"Weak men create hard times"

>"Weak men create hard times"
Come try something, "hard times".
Face it Sup Forums, multi warhead ICBMs make all arguments about a need to cultivate societal "strength" (as defined by Nazi LARPers) pointless.

Other urls found in this thread:

counter-currents.com/2017/12/bring-back-prohibition/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

All the rhetoric about Russian and Chinese threats is just that. Rhetoric. The people who really run these nations know that REAL nuclear powers (not you North Korea) well NEVER go to war. In fact, a real nuclear power need never fear war on its own soil.
However, our rulers don't want us to know this. They want us afraid so that we hand over our liberty and money to keep us """"safe"""" (as if guns, tanks, jets and helicopters are what keeps a nation with thousands of multi-tip ICBMs safe, fucking kek).

Societal strength is to be cultivated for the wellbeing of everyone, not just to survive in the face of struggle.

Well if you're defining "strength" as something other than the ability to defend one's self, why even call it "strength" anymore?
I think a lot of people simply want society to genuflect to their cozy little idea of what people should and shouldn't do and then just say it's for "muh strength" because they're stuck in the mindset of the days when wars were fought with spears.

the whole world is owned by what's known as babylonian money magic. basically you loan someone asking for 100 coins only 50 and a promissory note they can use to make purchases with, but in return they have to give back 100 coins to repay the loan. Coupled with usury which back in Egypt was known as a snakebite, heh tribe of snakes, anyways they considered usury to be the worst type of money magic because with every day the value of the currency decreases when more is needed to pay the interest.

Yes, I'm aware of international banking cartels and fractional reserve banking.
What of it?

>Well if you're defining "strength" as something other than the ability to defend one's self, why even call it "strength" anymore?

Fucking lol. Ability to defend yourself is one, tiny aspect of all that is strength, and strength is one, tiny aspect of all that is self-defense.

My friend, strength, within the vast majority of contexts, is an objective virtue. A society without strength will never become society in the first place. A society without strength will crumble within a handful of generations. Self-discipline takes strength. Facing difficulties takes strength. Doing real work takes strength.

Jews create hard times.

>greedy prideful cowardly politicians who can't stand losing nuke the planet in spite
>the hardest of times occur
????????

What, praytell, will crumble a society with 0 opponents?

No, that will be the time of death. You wouldn't want to survive nuclear winter even if you could.
Banish all delusion about preserving society post nuclear exchange.
Starvation will face all who survived the exchange.
Humanity won't reach 7 digits for another ten thousand years.
It won't matter if you were a navy seal or a cum guzzling faggot before the exchange.
You will be doomed either way.

*Zionism

That same cartel is a long bloodline of cultural and race mixing tribe that worked its way into western culture through the collapse of egypt and the founding of rome.
The reason I bring this up is their purpose is to deceive us into believing our nations are different enough that a nuke war is the inevitable result of the cultural differences, when in fact the opposite is true.
Their money magic is what controls the theater of lies in order to deceive us into believing tribalism is a bad thing if you happen to be a shade whiter than Paco.

Look at this defeatist faggot, must be a hillary supporter.

Tribalism used to be helpful in the era of defending grain solos with swords. Now, in the multi-warhead ICBM age, it's just a vestigial bias.

>mutt overexageeating nuclear weapons effect

You plan on focusing your harmoon hard enough to not be vaporized in nuclear fire?
Let me know how that goes, Jojo.
But seriously, you're delusional if you think there's a "strategy" to a nuclear exchange.

Jealous?
Are you implying they're just fire crackers?
Come invade us then.

As if anything has changed in the past five thousand, seven hundred and seventy odd years of recorded Talmudic history.
You want to ignore the Rothschild's and the Masonic Jew menace, fine, I won't

being stupid enough to live in an country that will be hit with nuclear weapons in the first place, or living in dense population areas, or near key military targets

ICBMs that we can't use? Those are a deterrent not a point for debate.

We need our people to be strong and confident. We aren't so detached from our tribal nature that we would survive with anything different.

I think Zionism needs to be destroyed as well, friendo.
What I don't understand is why we all have to adhere to right-wing guidelines on how to live if my nations security is utterly assured no matter how the fuck people live their lives.

Do you not actually know how nuclear winter works? Please exit my thread until you're more educated.

nuclear winter is theorized, the fact that ash and particles thrown up into the atmosphere will block sunlight is theorized

The ICBMs mean that we literally have no external threat that we have to "prepare" for by adhering to a bunch of anal-retentive right wing ideals.

