subjectively. Why not just fill our brains with what can eliminate chad the same way religious people did? power doesn't matter. creativity in europe is getting pushed out for pandering to the brown mudslime muslim biomatter. just you watch.

balance as you call it has some legitimacy ring to it. But balance is hardly a thing that nature creates when it acts over a species. It's more of just the gravitic restpoint when you calculate everything nature is doing, and where that pattern falls upon.
The restpoint for chickens is to cluck, but the restpoint for wolves is to eat. When wolves find chickens, then the stronger's restpoint will be the norm after.
Balance is an arbitrary term. Arbitrarily you can see a different kind of balance when you look at less dimorphical species who are not like humans. And there is infighting, but their strength is relatively similar to eachother, but the bigger one usually wins out.
Humans are crafty and it makes more sense for the majority of the population to have their mental restpoint/ justice take justice over the chad's. By sheer numbers betas dominate chads.
This is "balance" when you take into calculation the human element in the equation of balance.
It is a misconception for nature to have a form of will on its own that impacts every microstage of organisms. The organisms have the power to influence life and death in their own domain without some kind of natural catastrophe like a comet putting an end to them. Life is a struggle, and humanity fights against it in their own way. Easier to fall than to gather the resources to rise. And we have risen in a certain way that gives a more comfortable restpoint to a primitive, impulsive, non-interlinked humanity.
If you simply look empirically at the affects of current social pressures, then it's clear that chads have been nipped from society for a long time

Just think of the incentive people have to create religion when they're smaller. It's clearly obvious the natural order's gravitational center/ bottompoint of artificiality on the grid of change would have many reason to revenge against chad. and when you look at how distinct chad is, yet the will for women to replicate chad genes, then you can put the picture together.
a female's genes can also hold back chad. But it wouldn't make sense why there would be a huge disparity unless she was kept into a bad genetic pocket. and I wonder why. Oh right, beta insularism.
Most all ideologies are used to control the concretes.

 

[GetFucked]

Chad status is reserved for the top 20% regardless of what the rest of men look like. According to studies women only deem the top 10% as above average whereas the bottom 90% are below average. Standards scale with the population.

 

[mybodyisrotting]

Not strictly beta uprisings, more like social engineering of wisecels is what allowed things like monogamy to become a staple of civillization

 

[Cuyen]

it's not subjective. and objectivity is generally impossible considering so much about sociology is hardly proven without a doubt, and hazed from variance. If you look at the patterns you can infer something however rather solid about mankind.
No, I'd say that religion is attractive to power seekers because virtue is something humanity has psychological reserves for that chad acts against, and women like that.
You can have moralfags find reason to beatdown chads for being unholy for the sake of justice. Religion is an instrument of beta revenge.
None of this can be objectualized because it is not self-apparent through any means of scientific substantiation. Unless we had something that could get into another layer of semantics of "substance" like looking into the past.
But even if what I said is true, we're all reductionists and so science is folly. It gets compartmentalized in our brains subjectively. Why not just fill our brains with what can eliminate chad the same way religious people did? power doesn't matter. creativity in europe is getting pushed out for pandering to the brown mudslime muslim biomatter. just you watch.

balance as you call it has some legitimacy ring to it. But balance is hardly a thing that nature creates when it acts over a species. Balance is an arbitrary term. Arbitrarily you can see a different kind of balance when you look at less dimorphical species who are not like humans. And there is infighting, but their strength is relatively similar to eachother, but the bigger one usually wins out.

Just think of the incentive people have to create religion when they're smaller. It's clearly obvious the natural order's gravitational center/ bottompoint of artificiality on the grid of change would have many reason to revenge against chad. and when you look at how distinct chad is, yet the will for women to replicate chad genes, then you can put the picture together.
a female's genes can also hold back chad. But it wouldn't make sense why there would be a huge disparity unless she was kept into a bad genetic pocket. and I wonder why. Oh right, beta insularism.
Most all ideologies are used to control the concretes.

Meaning of the life, after-life, goal of the beliefs, religion: these are all topics of psychology and very subjective. these subjects are not even open to argue because you'll reach nowhere, every person sees these different because these are subjective topics.

Also, balance can be anything, natural selection, for example, is a part of maintaining the balance in nature. As you see religion created to have power over chads, but one would say it was created to scam people, make them fear of something with unlimited power so that they can easily obey

 

[Pinpoint]

Chad status is reserved for the top 20% regardless of what the rest of men look like. According to studies women only deem the top 10% as above average whereas the bottom 90% are below average. Standards scale with the population.

I am talking about the prehistoric avatar of chad. but modern chad is definitely distinct.
it's all about distinction and mental registry.

Not strictly beta uprisings, more like social engineering of wisecels is what allowed things like monogamy to become a staple of civillization

a -phemism for beta uprising.
even an old chad is a beta in regards to the hindbrain of the female psyche.
females are reptillian and effectiveness minded. age is just a notable distinction in regards to their superficial psychschema.

 

[Gyros_Pretcel]

If you think about it, there was always going on a societal contract alowing betas to breed. Marriage is probably one of the oldest human insitutions there is.

There could have been other models, depending on how generous the chad elite an the women were, that is basiclaly free love, but it is far higher deranged from nature. (not necessarily worse though)

Someone posted here the question, what would happen on an island with 20 incels and 20 staceys.

One answer was all foids would flock to the chadcels. Other cels would agree on a pact to kill chad and equally distribute foids. I think this is pretty much, what happened in reality at the dawn of organized human society.

Possible surviving chads would just knowingly integrate into the system, out of necessity and later born ones simply go with the social conditioning.

This probably happened independently in different human groups and due to the increased economic and military strength, those took other the chad harem groups pretty quickly on a global scale.

Stuff like this, where beta males band together and rise up, can be observed the animal world today as well, but they are obviously to dumb to form a lasting monogamial society.

We are talking here of a time of pre organized society.

But chads were already probably rare to begin with, otherwise they would have prevented the beta uprising.

Another questiion id if there was a chad alliance / multiple chads in a harem.

Also where did the betas come from if there where so many chads? The beta would have to origin from families as well somehow.

There were humans that were 10 ft tall.

doubt

 

[Pinpoint]

Meaning of the life, after-life, goal of the beliefs, religion: these are all topics of psychology and very subjective. these subjects are not even open to argue because you'll reach nowhere, every person sees these different because these are subjective topics.

Also, balance can be anything, natural selection, for example, is a part of maintaining the balance in nature. As you see religion created to have power over chads, but one would say it was created to scam people, make them fear of something with unlimited power so that they can easily obey

It was created for all those reasons but you cannot lie about how it was used as a means to eliminate the chad dynamic from social prominence. religion is just a very adapted form of superstition.
there is no such thing as objective. objectivity is in itself, as well as science, a form of philosophy. nothing is proven without a doubt no matter how unlikely a contrast to a natural scientific rule there may seem to be.

 

[Gyros_Pretcel]

Meaning of the life, after-life, goal of the beliefs, religion: these are all topics of psychology and very subjective. these subjects are not even open to argue because you'll reach nowhere, every person sees these different because these are subjective topics.

Cope tbh. All religions developped similarily.

 

[Pinpoint]

doubt

ancients-bg.com

Dit domein kan te koop zijn!

ancients-bg.com

Giants in America: Ancient Skeletons Found Buried in Mounds | Gaia

Curious about the possible history of giants in America? Read up on different reports of giant skeletons found in ancient burial mounds throughout the US

www.gaia.com

Ancient "Big Man" Confirms That Humans Stood Tall Early

A newly-described 3.6 million year old skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis helps to flesh out the prehistory of our lineage.

www.wired.com

http://www.6000years.org/giants.html

I think their targetry, and weak demeanor from being too content like maned lions lead to their end tbh. Insecurity makes you powerful and diligent.

 

[Cuyen]

It was created for all those reasons but you cannot lie about how it was used as a means to eliminate the chad dynamic from social prominence. religion is just a very adapted form of superstition.
there is no such thing as objective. objectivity is in itself, as well as science, a form of philosophy. nothing is proven without a doubt no matter how unlikely a contrast to a natural scientific rule there may seem to be.

again, you stated that that's what you think in OP, which is subjective, even if not, I think I still have enough reason to believe that's all for the balance of nature

 

[Pinpoint]

They eventually probably at one point fucked women or got raped to be incorporated into the more diligent and resourceful mankind.

 

[Cuyen]

Cope tbh. All religions developped similarily.

