So I was curious to the heights of various political figures and writers and found that the number of political radicals who were 5'10" and above are very few. 

During the second world war for example, two of the most reasonable leaders, though fiercely nationalistic, were De Gaulle (6'5") and FDR (6'1"), followed by Truman who was 5'9.



Lenin and Stalin were between 5'5" and 5'6" (lmao) as was Hirihito and Churchill.



Marx, Hitler, Mao, and Trotsky were all reportedly 5'9"

Goebbles and Gramsci were both 5'0" complete manlets



My theory is that people who are shorter than 5'10" or 5'6" depending a nation's height are inherently spiteful.

So, should be ban the short from politics? Clearly they've proven themselves too dangerous to lead and too muddled in their thought to be trusted

Moreover what is the historical precedent for the short being so awful at ruling?

Normies / chads go through life with no privation, loneliness, poverty, or mistreatment. They're like the Eloi without a care in the world. They don't feel the need to change anything because the state of affairs suits them nicely. Weirdos, manlets, schizos, incels, etc see the problems in society and have often been genuinely affected by them, which makes them skeptical of normie ideology and engage in more esoteric or eccentric positions. Low social status people have basically nothing to lose. Yes, an middle-class financier or lawyer with three children could possibly go on a public rant about a fringe ideology, but it's career / life ending. A schizo, itinerant, childless, manlet incel such as Hitler could rant and rave all he wanted there was literally nothing to lose.

>>14919963 (OP)

Cope. Manlets always shape the history

This

>>14919963 (OP)

Height has no correlation with serotonin levels so stfu

>Manlets always shape the history

Ahem

Manlets must DIE

I was never asked to be a 5'10" spic (or given growth hormones before my growth plates fused)

>>14919963 (OP)

There is no evidence to support the claim that individuals who are shorter than 5'10" or 5'6" (depending on the nation's average height) are inherently spiteful or unfit to lead. Physical height has no correlation with intelligence, leadership ability, or moral character.



The notion of banning individuals from politics based on their physical characteristics, such as height, is discriminatory and goes against the principles of democracy and equality. Political leaders should be chosen based on their qualifications, experience, and policies, rather than their height or any other physical characteristic.



Historically, there have been successful and respected leaders who were shorter in stature, such as Napoleon Bonaparte (5'6"), Julius Caesar (5'7"), and Alexander the Great (5'6"). Height has never been a determining factor in the ability to govern effectively.



It is important to base political judgments and decisions on facts and evidence, rather than stereotypes or discriminatory beliefs.

why post a chatgpt response here? You know the style is very obvious to detect right?

>>14919963 (OP)

> two of the most reasonable leaders, though fiercely nationalistic, were De Gaulle 

LMAO, De Gaulle may not have had a Napoleon Complex, but he was just as French as the king of manlets himself

Consult ChadGPT if you have any concerns with the previous points mentioned.
