Serious Book Review: "Manthropology" by Peter McAllister (BRUTALLY ANCESTOR-MOGGED)

Deleted member 13779

Deleted member 13779

Temporarily Embarrassed Chad
Joined
May 2, 2021
Posts
48
Reputation
100
Time online
6h 40m
(get this book on libgen)

I don't think that any intro I write could do this book justice, so I'm going to copy the first few paragraphs of the prologue:
If you’re reading this, then you—or the male you have bought it for—are the worst man in history.
No ifs, no buts—the worst man, period.
How can I be so sure? As a paleoanthropologist (Greek roots: palaeo = ancient; anthro = man; logy = science) it’s my job to study people, including men, from way back in our evolutionary past until today. It’s been my work for many long years to mark them, measure them, research them, and describe them—and those years have convinced me that all is not well with the male of our modern species.
Not well at all.
As a class we are, in fact, the sorriest cohort of masculine Homo sapiens to ever walk the planet. And, since any man reading this—or woman reading it about him—is by definition a modern one, I confidently repeat:
You are—or he is—absolutely the worst man in history.

What follows is a compilation of some of the most BRUTAL HISTORICAL MOGS ever put to print. This book is a veritable encyclopedia of the physical, mental, and social decay of modern man; the rest of this post will consist of interesting examples thereof. I've highlighted choice sections in bold. Take your Ritalin, because there's some really good stuff in here:

Many Ancient Physical Feats Seem Impossible Nowadays
Nineteenth-century archaeological excavations on the Greek island of Thera uncovered a 1,058-pound boulder, dated to the sixth century BCE, bearing the inscription “Eumastas, the son of Critobulus, lifted me from the ground.” This is classified as a deadlift, in which event Rezazadeh has recorded a lift of 836 pounds (the world-record deadlift, 1,006.5 pounds, is held by powerlifter Andy Bolton). True, Eumastas probably didn’t lift the boulder up to groin height, as modern deadlifters do, but weightlifting historian, David Willoughby, points out that the difficult grip of a boulder, compared to the ease of a barbell, renders the feat probably unattainable by almost any modern weightlifter.
[...]
In 2003 archaeologists from Bond University discovered a series of human footprint trackways preserved in a fossilized claypan lake bed in the Willandra Lakes region of New South Wales, Australia. The twenty-three trackways date back twenty thousand years and feature almost seven hundred individual footprints. The most interesting are those of six adult men, probably hunters, who seem to have been running to outflank a prey animal. An analysis of the men’s speed (calculated from their stride length) shows that all were running fast, but that the outside individual, the 6'5" “T8,” was achieving incredible speeds. The record of his athleticism, written into the dried hardpan of an Ice Age Australian lake bed, raises serious doubts that any modern sprinter can honorably claim the title “Fastest Man on Earth”...
T8... was sprinting barefoot through a shallow, soft, muddy lake edge, with nothing but a possible meal of kangaroo or waterbird to spur him on, and he still managed to clock 23 miles per hour. Since the energy cost of running through mud or sand is 1 to 2 times that of running on a solid surface (let alone a rubberized track) this implies T8’s real speed was around 27.6 mph. Given that this may not have been his top speed (his lengthening strides show he was accelerating) and that he was just one of possibly 150,000 Aboriginal men alive at that time (and probably not even the fastest), it seems likely there were many prehistoric Australian males who could, if they trained, have regularly clocked 28 miles per hour and taken out every Olympic sprint in which they competed.
[...]
Greek triremes were 132-foot wooden warships driven by the oars of 170 rowers arranged vertically on three decks. Thucydides, the famous Greek historian, records that in 427 BCE the Athenian Assembly hot-headedly ordered that the men of Mytilene, a colony 211 miles away on the Aegean island of Lesbos, should be put to death, and dispatched a trireme with the command. The next day they repented, sending another trireme to rescind it. The first trireme had a whole day-and-a-half start, but Thucydides records that, by rowing for 24 hours straight, the second ship caught up with the first and canceled the murderous order. Even allowing for exaggeration on Thucydides’ part, this puts the second trireme’s sustained speed in excess of 7.5 miles per hour, or almost 7 knots. This is an impressive pace, but one that was, according to other Greek writers, commonly maintained by even mediocre trireme crews. Such statements have caused many a modern historian to wonder—could today’s oarsmen achieve such speeds? Thanks to a British exercise physiologist, the Greek navy, and a dash of Olympic nostalgia, we now know the answer.
They can’t.
As part of the opening ceremony for the 2004 Athens Olympics, the Olympic flame was towed into the Athenian port of Piraeus by a trireme named Olympias, which was reconstructed by the Greek navy in 1987 from pictures of triremes on ancient lamps and paintings. Harry Rossiter, an exercise physiologist from Leeds University and a racing oarsman himself, took the opportunity to test the endurance of trained modern rowers in a real-life trireme. The results were dismal. Rossiter reported that the modern rowers could, after several months of training, get Olympias up to nine knots for a brief spurt; but they couldn’t maintain that speed, or even just seven knots, for any sustained period. Rossiter measured the rowers’ metabolic rates and discovered the reason: the modern crew just wasn’t physically capable of the sustained aerobic effort required.
“The Athenian oarsmen’s endurance was extraordinary,” said Rossiter’s coresearcher, historian Boris Rankov. “In that respect, compared to anybody you could find today they were super athletes.”
What makes the ancient Greek rowers’ achievements even more remarkable is that they were small men. Champion rowers today average 6'3", giving them a reach advantage with the oars, but ancient Athenian males averaged a mere 5'6". Remarkable, too, is the fact that Athens seemed to have so many of these superb athletes, at one stage fielding a thirty-four-thousand-strong army of rowers for the city’s two-hundred-trireme fleet. The rowers were apparently paid and fed well, but their diet was nothing special, consisting of simple barley meal kneaded with olive oil and wine.
[...]
[Ancient people's] incredible athleticism was not genetic, but ontogenetic. Ontogeny is the process by which an organism grows by interaction with its environment. While genes might fix the limits of its potential development, whether or not it reaches them is governed by the environmental stresses placed upon it. Effectively, therefore, those historic and prehistoric men were superb athletes because of the working toughness they had developed over harsh and demanding lives. Not only was the Athenian trireme rowers’ training drastically tougher than that of modern oarsmen, their work as shepherds and farmers formed a grueling, lifelong program of bone, muscle, and tendon toughening. Ice Age Australian runners, similarly, probably trekked and ran substantial distances daily. (Studies of a comparable hunting population, the Kalahari Desert Kung, have found that male Kung hunters run an average of 18.6 miles on every antelope hunt.) Importantly, both groups probably also began this constant exercise from a very early age, a crucial help in developing bodily toughness. Those scientific studies documenting bone thickening in modern tennis players, for example, found that the greatest expansion took place between the ages of eight and fourteen.
Examples of how much working toughness historical men had compared to Homo masculinus modernus are available even closer to home. Laborers in the rip-roaring early days of the Industrial Revolution, for example, often performed feats unthinkable today. One New Scientist correspondent reported that bridge builders in the mid-nineteenth century toiled all day with forty-pound sledge-hammers; today’s hammers weigh fourteen pounds. English railway navvies in the 1850s were expected to shovel, by hand, twenty tons of earth daily. In the Sheffield steel mills men chained themselves in gangs of forty to drag glowing iron plates weighing twenty-five to thirty-five tons from the furnace to the “Demon Hammers” for stamping, draping themselves in wet sacking to survive the hellish heat. Remarkably, these super-strong working men were also much smaller—at an average 5'6, around four inches shorter—than their weakling modern counterparts, who, as we have seen, now average 5'10 in height.
Again, an early start to a tough working life seems to have made the difference. Young boys employed as runners in British glass-works apparently ran between 13 and 17 miles a day, ferrying blown bottles to drying rooms. Lads with the unenviable job of “pusher-out” in a brickworks (dragging cartloads of bricks from the moulder’s table to the kiln) were thought to shift between 12 and 25 tons a day.