I don't talk about the developing of the religions bro, I'm talking about how people see things differently, like death, life, after-life
even ideologies

 

[Pinpoint]

again, you stated that that's what you think in OP, which is subjective, even if not, I think I still have enough reason to believe that's all for the balance of nature

Do you think there's natural evidence for everything? this is just speculation and inference, with bits of evidence notwithstanding the fact knowledge is often suppressed and euphemized in a politically correct society. I do not take anyhting for an objective fact unless it is processed by every possible means of information, and even then I need to know where it comes from and who has said it.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then you know the rest.
We need a self improving A.I. to proper measure objectivity. We're too organic to be utterly rational.

 

[Cuyen]

Do you think there's natural evidence for everything? this is just speculation and inference, with bits of evidence notwithstanding the fact knowledge is often suppressed. I do not take anyhting for an objective fact unless it is processed by every possible means of information, and even then I need to know where it comes from and who has said it.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then you know the rest.

There's natural evidence for everything?

probably

but we do not know all. and I can take what you said as speculation

because we're all subjective

 

[GetFucked]

I am talking about the prehistoric avatar of chad. but modern chad is definitely distinct.
it's all about distinction and mental registry.

If you look at renditions of neanderthals and early homo sapiens you'll immediately notice that they looked like complete subhumans. Strong brow ridges, beady eyes, massive noses, and non existent chins. Apparently chins did not become popular until 10,000 years ago. The modern depiction of a prehistoric chad is basically a niche of random genes scrambled together and may not have been a viable build in the past. Prehistoric humans we're selected for frame, height, and killing ability. Nowadays it's all about looking pretty with a little robustness tacked on.

 

[Pinpoint]

If you look at renditions of neanderthals and early homo sapiens you'll immediately notice that they looked like complete subhumans. Strong brow ridges, beady eyes, massive noses, and non existent chins. Apparently chins did not become popular until 10,000 years ago. The modern depiction of a prehistoric chad is basically a niche of random genes scrambled together and may not have been a viable build in the past. Prehistoric humans we're selected for frame, height, and killing ability. Nowadays it's all about looking pretty with a little robustness tacked on.

to be someone who is wanted for frame, height, and effectivity, and to show that off comes off as dour these days. pedigree over raw power.
Women do not have MMA guys on their wall. And if they come from some ragtag shit flyover state where that's more valued then she will feel too masculine in the smartphone era to be secure.

So you're basically saying humanity wanted regality/ pedigree over raw power (which I believe was killed off). Eh, I can think of less of an incentive to be prettier than to kill off people who weren't safe.
But the genetic mixaround theory of everything could make sense.
I personally think that humanity looks generally similar now without much rugged angularity to their body in general (less attractive people look squishy but they're also the left behind level majority at this point into the future) because of some kind of uniformity out of insecurity that people wanted to have.
The human being is low supply on a lot of things that go out for adventure or excitement. We want to turtle ourselves in a comfortable corner and be left in peace.
The human brand of intelligence is addicted to finding the restpoint in life. We do not do things so we can battle-well, but so that we can succeed-easy.

There's natural evidence for everything?

probably

but we do not know all. and I can take what you said as speculation

because we're all subjective

it's a substantiated followable inference. no different than something as objective "fact".

 

[Gyros_Pretcel]

Women do not have MMA guys on their wall.

Foids are attracted to physical markers of natural potential not fighting ability per se. In the wild under similiar living conditions chad would be superior. The children of the women not seeking facial chad markers died off and so did their attraction for beta males.

 

[Pinpoint]

Foids are attracted to physical markers of natural potential not fighting ability per se. In the wild under similiar living conditions chad would be superior.

Female cognitive courses are designed to be snooty. Their criticism dialogue will be "oh yeah that short guy really worked hard but he won't be seen as anything more as an underdog, and I want to be content/ regal/ over-earthly in how I exist, so I'll go for the guy who looks like he can be in a movie/ made my magic/ didn't have to drudge in the dourness of life".
These are physio-implications. Implications of the physical form.
Yes women have a pyramid of priority/preference. But at this point in society they don't have to live in combat/ in the trenches. They can live in the light, and now it's about how people can be high in the light (abstractphemism for civilization/ upper class insulation) than someone who can battle in the dark (abstractphemism in the untamed unrefined world).

That's what I love about english. It's such a snoot language, shows the luxuriance loving numbness of our whole western civilization. The words to describe something bad don't have names. It's not a hateful person's language like for me. There are mostly words with prefixes of what is NOT good rather than what is bad.
Unremarkable, uncouthe, undesirable.
It's a fairy braiders language. Lagging behind looking at the light when you're in darkness rather than devising a term for people who are representing negativity.