Tell that to the dinosaurs, moron.

dinosaurs were not being extinct by us and russian hotheads flaunting tactical and strategic nuclear weapons

It's not just about preparing for a threat, it's about maintaining what we've always been at our cores because that is who we are. The first humans were not weak people and they weren't focused on external threats like we are today. They were only focused on survival and while we're much different in almost every way today we can't lost who we are at our core. We can't enable people to be weak or society will collapse.

They were literally killed by starvation from particulates being jettisoned into the atmosphere, which is exactly what nuclear weapons do.
In a real exchange, there is 0 reason to not expect 100% stockpile use which is tens of thousands of simultaneous explosions.

>society will collapse
From what?

That's where shit gets messy, I agree
Here's a utopian solution, make America a religion with basic tenants of ownership of property, liberty of speech and guns, creativity and engineering and scrap the allowing of religious freedoms because that's the backdoor that zionists will always use

>>"Weak men create hard times"
and Trump is a weak man. WW3 incoming.

the amount of soot that would be needed is not known, neither does anyone know if all the warheads would be enough to genarate that much
and remember many nuclear weapons are small tactical yield weapons.
you are assuming way too much

nuclear weapons are a deterrent you braindead nigger, they're not meant to be used and conventional warfare is still very much a thing

I think a ban on fractional reserve banking and nationalizing our currency will fix those problems without organizing the thought police like the Spanish inquisition.

You literally don’t have a single clue what you’re talking about.

Conventionall warfare will NEVER occur between 2 nuclear super powers, you double nigger.

From faggots like you making arguments about things they don't understand.

mutually assured destruction as an deterrrnt is what everyone hopes it stays as
but nuclear exchanges can definatly happen when shit finally escalates

>Well if you're defining "strength" as something other than the ability to defend one's self, why even call it "strength" anymore?

>economic strength
>diplomatic strength

Many things can be measured in terms of weakness or strength, are you retarded?

yes it will but it would more than likely end in nuclear war

What, specifically, am I wrong about?

He's sure as shit stronger than you

I'm well aware it's a shitpost but my brain is having trouble parsing the OP

Sure, if you condone genocide, you fucking imbecile.

>Face it Sup Forums, multi warhead ICBMs make all arguments about a need to cultivate societal "strength" (as defined by Nazi LARPers) pointless.
How?

How did you even get to the conclusion that I fucking condone genocide?

>warhead ICBMs make all arguments about a need to cultivate societal "strength" (as defined by Nazi LARPers) pointless.
No?
Why would they?

I see, you are just redefining words adhoc, that makes "sense".

I do, but you still sound utterly retarded.

Because the natural conclusion of the basis of argument is: "lol why do anything, we're going to die".

instead they fuel proxy wars in under-developed nations, creating hard times for the people who live there, which in turn creates hard men who then immigrate to europe :^)

We (people living in a nuclear super power) have no military foes that threaten people inside our border. But we act as though this isn't so and it's wreaking havoc.

The "hard men create good times, good times create weak men" thing is fucking incoherent. Hard men prefer to create times that suit them best, which tend to be hard times.

My entire point is that if you live in a nuclear super power, you will NOT die..... JFC

>But we act as though this isn't so and it's wreaking havoc.
I'd say conditioning the population to have 10 second attention spans and a rationale that excludes anything beyond headlines; does more damage than over-militarization ever could.

>have no military foes that threaten people inside our border
That is plainly false.

>But we act as though this isn't so and it's wreaking havoc.
Are you actually retarded?
Do you realize why people go to the gym? They don't because they *need* to, but because it makes them better people.
Its the same for national strength, the act of gaining strength in it self is worthwhile, even if there are no viable ends.

>you will NOT die
I've had lots of friends die, though. Some by the hands of others, some by their own hands.

This guy gets it. End the proxy wars, then secure the borders.

I meant die from a foreign military threat....

I'd classify salvadoran bangers as a foreign military threat tbqh. The real irony is that we don't use the military against functional internal enemies.

>cultivate societal "strength"
So you are saying that after a thermonuclear war, only "weak" people would be raised by the ones that survive (if somebody does)?

Please, enlighten me about the military oponent residing inside a nuclear super power's border.
I'm not aware of any.
The fear-mongering ITT is strong. Half of you sound like US neocons, kek.