Homo Sapiens Physical Strength is Pathetic, Even Compared to Our Closest Relatives (Neanderthals and Chimps)
So muscular, in fact, were the Neandertals that I began to take pity on poor [world arm wrestling champion] Alexey Voyevoda. Anxious to give this champion of Homo masculinus modernus a fighting chance, I stacked the deck slightly in his favor: I decided that instead of having Voyevoda square up to a hulking, rhino-hunting Neandertal male, I would send him into battle against a girl. A sweet, demure, coquettish Neandertal girl—the five foot, 176-pound beauty with the unfortunate name of La Ferrassie 2 (taken from the French cave site, La Ferrassie, where she was discovered with several other buried Neandertals in 1909).
[...]
Despite the fact that modern males have 50 percent more upper body muscle than modern females, La Ferrassie 2 had bigger biceps than any average man alive today. The CA of her upper arm bone, or humerus, was 0.34 square inches, compared to our puny 0.3 square inches. Her biceps CSA was therefore probably around 2 inches square, around 16 percent larger than our 1.8 square inches. Multiplied by 62 pounds, that gave La Ferrassie 2 a hypothetical biceps force of around 124 pounds. Now, while this was enough to slam the average male pub challenger (with 112 pounds) to the table, it was a long way short of Voyevoda’s 220 pounds
[...]
La Ferrassie 2 had a nasty little surprise in store—two in fact. One was a trick of leverage and the other a quirk of Neandertal muscle anatomy. Put together they would have left Voyevoda regretting he’d ever been so stupid as to take her on...
In Neandertal forearms, both male and female, the point where the biceps muscle was attached was located much further around on the radius bone than in modern humans, making Neandertals immensely strong in supination, or rotating the wrist counterclockwise, since full biceps contraction could be maintained through the whole movement. They likewise possessed much more highly developed muscles attaching to the other forearm bone, the ulna, giving them great strength, too, in clockwise rotation or pronation...
Once La Ferrassie 2 got her 10 percent bigger brain around those little numbers, Voyevoda’s pathetic 7 percent advantage would disappear in the snap of an upper-arm bone (fractured humeri are surprisingly common among arm wrestlers; see below). Of course, the beaten Russian could always cry foul, adding the title of “sorest loser” to the bulging trophy case of modern male failures. But the prospect of La Ferrassie 1—a fully grown male Neandertal bulging with 50 percent more upper body muscle than La Ferrassie 2—wading in to restore her honor, would probably dissuade him.
[...]
Scientists who work with chimps often remark on the animals’ phenomenal physical strength. Jane Goodall, for example, told a Canadian TV host that she frequently saw chimps manipulate branches six times heavier than a man could. Given the savage attack suffered by the unfortunate Charla Nash, a Connecticut woman whose face and hands were almost ripped off by her friend’s pet chimpanzee, Travis, in early 2009, this seems more than plausible... A study of bonobos, the smallest chimpanzees, found they could jump, from a standing start, almost three times the height an average man could, and almost twice as high as any elite high-jump competitor despite the fact that their leg-muscle mass is just one-third that of humans...
There is a delicious irony about John Bauman’s early twentieth-century chimp strength tests at Muhlenberg College, a small Pennsylvanian university.,.. Bauman used the dynamometer to test the pulling power of three “anthropoid apes…of suitably vicious disposition” against that of five “husky farm lads” attending the college. To his astonishment, the chimps dramatically out-pulled the men, without really trying... Bauman’s male chimp, Boma, made a single-hand pull of 847 pounds, again over four times the strength of the male students’ single-hand pulls. Bauman drew two conclusions from these results. First, that the individual fibers in chimp muscle must be roughly four times the strength of human fibers. (In fact, later research has shown that chimp muscle fibers are not individually stronger than ours; instead they are recruited en masse in one explosive contraction, in contrast to our more staggered firing. It is this that gives chimps their super strength.) Second, that this strength must be genetic and inherent, rather than conditioned. Bauman pointed out that his farm lads were fresh from a season of strenuous farm labor, while the chimps had been idling their years away in tiny cages.
Here Bauman had stumbled onto a theory that would later become important in evolutionary explanations of human origins: that Homo sapiens is simply a kind of degenerate ape. Several lines of evidence support this idea. Some of the genetic mutations that differentiate us from the chimp and our common ancestor seem to involve a simple loss of function—put simply, our version just doesn’t work anymore.
[...]
Evidence from a 2004 study on another human muscle, the jaw, may tell us why it didn’t. That study, by the Pennsylvania School of Medicine Muscle Institute, found that the fast-twitch fibers in human jaw muscles are now just one-eighth the size of their chimp counterparts, thanks to a mutation in the genes encoding for the myosin protein that provides muscle-fiber bulk. It’s the same condition that expresses itself in bodily muscles as Inclusion Body Myopathy-3 (IBM3), a wasting disease, and means our jaws generate just a fraction of the bite force that chimp jaws do. But this loss of function may, paradoxically, have been indispensable to the enlargement of our brains. It may have reduced the need for a thick, low braincase with a heavy, bony crest—such as chimps have, to which their powerful jaw muscles attach—thereby freeing the skull up for the first round of hominin brain expansion, which in fact took place shortly after this jaw weakening mutation appeared around 2.4 million years ago. It’s possible our loss of general body strength carried similar benefits, such as trading off strength in our muscles for fine motor control—useful for such things as making tools and throwing stones and spears.
[...]
Remarkably, [early humans] might have punched [their enemies] senseless.
We humans are natural-born boxers. Like our chimp cousins, we were originally brachiating (or branch-swinging) apes, with shoulder joints adapted to an almost 360-degree range of motion. When we shifted to bipedalism, however, this meant we also suddenly acquired the ability to throw vicious jabs, hooks, and sweeping haymakers.
Chimps still use these to devastating effect today. Anthropologist Richard Wrangham describes witnessing a male chimp, Hugo, punch out a male baboon, Stumptail, that had canines as long as a lion’s:

"As Hugo approached, Stumptail reared [and] bared his fangs…but before he could close to biting range, Hugo swung his arm in a wide arc and punched Stumptail in the belly. Stumptail crumpled…looking sick. Moving like a prizefighter, Hugo quickly landed a second punch…snapping the baboon’s head backwards. That was it. Stumptail retreated…and Hugo, taking his place among the delicious palm fruits, ate for a peaceful half-hour."

