[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
▼ Settings Mobile Home
/pol/ - Politically Incorrect


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: IMG_7176.jpg (862 KB, 2560x3840)
862 KB JPG
This is a serious question by the way. I actually want to know if this is the truth
>>
You can sort of extract that conclusion by studying DNA but extrapolating what that actually meant sociologically is not simple. Chad harems? Mass rape? Genocide? Variable male and female mortality? It's basically guesswork and most people claiming they have the answer are really just projecting their own contemporary beliefs and views backwards into the unknowable past
>>
>>545287695
men reproduced but also got slaughtered in wars.
>>
>>545287695
20 percenter here. Ama.
>>
I don't think anyone claims only 20% of men ever reproduced historically. Less than 100% obviously but I think you're mixing up your blackpill stats
>>
>>545287695
No, it's just a bunch of foid/simp cope to justify feminism and hypergamy
>>
File: 1732564379022688.jpg (115 KB, 682x900)
115 KB JPG
>>545287695
>"80% of men are below average"
the extent of female logic
>>
>>545287695
>>545289537
>>545289400
Op is reatarded.
No, there is no proof that “only 20% “ of men in history reproduced.
You are confused with the fact that we descent of a small number of men, this isn’t because the others didn’t reproduce but because their lineages (haplo groups) were destroyed for war or because their descendants were only females
>>
>>545289752
I didn’t endorse the claim, I am asking if it’s true and seeing if there’s proof to back that up
Don’t call others dumb if you misinterpret them
>>
>>545287982
Being a chad wasn't a requirement for a harem back then.
If you were a powerful leader you could take a single woman as a concubine and she could do little about it.
>>
>>545290063
>Just a leader, something which is requires strength of mind, social skills, likely physical skills and luck
Yeah that's really different from a guy who's strong, has a social life and is attractive.
>>
>>545287695
Its 1 in 2 men reproduced throughout history, not 1 in 5 retard.
>>
>>545287695
I think it's 40%
>>
>>545290294
Medieval ruling class was born into it, most were not attractive, socially fluid or physically strong.
>>
>>545287695
That makes quite a few assumptions, so I will make my own. Let's assume we are in the Little Season of Revelation 20. First of all, there was a great war, and the majority of all people died due to war and natural disaster. Jesus's kingdom just ended a few hundred years ago, upon which the land masses shifted violently. This is reinforced by world maps from before 1800. California was an island. Previous known areas were blank and labeled unknown. History is a huge lie literally written by satanic jews related to Ghislane Maxwell.
The enemy was released, and he immediately went to work to deceive the world. His followers sought out anyone who would not deny Jesus and his earthly reign. They were imprisoned in asylums, had their brains scrambled in lobotomies, and were tortured to death under pretense of "religious fanaticism." These events could have easily killed off 80% of all people. The war of armageddon. The Great Tribulation. The war at the end of the kingdom. What if almost all men reproduced, but their bloodlines were cut off due to these events?



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.