 

[littlemanhikicel]

I think betas in the past were more manly and violent. They start to killing chads and rape/kidnap foids. Then society and technology start to move outside the betas one more time, with the diference that nowadays betas are too pussys to do something.

 

[Pinpoint]

English's vernacular shows the euphemistic edge-shaving nonconfrontational pansy nature of the british.
No wonder so many people have an issue articulating their hatred these days.

 

[GetFucked]

to be someone who is wanted for frame, height, and effectivity, and to show that off comes off as dour these days. pedigree over raw power.
Women do not have MMA guys on their wall. And if they come from some ragtag shit flyover state where that's more valued then she will feel too masculine in the smartphone era to be secure.

Personally, I'd try to acquire traits that will bring me success now. Funny how most successful MMA guys look like actual apes and share the traits I mentioned above. Popular modern celebrity chads pretty much all look similar. Strong jawlines, aquiline noses, robust skulls but still retaining neotaneous features, fit but not too massive. Having just one or two of those traits will not suffice and if you have even one subhuman feature you will be considered untouchable by women.

 

[Pinpoint]

Personally, I'd try to acquire traits that will bring me success now. Funny how most successful MMA guys look like actual apes and share the traits I mentioned above. Popular modern celebrity chads pretty much all look similar. Strong jawlines, aquiline noses, robust skulls but still retaining neotaneous features, fit but not too massive. Having just one or two of those traits will not suffice and if you have even one subhuman feature you will be considered untouchable by women.

Women are looking to be carried. Having a vulnerable point, even in a pedigree-hierarchy, pedigrarchy, is prone to open you to the dynamics that civilization tried to suppress. The whole point of being a prettyboy is that your finessed physique was a gesture that you do not have to adapt to the world and how brutal it is in order to have mastery over it.
It's like a theater show, and one thing that is a flaw takes a female out of the display mentality. Like if you see the game of thrones starbucks cup.

 

[Pinpoint]

I think betas in the past were more manly and violent. They start to killing chads and rape/kidnap foids. Then society and technology start to move outside the betas one more time, with the diference that nowadays betas are too pussys to do something.

The jews are the ultimate brigands of the beta races. They have found a way to do all of this legally. It's the hicks/ nigs who have trouble now that everything is so interlinked. Crime basically can't be done until humanitarian momentum against cops destabilizes their law enforcement so that nigs can go back to 90s era crime.
The real reason the violence against cops thing got propped up is because digital technology makes it easier to tame the apes.

 

[Evildоer]

betas are too pussys to do something.

Majority of them are not, but our laws make them be that way.

 

[Pinpoint]

I am just telling you your mma scenario is bollox. There is literally no other way how the female attraction for chad could have developed otherwise.

women do not go after MMA professionals these days as much as those who have hte pedigree to be movie stars. They have easier and safer access to the pedigree they're looking for than having it dampened by an MMA lifestyle. Looks were just a gesture for superiority that women have a fondness for. Women love the novelty of things more than the practicality, but practicality is still needed. It's just that having things in excess are a step up.
But they're abstractively distracted by it. Probably because of evolutionary craving from being so enclosed in alpha interference for so long (before beta uprisings some thousands of years ago, but this taste is 10 thousands). Or just because the brain evolutionary recognizes that as the thing to have even without being around it.

 

[GetFucked]

Women are looking to be carried. Having a vulnerable point, even in a pedigree-hierarchy, pedigrarchy, is prone to open you to the dynamics that civilization tried to suppress. The whole point of being a prettyboy is that your finessed physique was a gesture that you do not have to adapt to the world and how brutal it is in order to have mastery over it.
It's like a theater show, and one thing that is a flaw takes a female out of the display mentality. Like if you see the game of thrones starbucks cup.

Yeah an alpha chad is just a status symbol for her to express her worth. Chads don't need to do much to succeed. Employers want to hire them and people innately want to be around them. It's key that they be attractive to the masses otherwise they're worth nothing.

 

[Pinpoint]

Yeah an alpha chad is just a status symbol for her to express her worth. Chads don't need to do much to succeed. Employers want to hire them and people innately want to be around them. It's key that they be attractive to the masses otherwise they're worth nothing.