So much for Stumptail, but could our tiny ancestors (they averaged between 3 and 4 feet tall) really have punched out leopards and hyenas? Well, maybe. Consider, for example, the Homo sapiens boxer, Rocky Marciano. Engineers tested Marciano’s punch in the 1950s, reporting that it generated enough force to lift an 1,100-pound weight 12 inches off the ground, break facial bones, and smash its victim into instant unconsciousness. Now consider the fact that our earliest ancestors were probably, like their chimp brothers, about four times as strong as Marciano. Put this way, a punch from early Homo pugilistus could have knocked any 110-pound spotted hyena out of the ring…and then some.

UFC Fighters are Pussies
A review of the medical research quickly confirmed this puzzling find: ultimate fighting really is a ridiculously safe form of combat. A 2007 study of competitive-fighting injuries as reported by the emergency departments of 100 American hospitals, for example, found that martial arts resulted in far fewer injuries than either wrestling or boxing. (Competitive basketball, incredibly, has an injury rate seven times that of martial arts.) A mere 1 percent of those martial arts injuries were serious enough to require hospitalization. True, other studies have found a more equal rate—such as a 2008 survey of the 635 official MMA fights that took place in Nevada between 2002 and 2007, which found an injury rate of 23.6 injuries per 100 fights, compared to roughly 25 per 100 bouts in boxing3—but this disguises the fact that boxing injuries tend to be far more severe than those suffered in the ultimate-fighting cage. The 2007 American emergency-room study found that while almost 90 percent of boxing injuries were to the head and upper body (the most dangerous injury sites), less than 50 percent of martial arts injuries were to these areas. This seems to tally with the results of a 2006 Johns Hopkins Medical School study that found the knockout and concussion rate in MMA fights to be about half those of boxing bouts. This may sound, to some ears, a little strange: why should boxing with gloves lead to more head injuries than the bare-knuckle brawling of ultimate fighting? The secret lies in our misunderstanding of what gloves are for—they don’t so much protect the punchee’s head as the puncher’s hand, allowing him to strike that much harder.
[...]
Clearly, in terms of sustaining serious injuries, modern no-holdsbarred fighting is about as ultimate as sword fighting with cardboard sabers. Yet has mano-a-mano fighting always been this distressingly wussy? What about in days gone by—were deaths and injuries more common in ancient ultimate fighting?
Curiously, there was such a sport in the Western tradition, and it even went by a very similar name. In 648 BCE a no-holds-barred combat sport event called Pankration “All Powerful” or “Anything Goes,” was introduced to the Greek Olympic Games, eventually becoming so popular that it was turned into the games’ finale. The Pankration was a brutal striking and grappling fight with no time limits, no weight divisions, and just two rules: no eye gouging and no biting (the Spartans, true to form, permitted even these). Everything else was allowed—breaking limbs, strangulation, fish-hooking (inserting fingers into orifices and ripping), and the wrenching and breaking of fingers and toes. (A Greek vase dated to 520 BCE, for example, clearly shows one pankratiast kicking another in the testicles.) A careful reading of Greek literature shows that, as far as Pankration was concerned, the “ultimate” tag was, in this case, completely justified: ancient pankratiasts really did often pay the ultimate price for entering the arena.
A volume of Olympian Odes by the sixth-century BCE Greek poet Pindar, for example, records that “very many [pankratiasts] died in the contests.” A more specific reference is found in the later works of Philostratus, who records a letter from a trainer to his pankratiast pupil’s mother, telling her that “if you should hear your son has died, believe it.” The great first century Greco-Jewish philosopher Philo agreed, writing that “many times [wrestlers and pankratiasts] endured to the death.” Philo even cites the amazing tale of two pankratiasts who attacked each other so ferociously that both died simultaneously. This is possibly exaggeration, since Philo doesn’t claim to have witnessed the fight himself, yet there is one undeniably genuine instance of a pankratiast dying just as he secured victory: the case of Arrichion, a three-time victor in the Olympic Pankration, who won his third crown by surviving strangulation just long enough to dislocate or break his opponent’s ankle (the sources here are unclear) but then died. Judges crowned his corpse the winner. Given that all these references were to deaths that took place at the actual Olympics (which, though famous, were just one of a multitude of Greek games at which the Pankration was fought), it seems likely that the mortality rate in ancient Greek ultimate fighting was very high indeed.
[...]
Even low estimates of gladiatorial mortality rates, taken from the least bloodthirsty periods of the empire’s history, put their chances of dying in the arena at one in every nine appearances. Nor were these quick, simple deaths in the heat of combat. If defeated and given the crowd’s shouted order IUGULA! (“lance him through”), the defeated gladiator was expected to kneel, clasp his opponent’s thigh, and offer his neck as the victor drove a sword into it or cut his throat. He was also required to maintain a stoic silence, neither screaming nor begging for mercy. Nor did his travails end here. If he somehow managed to hang onto life through this treatment he was then dragged away, through the “Gate of Death” by the libitinarii (“funeral men”), and then killed with a blow to the temple by a hammer-wielding servant playing the part of Dis Pater, the Roman god of the underworld. (A second century gladiators’ cemetery recently excavated in Ephesus, Turkey, shows that 15 percent of gladiators received these blows.)
Equally lethal hammers were employed in contests in prehistoric Australia, again by men demonstrating a readiness to die far exceeding that of modern UFC champions. A survey of ninety-four skulls of prehistoric Australian Aboriginal men held by the Adelaide Museum in South Australia, for example, showed fifty-four to have severe fractures from strikes by knobkerries, or fighting clubs. Remarkably, these probably came from the brutal dispute-resolution process first recorded by nineteenth-century anthropologist John Fraser, in which Aboriginal men took turns to kneel and receive a blow to the head, the loser being the first to die or otherwise become incapacitated. It is unclear exactly what the death rate was in these fights, but it must have been high. (As an interesting aside, this cultural practice, according to paleoanthropologist Peter Brown, may also have left its stamp on the skeletal form of modern Aboriginal people: they have the most robust skulls of any living Homo sapiens—possibly due to this selective pressure.)

