>>14262744>You don’t know how raising children worksI've never personally raised children so that's true, but people can raise 4 children, they do so all the time. I don't see why the big woman making 4 kids at once and then the two parents raising them together would be bad.
>Also why does this whole post have an autistic tone? Are you retarded?I am neither autistic nor retarded.
Small, lean, athletic, cute males that are highly trained in shooting guns and modern combat, and tall, thick, superfecund beautiful females who always birth litters are vastly superior in all relevant metrics in the modern world. Comparing two geographically identical countries, the one with big women and small men like how I describe can support hundreds of millions if not billions more people (depending on the size of the country) while not needing to increase total food or land or space requirements. They'd also have a vastly superior fertility rate, they'd never have to take in immigrants, they'd increase at an ever accelerating rate and they'd be dominant in economic power and military might. They'd be matriarchal, with women controlling most political institutions and such with no violence against women. Big happy families, strong family values, everyone would be intelligent and well educated, etc.
I have explained myself quite thoroughly in this thread and in past threads. What I say is true. Everything I say is true. You all have to stop coping and get over it. These people I am describing are physically superior to all other phenotype that can be realistically genetically modified into our species.
A nation "chads" and "stacies" would stand almost no chance whatsoever against these people I'm describing. Chad gets slaughtered in a modern fight against these males I'm describing, and stacy can not pump out as many copies of her genes as the giantess can. AND a nation can not even support as many of them, meaning that they are inferior in both quality and quantity.