We live in displaymode in the world, not in practical mode. to suit yourself to practicality implies you are lain bare for some kind of loser laborer level misfortune. It's what the fucking dumbass boomers do not understand when they are conditioning their kids to be masculine instead of class.
Physio implications of lineage also come into play. Of what kind of style/ lifestyle your genes have had to imply your creation today. based on the people who are your family/ genetics/ lifestyle/ etc.
Women literally take the physioimplication that just because you have elegant fingers that you would be good at playing instruments.

 

[GetFucked]

We live in displaymode in the world, not in practical mode. to suit yourself to practicality implies you are lain bare for some kind of loser laborer level misfortune. It's what the fucking dumbass boomers do not understand when they are conditioning their kids to be masculine instead of class.
Physio implications of lineage also come into play. Of what kind of style/ lifestyle your genes have had to imply your creation today. based on the people who are your family/ genetics/ lifestyle/ etc.
Women literally take the physioimplication that just because you have elegant fingers that you would be good at playing instruments.

Almost funny how some of us we're basically born into the incel laborer class, you can improve your looks and position but you'll never have it as easy or be as successful as those with appealing breeding.

 

[Gyros_Pretcel]

women do not go after MMA professionals these days as much as those who have hte pedigree to be movie stars. They have easier and safer access to the pedigree they're looking for than having it dampened by an MMA lifestyle. Looks were just a gesture for superiority that women have a fondness for. Women love the novelty of things more than the practicality, but practicality is still needed. It's just that having things in excess are a step up.
But they're abstractively distracted by it. Probably because of evolutionary craving from being so enclosed in alpha interference for so long (before beta uprisings some thousands of years ago, but this taste is 10 thousands). Or just because the brain evolutionary recognizes that as the thing to have even without being around it.

I repeat, that's not how attraction works.

Genetic attraction patterns are formed through a process, where those being a dead one and leading to weaker off spring, simply die off. This is already established.

Movie star = better mma fighter under pre societal conditions.

it's gigacope to think women willingly shift their attraction towards more sophisticated aesthitics, whatever that means.
These "sophisticated aesthetics" are what they are (attractive) due to their genetical superiority under pre societal conditions in the first place.

 

[Pinpoint]

I repeat, that's not how attraction works.

Genetic attraction patterns are formed through a process, where those being a dead one and leading to weaker off spring, simply die off. This is already established.

Movie star = better mma fighter under pre societal conditions.

it's gigacope to think women willingly shift their attraction towards more sophisticated aesthitics, whatever that means.
These "sophisticated aesthetics" are what they are (attractive) due to their genetical superiority under pre societal conditions in the first place.

They're not technically better, but women have the notion that looks/ physioimplications/ refinedness/ finesse/ higher development matter more than being good looking these days. So, in virtuality, and in the may-as-well thinking pattern, that good looking men may as well be perceived as better because society will pick them as the wanted-for-winner anyway. Being amazing looking and having the right refinement to your own body is better. Or else big lumbering blacks/ hicks/ sumos wouldn't have a low self esteem.

 

[Pinpoint]

Women analyze decisely as well as subconsciously. They have hte may-as-well thought process with guys who are good looking, while that forebrain fold-notion over their brain wants to escape the hindbrain held truths.
On cube law, what body parts do you think will have impossible proportions if humans were really that all.

 

[Gyros_Pretcel]

ancients-bg.com

Dit domein kan te koop zijn!

ancients-bg.com

Giants in America: Ancient Skeletons Found Buried in Mounds | Gaia

Curious about the possible history of giants in America? Read up on different reports of giant skeletons found in ancient burial mounds throughout the US

www.gaia.com

Ancient "Big Man" Confirms That Humans Stood Tall Early

A newly-described 3.6 million year old skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis helps to flesh out the prehistory of our lineage.

www.wired.com

http://www.6000years.org/giants.html

Conspiracy networks and the second last link talks of a 5' something "giant" in terms of his frame. There is no evidence. Cube law makes giants impossible, I talked to a biologist about this.

They're not technically better, but women have the notion that looks/ physioimplications/ refinedness/ finesse/ higher development matter more than being good looking these days. So, in virtuality, and in the may-as-well thinking pattern, that good looking men may as well be perceived as better because society will pick them as the wanted-for-winner anyway. Being amazing looking and having the right refinement to your own body is better. Or else big lumbering blacks/ hicks/ sumos wouldn't have a low self esteem.

Big blacks are sought after, at least as long as they are not fat, wtf are you talking about. You're not adressing the mechanism of how certain patterns of attraction came into existence in the first place. Your theories are all baseless and signify nothing.

Claiming that attraction is a form of societal construct, just goes against all what we know.

Sumos don't have necessarily good genes, just as mma fighters, hicks neither.

Besides that we already know about the connections of hormones and facial growth as well. So stop coping please.

 

[Pinpoint]

Big blacks are sougt after wtf are you talking about. You're not adressing the mechanism of how certain patterns of attraction came into existence in the first place. Your theories are all baseless and signify nothing.

Claiming that attraction is a form of societal construct, just goes against all what we know.

Sumos don't have necessarily good genes, just as mma fighters, hicks neither.

Besides that we already know about the connections of hormones and facial growth as well. So stop coping please.

Lmao. I was trying to follow on the concept about how you think giants are impossible. Not necessarily true. But I can agree a lot of that is built on propaganda. PM me if you want a really detailed scientific discussion.
Attraction isn't a social construct but our biology takes society and its elements into account especially with physio-properties and what they imply.

I don't know where you threw in that last line from.

Well now I know you're just waiting for me to apparentize a slip just so you can feel you won this. Idk if debating a person who feels the need to "win" rather than discuss truth is totally worth my time.
Big blacks are wanted by a subset of females. Usually ghetto and uncouth ones. But the higher value low quality high primitive on average want to follow suit iwht aspects of which they loved abotu themselves. And their primal resonance can bleed in to a girl's hindbrain but her forebrain if filled with philosophies that are racist.
Can't offer pork to a vegetarian.

 

[Gyros_Pretcel]

Lmao. I was trying to follow on the concept about how you think giants are impossible. Not necessarily true. But I can agree a lot of that is built on propaganda. PM me if you want a really detailed scientific discussion.
Attraction isn't a social construct but our biology takes society and its elements into account especially with physio-properties and what they imply.

I don't know where you threw in that last line from.

Well now I know you're just waiting for me to apparentize a slip just so you can feel you won this. Idk if debating a person who feels the need to "win" rather than discuss truth is totally worth my time.

I don't wait for a slip, I am just tired about people beat around the bush, when how attraction for chad came into existence was a simple evolutionary process. I just want you to adress the argument jfl.

Concerning the last line, basic endocrinology, nothing new.

 

[Pinpoint]

I don't wait for a slip, I am just tired about people beat around the bush, when how attraction for chad came into existence was a simple evolutionary process. I just want you to adress the argument jfl.

Concerning the last line, basic endocrinology, nothing new.

And I tell you you need to keep in line with every factor before you come to a deduction.
Literally a lot of my stuff is so insightful, and sensible that there isn't a lot of research yet to discern it. Pm me and we can discuss it.

 

[BlkPillPres]

I personally think so, which actually would imply that in the real world being a dirty fighter and taking the easy way always defeats the manly way.
Everyone wants to look the most distinct in the gorup. But too much distinction makes you a target. If you look at communist russia you can see similar patterns. IF you see how jews/ gooks/ or nonwhites hate the white man, then that's the reason why.
We're seeing prehistorical events replay out on the white race with everyone ganging up on them through humanitarian ideology.
Where quality is targetry, rather than dominance.
Especailly when times were less interlinked I could see this happening. What do you all think?

The ratio of white chads/ or chads in general might be taking a turnaround these days, but back in the day I could imagine that there was a huge deficit of it a long time ago during mongol raids/ or bronze age/ or times way before that right after humanity had stomached enough volatile masculinity from the ice age. Not even foids could protect the chads/ or sigmas from beta wrath.

In a way it's poetically ironic because betakind is suffering for it today because in the smarpthone era, the rarity of chad just makes them more ideal.

I have to agree, makes sense, especially about the part of all the other races ganging up on whites, its almost instinctual to hate the "top dog"

In the past groups of betas would have seen Chad's as threats and killed them off if they started to monopolize the women, they'd have no problem with a Chad being their leader, but only if he followed their rules and it didn't affect their lives, today we have laws preventing us from keeping this status quo

 

[Pinpoint]

But chads were already probably rare to begin with, otherwise they would have prevented the beta uprising.