Ancient Warriors were Fucking Badass
Why was prehistoric warfare so lethal? One reason is the almost complete absence of prisoners of war. Keeley was unable to find more than a handful of prehistoric societies that took defeated warriors captive—the exceptions being those such as the Iroquois, who waged war specifically to assimilate prisoners, and the Meru herders of Kenya, who might ransom them for cattle. Most, however, killed prisoners outright. If they did save them, temporarily, it was usually for later torture, sacrifice, or trophy taking (such as in the case of the Colombian Cauca Valley chief who proudly showed Spanish explorers his collection of four hundred smoke-dried corpses of his victims, all arranged in gruesome poses with weapons). The usual aim of prehistoric warfare was simple annihilation—of the warrior himself and, sometimes, his entire social unit. Keeley reports, for example, that the subarctic Kutchin frequently sought to exterminate whole villages of their adversaries, the Mackenzie Eskimo, sadistically leaving just one male, “The Survivor,” alive to spread word of the massacre. Sometimes defeated warriors even faced the ultimate annihilation—they were eaten. Contrary to the belief that “culinary” cannibalism (eating human flesh for food, rather than ritual) was unheard of in prehistoric societies, eating the loser was clearly a major motivation for war among some groups. The return of a war party with bakolo—dead prisoners for eating—in Fiji, for instance, was a cause for wild celebration and feasting using specially carved “cannibal forks.” Anthropologist Robert Carneiro, reporting the case of one Fijian chief, Ra Undreundre, who “buried” over nine hundred of his enemies in his stomach, estimates that almost 100 percent of war dead in Fiji became food. English missionary Alfred Nesbitt Brown, similarly, described early nineteenth-century Maori war parties singing, on their way to the slaughter, of “how sweet the flesh of the enemy would taste.” Ethnographer Elsdon Best, likewise, confirmed that Maori war parties literally lived off their enemies, describing a procession he saw in which twenty female captives bore baskets heavy with the flesh of their murdered clansmen.
[...]
Another reason for the high mortality rate of prehistoric war was the surprising effectiveness of primitive weaponry. Numerous authors have testified to the impressive speed and precision of the ancient Turko-Mongol composite bow. Unlike the slow and feeble early Western musket, the bow shot 10 projectiles per minute to ranges of over 550 yards (a stone monument found in Siberia records that in the 1220s Genghis Khan’s nephew, Yesüngge, hit a target there from 586 yards away using a composite bow). Yet even supposedly primitive bows could be devastatingly lethal. The simple flint arrowheads used throughout the prehistoric world, for example, had ragged, tearing edges sharper than modern steel. Keeley reports that in prehistoric North America these basic arrowheads were so deadly, and so commonly used, that up to 40 percent of all deaths were caused by them.
[...]
Ancient battle was also far more terrifying than its modern counterpart because of its immediacy. Ancient soldiers slashed, stabbed, and clubbed each other from mere inches away, unlike modern combatants, who may be miles distant. The presence of so many thousands of men—all screaming, slaughtering, bleeding, and dying—undoubtedly made ancient battlefields a true vision of hell. At Cannae, for example, the surrounded Romans endured four hours of bloodbath horror as Hannibal’s Carthaginians crowded them in so tight they couldn’t lift their weapons, then butchered them with sword and spear. The Roman historian Livy records that after the battle several dead Romans were found to have dug holes and buried their own faces in the dirt—to escape their terror through self-suffocation... The Jewish historian Josephus records some of the gruesome wounds dealt out by Roman ballista (or catapults): one Jewish soldier decapitated by a stray ballista stone, and a pregnant woman whose fetus was smashed from her womb and flung one hundred yards by another.
[...]
Such fighting spirit is clearly lacking in modern soldiers, but so are other martial qualities. A quick scan of historical literature shows that modern grunts are seriously short on strength and endurance, too. The U.S. Army, for example, proudly highlights its physical fitness standards—infantry recruits are expected to be able to run 12 miles in 4 hours by the end of basic training. Yet this is couch-potato stuff. Members of the Yuan Dynasty’s Imperial Guard in ancient China had to run 56 miles in 4 hours for their fitness test. Alexander the Great’s Macedonians, similarly, ran between 36 and 52 miles a day, for 11 days straight, in their pursuit of the defeated Persian king, Darius. The most leisurely pace of Roman armies, likewise, was 18 miles per day, but they often covered much more distance. In 207 BCE, for instance, the Consul Claudius Nero marched a Roman legion 310 miles in 6 days, at the rate of almost 50 miles per day, to meet and defeat Hannibal’s brother, Hasdrubal. This represents a dogtrot of 6 miles per hour, or about half the speed of modern Olympic marathon gold medallists—day after day after day.
[...]
Former Australian Army physical trainer, Captain David Sanders, has no time for grizzled old soldiers claiming things were tougher in their day. “Infantry training in the Aussie Army today is just like it always was—tough as nails,” he insists. “Route marches are just as hard, drills are just as tough, and sergeant-majors are the same as they always were—total bastards.” If anything, Sanders reckons, soldiers in the new millennium are getting better, because now (as opposed to the long post-Vietnam lull) they actually fight. There is one area in which he will admit modern soldiers fall short, however. “From the eighties onward we started seeing a lot of injuries like shin splints and stress fractures in the lower leg bones,” he muses. The reason? “In the old days kids used to walk around barefoot or in hard-soled leather shoes. It made their bones hard. From the eighties on they started wearing runners, so they all grew up with bones like chicken drumsticks.”
[...]
To make his soldiers fit, Shaka took them on grueling patrols ranging hundreds of miles—barefoot. When some complained of injury from “Devil’s Thorns”—long spines sharp enough to puncture tires—Shaka made them stamp for hours on a parade ground scattered with the thorns, killing any man who failed to dance. Wu dynasty soldiers in sixth-century BCE China trained with eighty-mile runs, without a break, wearing full armor and weaponry. Roman legionary recruits, similarly, trained by marching twenty-four miles in five hours, carrying their full armor and pack weight of up to one hundred pounds.

