you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

China's huge population doesn't matter that much becaue the mongoloid race is physically not that strong. They don't have body hair, have weak eyesight, weak jaws, small penis size, short stature and weak physical prowess in general.

The vaunted Japanese army in ww2 had an average height of 5 feet.

In contrast, tiny west indies islands rake in gold and silver medals hand over fist because they have west African populations that underwent a significant eugenic process. Pure black nations in Africa don't do any well in the olympics but carribean blacks do.

My guess is that slavery for sugar plantations had a very eugenic effect. 11 million negroes were imported by spain to those islands and 90% of them died. Only the strongest and most physically virile most likely survived the rigors of sugarcane farming.

Blacks also have a natural advantage in the area of athletics and sports since most of sports involve sprinting. Blacks were evolutionarily selected for sprinting. Nordics are the physically strongest race and they dominate strongman competitions with slavs being neck and neck with them.

Despite the sterotype of the Italian stallion and the Spanish bull, of these countries' men being the most virile lovers, they are the physically weakest Europeans. The ancient Romans noted that Gauls and Germans would generally always win in single combat against Romans. But Romans beat them in war due to superior organization, equipment, greater money and manpower reserves.

In any case, the US becoming 50% white doesn't matter in terms of olympics because the absolute number whites is still there. There are still 190 million whites in America and theoretically Brazil has 90 million.

In any case, the olympics or sports don't really matter. Japan or south korea wins few medals compared to the West Indies but no sane person would say they are weaker countries than Jamaica or Trinidad.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

While this is generally true, you can't take the Roman account as an hard-proof, because those accounts were written with a double goal: to depict other populations as barbarians, and to prove that they were good enough to be deserving of the Roman civilization. So the authors described them as bearers of the common traits of the barbarians (lack of laws, practicing obsolete cults that involved human sacrifices, strong individually but unable to coordinate themselves) while also saying that they would fit the empire if they had a chance. You have to keep in mind that it's unlikely that the Kelts were as uncivilised as they result from the Caesar's depiction, for example, since they had, just a century before, a pretty large confederation able to deal with Rome.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You also should keep in mind that, while now it isn't the case in Europe, until AT LEAST the end of the feudal age, phisical prowess was depending more on the diet that on genetics. The food was scarse, expecially animal protein sources. This was a major factor in the development of strength.