How can a neanderthal stop 20 hungry angry people dude.

Movie star = better mma fighter under pre societal conditions.

it's gigacope to think women willingly shift their attraction towards more sophisticated aesthitics, whatever that means.
These "sophisticated aesthetics" are what they are (attractive) due to their genetical superiority under pre societal conditions in the first place.

When a movie star has something references commonly/ and creates mental images/ impressions as feminine then clearly they're valued. But some girls want to go as far as to like really effeminate guys like david bowie or kurt cobain, with some slender/ fragile elegance, then that in of itself carries value that has more pedigree. There is a certain artistic/ sentimental/ abstract value.
It's not face value.There's abstract value.
I'm not saying women are fully inclined.But they feel above/class/more sophisticated to be a part of it.
It's physio-implication.
An 8 inch cock vs a 10 inch cock feel about the same inside of a pussy. but a girl isn't looking at the raw action thoughtlessly. The fact the stats of the rarer bigger 10 inch cock inside of her are in her make her feel more achieved, secure, on a supra-level of upperworldliness. Dourness is where you see the average/ imperfect/ disappointing sum of life.
So having a guy who sacrifices some of the luxury of fun/ tidiness/ perfection kind of ruins it all.
It's very feminine thinking. Where it's not how good you are, but how removed you are away from the negative that is the highlighted center evaluation.

If you're going to keep obstructing the obvious I might just have to pull off a whole scientific experiment to spoonfeed it to you. If you're even worth that effort.

 

[lightskin2thousand0]

We live in displaymode in the world, not in practical mode. to suit yourself to practicality implies you are lain bare for some kind of loser laborer level misfortune. It's what the fucking dumbass boomers do not understand when they are conditioning their kids to be masculine instead of class.
Physio implications of lineage also come into play. Of what kind of style/ lifestyle your genes have had to imply your creation today. based on the people who are your family/ genetics/ lifestyle/ etc.
Women literally take the physioimplication that just because you have elegant fingers that you would be good at playing instruments.

Jfl at wannabe masc pseudo redpillers

 

[The Abyss]

Nah it's because even if you're making a pot from the best clay you can buy you can still fuck it up if you form it wrong, bake incorrectly or simply drop it out of the oven.

There are so many variables at play that to get a good mark in every single area is like winning the 10,000k cash prize on a local lottery matching 5/6 numbers. Long odds.

 

[Bangkok or bust]

I personally think so, which actually would imply that in the real world being a dirty fighter and taking the easy way always defeats the manly way.
Everyone wants to look the most distinct in the gorup. But too much distinction makes you a target. If you look at communist russia you can see similar patterns. IF you see how jews/ gooks/ or nonwhites hate the white man, then that's the reason why.
We're seeing prehistorical events replay out on the white race with everyone ganging up on them through humanitarian ideology.
Where quality is targetry, rather than dominance.
Especailly when times were less interlinked I could see this happening. What do you all think?

The ratio of white chads/ or chads in general might be taking a turnaround these days, but back in the day I could imagine that there was a huge deficit of it a long time ago during mongol raids/ or bronze age/ or times way before that right after humanity had stomached enough volatile masculinity from the ice age. Not even foids could protect the chads/ or sigmas from beta wrath.

In a way it's poetically ironic because betakind is suffering for it today because in the smarpthone era, the rarity of chad just makes them more ideal.

Every guy looked like a Chad or chadlite prior to the advent of farming 12'000 years ago in the fertile crescent.

Look at old human remains from 15'000 b.c and they were robust as fuck and as tall as modern man (5'9 - 6'0 on average). They had strong jaws due to chewing tough tough foodstuffs, they were active hunters so had top notch endocrine and muscle and bone building lifestyles.

Farming made us soft, sedentary, narrower palletted, narrower gonial angles, less pronounced browridges, thinner arm bones etc. We became shorter in height right up to the middle ages (5'6 was average for men 300 years ago). Men became more feminised or infantlized looking due to this switch to a sedentary way of life. The foodstuff became softer, people no longer needed to hunt as crops and grains were harvested and distributed among villagers. Society became more peaceful so 'betas' flourished as they had purpose as farmers and craftsman.

But occasionally the relic upper paleolithic hunter cromagnoid (Chad) pops up in every family. It's just less common than it was 12'000 years ago.
Look how evolution shaped our skulls prior to farming and thousands of years after farming.