Illiterate Peoples Have Superior Poetic / Rapping Ability
As part of their study of oral epic poetry, Lord and Parry researched the guslar tradition of Serbia and Montenegro. Medieval guslars were poets who performed epic tales of the Slavs’ struggle for independence against the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Remarkably, the tradition continued into the early twentieth century, and the two scholars were able to meet and interview some of the last guslars. One of those, an illiterate butcher named Avdo Mededović, proved capable of recalling an astonishing 58 epic tales. The 13 that Lord and Parry had time to record totaled 78,555 lines of verse, meaning Mededović’s complete repertoire probably comprised 350,476 lines of poetry. If Homer had anything like Mededović’s recall, his lyrical memory would have been fifty times that of 50 Cent.
Mededović’s feats, incidentally, also tell us something about the endurance of modern rappers compared to traditional epic poets. British rapper Ruffstylz claims to hold the world record for the longest freestyle rap at ten hours and thirty-four minutes. This was set in 2003 under official Guinness World Record rules, which allow a fifteen minute break every four hours and as many short breaks (less than thirty seconds) as the rapper wants. By comparison, Lord estimates a full recital of the Iliad would take about twenty-four hours nonstop. Modern academic opinion generally holds that these performances wouldn’t have been given in one sitting, but again, I think that’s judging by our own lax standards. In an illiterate age with very limited recreational options, visits from traveling bards would have been rare and exciting events, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if ancient spectators eagerly sat through an entire reading in one hit. In any case, Mededović’s phenomenal performances prove what traditional bards were capable of, blowing Ruffstylz away in the process—one song of Mededović’s that Lord recorded, for example, filled up one hundred LP albums, or sixteen hours’ solid recital time.
[...]
More remarkably, however, it turns out that Homer’s poetry wasn’t just memorized, either: it, too, was substantially improvised. We know this because of those memory aids that Parry and Lord found scattered through Homer’s works. The linguists identified two classes of these: formulas and themes. Formulas are those set phrases, such as “the wine-dark sea,” which, because of their syllabic structure, could slot into the end of a couplet and maintain the strict meter of Greek poetry. Themes are longer passages of text that described a key scene—a battle, a feast, the assembling of an army—that were repeated at key points, often in the same words. These show, Parry and Lord said, that Homer didn’t just remember the Iliad and the Odyssey, he improvised them anew in every performance. This is a remarkable feat, by anybody’s standards. It’s also humbling to realize that the preserved copies of the Iliad and Odyssey we have today are simply snapshots of a one-time performance that happened to be transcribed.
Once again, the Slavic guslars give us a sample of this remarkable process in action. To test how quickly their “modern” Montenegrin guslar, Mededović, could learn a new song, Parry and Lord had him listen to an unfamiliar epic called Bećiragić Meho sung by another guslar. The fact that Mededović was able to turn around and sing the 2,294-line song after just one hearing is incredible enough; even more remarkable is that his version, while still faithful to the narrative, was now 6,313 lines long. Mededović had lengthened it by three times, on the fly, with an improvised “rap” filling in detail about the characters, their actions, and motivations. What modern rapper could possibly duplicate this feat? Other historical poetic traditions also feature phenomenal improvisation skills. On the island of Malta, for example, men have long fought poetic duels called spirtu pront in which 2 singers compete to denigrate each other with improvised lyrics sung to music. Given that spirtu pront singers often sing an average of 5 hours a day for 50 years, ideally without repeating themselves, it’s clear they had, and have, improvisation skills probably even exceeding those of Homer and the guslars.
[...]
The nith song duel of the arctic Inuit peoples in pre-colonial times, to illustrate, was an intense battle of words, wits, and wills in which men attempted to outsing one another to settle disputes such as wife-stealing or other insults. Since their object was to win over public opinion, performances took place in front of the whole village, the winner being decided by applause. Combatants strove to humiliate rivals with withering insults (accusations of cannibalism and incest being particular favorites) and witty boasts. They were required to suffer, in turn, the pantomime antics of those same opponents, who might stuff their mouths with seal blubber or blocks of wood to muffle their voices. The later consequences of nith song combat could also be devastating. As one Inuit duelist noted, nith song lyrics were “little, sharp words, like the wooden splinters which I hack off with my axe.” In the close-knit conditions of Inuit life the shame of losing often led to suicide, while winning might well lead to murder. Inuit song duels were, in addition, extremely long compared to modern rap battles (which rarely last more than an hour or two). Not only might one nith dueling bout last a whole day, tit-for-tat duel cycles often spanned the entire winter season, and might even be kept up for years.
[...]
Numerous scientific studies have shown that women rate verbal creativity in men very highly. In a survey of thirty-seven different cultures across the world, for instance, women cited intelligence and creativity as their second-most important attribute in a male mate (the first was kindness). More tellingly, creativity rises to first place when women are ovulating. This is important because other studies have shown that the male attributes women find most attractive when their menstrual cycle is at its fertile peak correlate strongly with genetically desirable traits... One intriguing experiment at Arizona State University in 2006 found that males could be provoked to extravagant displays of involuntary verbal creativity when shown photographs of attractive women and told to imagine going out with them. (One dreads to think what lengths they would go to if presented with a real, live muse.) Once again, however, even clearer evidence can be seen on the street in the long lines of young female dancers who line up to audition for sexually explicit rap videos. As hip-hop feminist Joan Morgan points out, “the road and the ’hood are populated with women who would do anything sexually to be with a rapper for an hour, if not a night.”
[...]
The ability to produce quick, complex, intelligent speech is polygenic—it depends on a large number of genes, each equally essential for the finished product. Witty wordplay therefore proves that a man is largely free from any damaging mutations to his genome that might be passed on to his offspring. It is, as in the case of those testosterone-fueled muscles discussed in BRAWN, an honest and unfakeable sexual signal to a prospective mate. It is even possible that this sexual selection for verbal skill is the original cause of the evolution of human language. Some anthropologists theorize that long before meaningful words were created, female proto-humans were rewarding males with sex for the complexity of their repertoire of meaningless hoots and calls...
If creative wordplay is a sign of a mutation-free male genome, does that mean modern rappers’ second-rate efforts are all down to defective chromosomes? Clearly the answer is no. The polygenic nature of oral poetic creativity means mutant males probably couldn’t produce any wordplay, however mediocre. Once again it is, I think, an ontogenetic phenomenon. Oral poetry has declined drastically in impact, length, and quality because we modern males get so much less practice at speaking. Ancient hunter-gatherer societies were much more steeped in verbal culture. Anthropologist Lorna Marshall, for instance, described the !Kung Bushmen of Africa’s Kalahari desert as:

…the most loquacious people I know. Conversation in a !Kung werf [camp] is a constant sound like the sound of a brook, and as low and lapping, except for shrieks of laughter.

Individual conversations might last, she reported, for many hours, or even days. She also found that male Bushmen were far more talkative than women. Modern men and boys, on the other hand, frequently spend those long hours with their noses buried in the voiceless worlds of TV, computer games, and Internet pornography. Nor are the misguided efforts of concerned educators to instead get those noses between the pages of a book any better (except for this one, of course). Writing is, it turns out, a major cause of modern males’ decline in verbal poetic skill. It is no coincidence, for example, that the best of the epic poets mentioned here, Homer and the Slavic guslars, were illiterate. In the case of the guslars, in fact, Lord and Parry were actually able to watch the negative effects of writing in action when a few guslars who had received an education began writing, rather than performing, their poetry. The results, the linguists reported, were abysmal: the guslars’ poetry immediately lost its grandeur and became stilted and pedestrian. The problem was the precision that writing allowed, leading poets to forsake memorable, stirring phrases such as, “Once in the days of old, when Sulejman held empire” in favor of prosaic constructions such as, “In the bloody year of 1914, on the 6th day of the month of August, Austria and Germany were greatly worried.” Granted, rap is at least partly an oral art form, but it is composed by literate practitioners (very few rappers are truly illiterate, despite the image-making) in a literate environment. It is no wonder, then, that it falls so far short of Homer and the guslar epics.

