Pei
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2022
- Posts
- 17,296
- Reputation
- 10,979
I am mostly European but I have significant Native ancestry. I also have Viking blood, so do you all think men who descended from war-like cultures that placed an emphasis on violence are the modern day chads while the men from cultures that were less primal and more civil are the modern day normies? Could I be onto something, would be evidence for the gene pill and would be bad news for the idiot normies who think mewing could get them a robust warrior looking chad face when looking like that is impossible for their body because it wasn’t written into their genetic code?
Think about it for a second; the Aztecs were a violant culture, they regularly raided other smaller tribes for the purpose of conquering it to provide sacrifices for their god. Clearly a huge emphasis on that in their culture. Every facet of their culture was violent, they even had a game where the losers get sacrificed!
Here’s where it gets good, all those dudes wore when they went out to conquer some other guys was cloth to fight guys wielding brutal ass weapons such as the macuahuitl
and the Cuauhololli
With this knowledge would it be reasonable to say that the men with the better bone structures were much more likely to survive blows from these brutal blunt weapons? So therefore the gene pool was influenced to favor those features more and more until they became common/dominant? On the flip side in Europe a similar culture to that never really happened for as long as it did in South America, their religions didn’t have them needing to capture people to sacrifice, and of course with the advent of plated/chain armor you didn’t need robust bone structure too survive. What does this say about women? that they are without even realizing it attracted to men descended from badass warrior killers who regularly could dish out violence because of their robust bone structure? Some Native North American tribes were similar, especially in modern day United States I think. In modern day Mexico they were much more peaceful which explains why their bone structure sucks.
Think about it for a second; the Aztecs were a violant culture, they regularly raided other smaller tribes for the purpose of conquering it to provide sacrifices for their god. Clearly a huge emphasis on that in their culture. Every facet of their culture was violent, they even had a game where the losers get sacrificed!
Here’s where it gets good, all those dudes wore when they went out to conquer some other guys was cloth to fight guys wielding brutal ass weapons such as the macuahuitl
and the Cuauhololli
With this knowledge would it be reasonable to say that the men with the better bone structures were much more likely to survive blows from these brutal blunt weapons? So therefore the gene pool was influenced to favor those features more and more until they became common/dominant? On the flip side in Europe a similar culture to that never really happened for as long as it did in South America, their religions didn’t have them needing to capture people to sacrifice, and of course with the advent of plated/chain armor you didn’t need robust bone structure too survive. What does this say about women? that they are without even realizing it attracted to men descended from badass warrior killers who regularly could dish out violence because of their robust bone structure? Some Native North American tribes were similar, especially in modern day United States I think. In modern day Mexico they were much more peaceful which explains why their bone structure sucks.
Last edited:
