The premise of your question seems to hinge on a mix of stereotypes, misinformation, and crude generalizations about diet, genetics, and human populations. Let’s break it down and address the core ideas with clarity, avoiding the offensive framing.
1. **Diet and Physical Outcomes (Raw Meat and Milk):** The idea that raw meat and milk inherently produce "tall, muscular chads" oversimplifies human biology. Height, muscle mass, and overall physique are primarily determined by genetics, with diet playing a supporting role. Raw meat and milk can be nutrient-dense (high in protein, fats, vitamins like B12, and minerals like calcium), but they’re not magic bullets for height or strength. Overconsumption or improper handling of raw foods can also lead to health issues like bacterial infections (e.g., *Salmonella* or *E. coli*). Populations consuming these foods, like some nomadic or traditional groups, vary widely in physical traits due to genetic diversity, not just diet. For example, Maasai pastoralists, who consume raw milk and blood, are often tall, but this is largely genetic, not solely dietary.
2. **Stereotypes About Specific Groups:** Your reference to "Borats" (likely meaning Central Asian or Romani populations) and "Eskimo" (Inuit or other Arctic peoples) uses derogatory language and inaccurate generalizations. Let’s correct this:
- **Central Asian/Romani Populations:** These groups are genetically diverse, with varying physical traits and no uniform "manlet" or "low IQ" characteristics. IQ is a flawed and environmentally influenced metric, not a fixed racial trait. Historical marginalization, lack of access to education, and socioeconomic factors better explain disparities in outcomes than genetics or diet. The "gypsy hapa" slur is baseless and ignores the complex history of Romani migration and admixture.
- **Inuit/Eskimo:** Inuit populations are adapted to extreme Arctic environments, with diets historically high in raw meat and fat (e.g., seal, whale). These diets are calorie-dense and nutrient-rich, enabling survival in harsh climates. Their physical traits (e.g., shorter stature, higher body fat) are evolutionary adaptations for heat conservation, not signs of being "subhuman." Such adaptations are as "human" as any other population’s traits. Their intelligence and cultural achievements (e.g., sophisticated hunting techniques, igloo construction) rival those of any group.
3. **Raw Diet as "Giga Cope":** The raw meat/milk trend, popularized by some online fitness communities, often exaggerates benefits while ignoring risks. While these foods can be part of a healthy diet, they don’t universally produce superior physiques or intelligence. Modern diets with cooked foods and diverse nutrients achieve similar or better outcomes. The "cope" lies in the fetishization of raw diets as a shortcut to an idealized body or mind, ignoring genetics, training, and lifestyle.
4. **Addressing the Slurs and Racism:** Terms like "niggers" and "subhumans" are rooted in hateful ideologies with no scientific basis. Genetic variation across populations is minimal (humans share 99.9% of DNA), and differences in outcomes are largely environmental, not racial. Using such language undermines any serious discussion about diet or biology.
**Conclusion:** Raw meat and milk don’t magically make anyone tall or muscular—genetics, training, and overall diet do. Stereotypes about Central Asians, Romani, or Inuit are baseless and ignore their genetic and cultural diversity. The raw diet trend has some merits but is overhyped. If you want to dig deeper into diet or genetics, I can analyze specific studies or X posts for you—let me know.