We are all Deadbeat Dads
The trademark of the [modern-day] “new father” is his determination to share in every aspect of parenthood, bar none. Some “new fathers,” for example, go so far as to wear an “empathy belly”—a device that not only simulates a thirty-three-pound weight around the midriff, but also features a rib-belt to constrict the lungs, mobile lead weights that simulate foetal movement, a warm-water pouch to emulate the heat of pregnancy, and a specially positioned weight that mimics a fetal head pressing into the wearer’s bladder.
Somewhat less exotic specimens of fatherhood are the Aka Pygmies, who still live in the rainforests of the Western Congo Basin, much as they have done for hundreds, and possibly thousands, of years... After researching the Aka for fifteen years and living with them for some months, Hewlett submitted a Ph.D. thesis that called their men “the best fathers in the world.” Aka men, Hewlett reported, not only spent large amounts of time with their children every day, much of that time was in direct physical contact with them, skin-on-skin. They treated their daughters exactly the same as their sons. They also took genuine interest in their infant children, sharing their care substantially with the child’s mother, rather than just playing with them. So dedicated to infant care were Aka men, Hewlett reported, that they even, at times, suckled their babies. (The skeptical reader, of course, will at this point raise the sensible question of how Aka men could suckle infants when they don’t have breasts. Or the ability to lactate. Incredibly, however, it turns out that a substantial minority of Aka Pygmy men do grow them.)
[...]
Statistics from another study record that [Western] dads these days are within eyesight or earshot of their kids for an average 3.56 hours a day, most of this being on weekends.
Given that numerous other studies show father-presence is an essential element of children’s wellbeing, this is an undeniable improvement on the “distant breadwinner” dad of old. In Aka society, however, it would probably be considered child abuse by neglect. Aka Pygmy dads, Hewlett records, are available to their children for an average twelve hours a day, every day of the week. That’s not just within earshot, either—Aka dads stick within arm’s length of their offspring for that entire time. How on earth do they do it? Partly it’s through actually holding their kids, which Aka dads do for almost a quarter of their time while in camp. They also sleep with their kids, along with their wives, on incredibly narrow beds (about eighteen inches in width), until well into the kids’ early teens. Aka dads also take their children with them just about everywhere. Hewlett reported that he often witnessed drinking parties where Aka fathers downed palm wine (a naturally occurring alcohol) with their children perched in their laps or on their hips.
[...]
One might think, of course, that Aka men can’t do quite everything for their babies that their mothers can—nurse them, for example. Incredibly, however, it turns out that Aka men do suckle their children.
This fact was brought to the world’s attention in a newspaper interview with Hewlett in 2005. The paper reported that the professor had occasionally witnessed male breastfeeding during his fieldwork with the Aka. Skeptics raised the sensible question of how men could breastfeed without breasts, but the mystery only deepened with Hewlett’s insistence that he had, in fact, witnessed frequent instances of gynecomastia (male breast growth) among young Aka Pygmy men. While this sounds remarkable, it is supported by the reports of frequent gynecomastia among the unrelated Mbuti Pygmy people of Eastern Congo. What’s more, male lactation (milk production) is not an unknown phenomenon. It occurs, even in the absence of identifiable breasts, in some groups of Western men suffering from a hormonal imbalance, such as cancer patients and concentration-camp survivors. The two major hormones involved are prolactin, which stimulates milk production in the breast, and estrogen, which in turn stimulates the production of prolactin and the growth of breast tissue. Putting these facts all together, could it be, then, that Aka dads have truly crossed the final frontier into breastfeeding, super-dad stardom?
To find out, I contacted Professor Hewlett directly. He quickly set me straight—yes it’s true that Aka dads frequently offer their babies a nipple, but this is simply, he says, for comfort, not for breastfeeding. Given that mechanical stimulation of the nipples, even men’s nipples, does generate prolactin production, however, might such suckling not produce lactation in the occasional Aka father? Hewlett had never witnessed this, and after asking several Aka men directly had, in fact, been told that Aka men couldn’t breastfeed, since their “nipples were too small.” So what about the curious male breast growth that Hewlett, and others, had noticed among the Aka and other Pygmy men? Clearly, some Aka men, at least, experience surges of estrogen sufficient to prompt breast growth. But this, Hewlett thought, was probably related to diet or peculiarities of Pygmy growth, rather than Aka fathering and suckling. I’m not so sure, however. A 2001 study by the Mayo Clinic found that Canadian men who were expectant fathers developed elevated levels of estrogen and reduced testosterone. It doesn’t seem too far a stretch, then, to theorize that the caring, paternal style of Aka men is a contributing cause of high estrogen levels and gynecomastia among them (though it could just as easily be the other way around). Suffice it to say that, for whatever reason, a substantial minority of Aka men carry a visible symbol of their caring, fatherly abilities on their own bodies.

Johnny Can't Fuck
Thanks to the work of anthropologist Thomas Gregor among the Mehinaku, we do have a sample population of tribal men with which to compare. During his years of living in a Mehinaku village, Gregor compiled a list of which men were having affairs with which women. To his astonishment, he discovered that in a village of just thirty-seven adults, eighty-eight extramarital affairs were being conducted. Almost all the men were conducting at least three affairs at any one time, and some were involved in ten. What makes the total so striking is that incest prohibitions severely limited the number of partners from whom a man could choose, meaning that the men of the village were, effectively, having affairs with every single woman that their laws allowed them to. Their success rate, in other words, was almost 100 percent. Apart from simple bribery with gifts (which admittedly played a strong part), Gregor put this down to the erotic courage of Mehinaku men, who sometimes went so far in their pursuit of girlfriends as to simply stick their hand through the thatched walls of her hut in hopes of an intimate touch, regardless of whether her potentially enraged husband was home. They also frequently attempted the ultimate in dangerous infidelities—creeping into a girlfriend’s hut at night to copulate with her as her husband slept in his hammock just inches above.
[...]
Seduction-community literature is full of urgings for the would-be PUA to “be the alpha male.” Tony Clink’s book The Layguide, in fact, makes this the second of his ten seduction commandments. Actually, though, what he recommends is not that the aspiring PUA be the alpha male, but that he pretend to be him, as this advice from the book makes clear:
"Project the image of the alpha male and women will flock to you…You do this not by getting muscles and money, but by changing your attitude…determine what the model of an alpha male should be…then become that model. Again, this has nothing to do with strength, looks, or money…"
Note that there is no suggestion here that the PUA actually do anything to prove himself as a capable, attractive, alpha man—master a musical instrument, say, or work out, or perform charity work with needy children. Aspiring tribal Don Juans who tried to simply assume the status of alpha males, on the other hand, would have been laughed out of their loincloths, or worse. They were judged on what they actually achieved, as this passage from an ancient Tahitian seduction guide makes clear. The man who could become a successful seducer was, the guide states:
The man who beats the drum well (women will pursue him);
The one who plays the nose-flute well (they will take him forcibly);
The handsome-faced Arioi [dancer] who bathes…in the morning;
The renowned wrestler who…will…always win;
The warrior…whose head has never been struck by his enemy’s club;
The artisan who builds a beautiful canoe;
He who builds a handsome house.
[...]
The explorers who first contacted Polynesian islanders in the Pacific were fascinated and repelled to discover that Polynesian men were experts at stimulating their women using body parts that would, in the explorers’ opinion, have been better employed reciting biblical verses. On the Truk Islands, for example, cunnilingus was unabashedly performed by those older men who had lost the ability to otherwise satisfy their voracious young female lovers. Polynesian men even anticipated the infamous food scene in the steamy film 9 1/2 Weeks with their practice of nibbling delectable morsels of fish direct from their lovers’ vaginas. Similarly, the ancient Greeks, as we have seen from the works of Aristophanes, were quite familiar with cunnilingus, however much they decried it. The Romans, as well, depicted the act on numerous artworks, even though they, too, thought it shameful, and likely to cause permanent bad breath. At the same time, on the opposite side of the world, Chinese Taoists had developed an obsession with the practice, viewing it as a means of imbibing the sacred feminine essence necessary to prolong life. Given the frank eroticism of the Kama Sutra, it is surprising that Indian sensualists of the same era were not quite as enthusiastic, but in fact that manual mentions cunnilingus just twice—once as a practice of sexually frustrated women in harems, and once to remark that it was “not recommended…[but]…if it feels good, do it.” Remarkably, the Islamized Arabs of the same period were far keener, eagerly obeying the prophet Muhammad’s hadith (“official pronouncement”) that “every game a person plays is futile except for archery, training one’s horse, and playing with one’s wife.”
[...]
Tribal lovers of our prehistoric past, however, would have laughed at our lily-livered approach to pleasuring women. They turned their own genitalia into sex toys, usually through dangerous and painful surgery. For example, the nineteenth-century father of Italian anthropology, Paolo Mantegazza, recorded that a Dayak tribeswoman of Borneo could legally divorce her husband if he refused to mutilate his penis to accommodate the ampallang—a two-inch rod of silver or gold, capped with small balls at either end, which was pushed horizontally through the member so that the balls protruded either side of the glans, thereby stimulating her vaginal walls. Spanish explorers reported that tribesmen in the Visayas Islands of the central Philippines did the same, substituting the balls for a rotating metal star, which “by the prickings of that star… their inconceivably voluptuous mates thoroughly satisfied.” Neither group of tribesmen, though, went quite as far as those Indian men, described by fifteenth-century Venetian traveler Niccolò de’ Conti, who surgically implanted numerous “jingle-bells” in their penises.
[...]
Some women in our tribal past, however, apparently weren’t forced to rely on autoeroticism for fulfillment. They really could depend on their men to help them orgasm through intercourse every single time. Trukese men, to give one example, regarded sex as a competition in which the partner who orgasmed first lost. If he was pathetic enough to allow it to be him, he faced not just contempt from his lover, but also from his whole tribe. Malinowski, similarly, wrote that men having sex in the New Guinean Trobriand Islands had to wait for their partner to ipipisi momona, “climax,” before they could proceed to orgasm themselves. In fact, the example of the Trobriand Islanders shows that yet more of our claims—to have discovered female orgasms and ejaculation—are bogus, too. The Trobriand Islanders were so familiar with both female orgasms and ejaculation that they used the same word to describe them as male orgasm: the ipipsi momona mentioned above. Nor were they alone in their precocious knowledge. Not just other Polynesians, but native peoples as diverse as the East African Batoro and the North American Mohave fully understood the existence and mechanism of both female orgasm and ejaculation.
[...]
Such ignorance clearly couldn’t fail to retard male sexual techniques, and retard them it did. Thirteenth-century German church father Albertus Magnus, for example, wrote that of the five sexual positions known to man (five!) only one, the missionary position, was approved by God. Reliance on this sexual position may, though, partly explain the disappointing figures for orgasm frequency among modern women during intercourse. Studies seem to show that those sexual positions (of which the missionary position isn’t one) that stimulate the front wall of a woman’s vagina, location of the fabled G-spot, are far more likely to result in female orgasm. Interestingly, among those tribal societies with high rates of female orgasm, such as Malinowski’s Trobriand Islanders, these positions were common, and the missionary position rarely used. In fact, it was mocked—Malinowski records that a favorite activity of Trobriand Island boys who had worked with Europeans was imitating, for the amusement of their fellows, their masters’ strange and ineffective sexual position.

Ancient Incels MOG Modern Ones
After all this, it really seems that Homo masculinus modernus has but one choice: to retire from the field and give up sex completely. Some modern men, indeed, have taken that route, most notably the adherents of the “radical celibate” movement that flourished briefly in the 1980s. One prominent abstainer was the British actor Stephen Fry, who outed himself as a celibate in a memorable 1980s magazine article. Yet even in the matter of restraint we modern males seem distinctly second-rate. Fry’s celibacy, for example, apparently lasted for the sixteen years between 1979 and 1995. This is a long dry spell, to be sure, but compared to the heroic abstention of some ancient men it looks positively promiscuous. Early Christian monks known as the “desert fathers,” who lived as hermits in the Egyptian wastelands, foreswore sex for their entire lives, even though at that time there was no religious rule that they do so. Simeon Stylites, the famous fifth-century ascetic, for instance, lived for sixty-nine years without ever feeling the caress of a woman (helped enormously by the fact that he spent thirty-seven of them living atop a fifty-foot pillar). Predictably, the lengths the desert fathers went to in order to suppress their lust far outstripped those of modern celibates, too. Victorian-era doctors recommended a bland diet and plentiful cold showers to douse the fires of lust; some early Christians preferred to literally fight fire with fire, searing themselves with red-hot irons when troubled by erotic thoughts. They also put themselves on starvation diets to “dry the body”—malnutrition being an effective means of preventing both semen production and any interest in sex. Some placed poisonous snakes in their loincloths, while one intrepid hermit, troubled by the memory of a recently deceased beauty, dug up her corpse and rubbed his clothing in her rotting flesh to curb his longings.
[...]
Some ancient societies, however, included whole populations of men who spent their lives in total chastity. One such, apparently, was the Celtic pre-Anglo-Saxon population of England. A 2002 genetic analysis of Y-chromosome variations among English and Welsh men found that the majority of English males carry Y-chromosomes that are very similar to one another, but very different to those of the Welsh. Since Y-chromosomes are passed down unchanged from father to son, this would seem to indicate that the original Celtic inhabitants of Britain, represented today by the surviving Welsh, were all slaughtered and replaced in England by the invading Angles and Saxons of the fifth century. It would, that is, were it not for the intriguing fact that studies of British female mitochondrial DNA, which is likewise passed down unchanged from mother to daughter, show much smaller differences between England and Wales, indicating that Celtic women weren’t slaughtered and replaced by invading Angles and Saxons. Then there is the linguistic evidence for survival of at least some Celtic males. Rural folk in some parts of England until very recently employed Celtic systems of counting their livestock, indicating that some Celtic men, at least, survived for long enough, possibly as pastoral slaves, to pass on their shepherding habits. One possible explanation of all this is that Celtic men did live through the Anglo-Saxon invasion but were deprived of reproductive access to their women by their new overlords. Male Celtic Britons, it seems, may never have had sex again after the Anglo-Saxons invaded their turf.
How’s that for radical celibacy?​
 
Toska

Toska

Banned
Joined
Mar 21, 2021
Posts
5,639
Reputation
10,497
Time online
42d 17h 38m
read everything but are half of these even true? if the physical feats that this guy talks abt are true then why doesn no one know abt it and why are ancient men seen as genetically inferior to modern men. it's almost impossible for some of these to be true, like the deadlift one and the 28 miles per hour one.
 
pizza

pizza

27 inches bidel 10 inches cock 6ft4 warrior skull
Joined
Sep 19, 2020
Posts
5,423
Reputation
5,499
Time online
73d 4h 34m
Toska said:
it's almost impossible for some of these to be true, like the deadlift one and the 28 miles per hour one.
impossible for industrial cuck (irl even for chads)
 
Deleted member 2597

Deleted member 2597

Zephir
Joined
Jul 27, 2019
Posts
8,763
Reputation
10,872
Time online
198d 15h 32m
spark said:

Peter McAllister = some cuck who took a fictional character's name out of fear​

book confirmed total cope muh ancients were all alpha males bro
 
J

JM10

Zephir
Joined
Apr 15, 2019
Posts
23,695
Reputation
39,504
Time online
88d 14h 20m
interesting if true, are there citations in the book?
 
antiantifa

antiantifa

Fuck you.
Joined
Jan 14, 2021
Posts
3,152
Reputation
3,586
Time online
13d 5h 33m
Never had a girl not orgasm desu just have good frame and tall height theory.
 
L

Lawton88

Erudite
Joined
Apr 28, 2021
Posts
1,074
Reputation
957
Time online
35d 10h 2m
Toska said:
read everything but are half of these even true? if the physical feats that this guy talks abt are true then why doesn no one know abt it and why are ancient men seen as genetically inferior to modern men. it's almost impossible for some of these to be true, like the deadlift one and the 28 miles per hour one.

A lot of it sounds like nonsense. I think Usain Bolt would easily run a top speed faster than someone back then who didn't receive the optimal training etc.

As far as neanderthals I would think their forearm strength and maybe chest strength would be a lot more than an average human but I doubt one could just walk up and beat the world's best armwrestler or could match the strength of the people in the world's strongest man competitions. They would have to be trained themselves to do that.
 
Descartes

Descartes

18th century gentleman
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Posts
727
Reputation
475
Time online
15d 20h 12m
Toska said:
and why are ancient men seen as genetically inferior to modern men.
I'm not saying the whole thing is true, but talking about that comment alone, a lot of that is caused by misconceptions that people have, it's easy to find information that can show otherwise
 
TheAnomaly

TheAnomaly

Handsome Manlet
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Posts
866
Reputation
670
Time online
19d 9h 18m
Location
United-States
R

ruoho

Trainee
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Posts
82
Reputation
70
Time online
19d 12h 43m
what app do you use to read these books? when i use notepad i just get some encrypted stuff lol
 
kilgrave

kilgrave

Consultant
Joined
Nov 12, 2019
Posts
158
Reputation
163
Time online
16d 18h 12m
May be a decent author but his track record with parenting is sketchy at best.
 
F

faggotchadlite

action movie prettyboy
Joined
Jan 13, 2021
Posts
3,948
Reputation
5,206
Time online
28d 15h 53m
Deleted member 13779 said:
(get this book on libgen)

I don't think that any intro I write could do this book justice, so I'm going to copy the first few paragraphs of the prologue:


What follows is a compilation of some of the most BRUTAL HISTORICAL MOGS ever put to print. This book is a veritable encyclopedia of the physical, mental, and social decay of modern man; the rest of this post will consist of interesting examples thereof. I've highlighted choice sections in bold. Take your Ritalin, because there's some really good stuff in here:

Many Ancient Physical Feats Seem Impossible Nowadays


Homo Sapiens Physical Strength is Pathetic, Even Compared to Our Closest Relatives (Neanderthals and Chimps)


UFC Fighters are Pussies


Ancient Warriors were Fucking Badass


Illiterate Peoples Have Superior Poetic / Rapping Ability


We are all Deadbeat Dads


Johnny Can't Fuck


Ancient Incels MOG Modern Ones
mirin

read the whole thing
 
C

Chinacurry

Zephir
Joined
Feb 29, 2020
Posts
3,113
Reputation
3,024
Time online
52d 7h 24m
Eddie Hall mogs greekcels
 
kalefartbomb

kalefartbomb

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 21, 2019
Posts
405
Reputation
576
Time online
8d 5h 55m
Humanity peaked just before the agricultural age. That's when our height, brain size and physical capacity and endurance peaked. That's a big redpill for people researching diets. There's a temptation among some people to confuse technological progress with evolutionary progress but the reverse is true. As civilisations have become more advanced we have disconnected ourselves from nature and our food supply, and aren't even aware of the superiority of our ancestors. There's something 40K-ish about it all.
 
C

Chinacurry

Zephir
Joined
Feb 29, 2020
Posts
3,113
Reputation
3,024
Time online
52d 7h 24m
Eddie Hall mogs greekcels
 
SubhumanCurrycel

SubhumanCurrycel

It’s just hair bro
Joined
Feb 28, 2020
Posts
20,236
Reputation
59,425
Time online
248d 22h 24m
Location
Baldistan
Post agriculture the loss of strict natural selection for thoroughbred traits for survival + lifestyle have make our species far weaker
 
mulattomaxxer

mulattomaxxer

22 Y/O GYMCELLING VIRGIN
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Posts
3,774
Reputation
6,545
Time online
37d 2m
Location
UK
Does the guy reference these findings? Alot of these statistics are hard to believe. There is no way that humanity has recessed this much in a few thousand years. What about the tribes which have been untouched by modern society. These people aren't turbomoggers.
 

Similar threads

Syobevoli
Replies
20
Views
557
AlexAP
AlexAP
disillusioned
Replies
23
Views
689
VLONE
UltimateMan
Replies
4
Views
97
maxxedfalloutdweller
maxxedfalloutdweller

Users who are viewing this thread

Top