No, try reading my posts.

>Please, enlighten me about the military opponent residing inside a nuclear super power's border.
ISIS's terrorists inside of the EU?
Yes, I realize that this is a minor threat, but that wasn't the point I am making, which you conveniently ignore.

>Half of you sound like US neocons
I am far from being *anything* neocon.

And I don't think why you are accusing me of being that, since I pretty stand against most of their Ideals...

I take no issue with society enforcing good morals but the right-wings insistence on militarism (half of US tax revinue goes to military, not even nukes, that's the dpt. of energy) and on not tolerating alternative sexual styles or allowing individuals to explore conciousness for the sake of ensuring war readiness is bullshit.

>I take no issue with society enforcing good morals
Militarism, intolerance of "alternative sexual styles or allowing individuals to explore consciousness" is what I would mean by "good morals".
It isn't about being ready for war, it is about society itself.

Militarism and collectivism is a good just by itself, without any ends to pursue.
Society MUST be united and dissidents, depending on what they are doing, must not be allowed to spread their "alternative lifestyles".
I don't think having, for examples, gays in society is bad, but having people who are *openly* gay are a plague.

Prohibition directly creates gangs (and does nothing to deter use). End prohibition and you will end gang violence overnight.

>Prohibition directly creates gangs
And significantly reduced abuse of children and a significant amount of other crimes.

If the punishments are draconian enough people will stop forming gangs.

You ARE a neocon, friendo.
That's all just baseless conjecture.
The allegiance of the individual will be to their humanity before the nation because one is primary to being and the other is just a linguistic construction.

History says you're dead wrong.
Again, you are just spouting right wing conjecture.

said the weakling

I see what you're getting at, but oftentimes one's own self, meaning their bad behavior, can be their greatest enemy.

Source: junkies

The draft dodging New York tenderfoot?

C'mon don't be stupid if you can help it.

How many nukes you got, leaf?
Sit back down, lol.

So the solution is to piss away HALF or taxes on murder toys like we do presently?

>You ARE a neocon
No, under no definition of anything am I a neocon.
I wouldn't reject being called a Fascist (although I don't think that is actually true), or "far right", but I CERTAINLY don't want to spread democracy.

>That's all just baseless conjecture.
Yes, these are my *opinions*, they aren't cold hard facts, I think so much was clear...

>The allegiance of the individual will be to their humanity before the nation because one is primary to being and the other is just a linguistic construction.
A conjecture just as baseless as mine.
If you think about human evolution it is also blatantly false, why did the German volunteer soldier hurl himself out of the trenches and into the fire of the French machine guns, if "his primary allegiance is to the individual".
Billions have died for their country, WHY? WHY did they give up their lives? You can not *force* a soldier to die, they could have stayed in the trenches, they could have run away, they could have never volunteered, so WHY?

Prohibition was a success, it achieved what it wanted, don't be an idiot.
counter-currents.com/2017/12/bring-back-prohibition/

The US military is bloated for sure, but we do need those nukes. If just one country or a strict alliance of countries had nukes they could basically tell everyone else what to do under threat of being annihilated.

They died to protect their loved loves. Not their country.
Also, you have a very naive concept of modern drug prohibition.
Modern drug prohibition is facilitated by the CIA to provide funding for black budgets because finding ISIS (which the US does at the Zionists request) doesn't sound good in a congressional meeting.
Modern drug prohibition is in no way shape or from done for society's benefit.
That's just the cover story.

You're completely misunderstanding me. I LOVE our ICBMs. I wish we had more.
They aren't even a component of the US military budget. They're part of the dpt. Of Energy. Compared to the rest of our weapon stockpile, they cost almost nothing.

Nuclear winter is a myth that was pushed by USSR agents.

It just isn't going to happen for a number of reasons.

This is all the more reason certain technological paths should not be explored. There is an extent to which technology serves and enriches our lives. After we pass that point we are further advanced physically than we are capable of dealing with mentally. It would be in humanities best interest to hinder progress in certain areas until we are ready.

Souls were not born into the miracle that is a human body just to serve a fucking state.

Elaborate.

A libshit is telling me to hand over my guns and give up my morals because the government will keep me safe. I'm going to keep doing what I've been doing until civil war breaks out and I get to shoot you all. Nuclear weapons won't stop Jamal from breaking into my house, nor will they stop me from blowing Jamal's retarded brains out with my AR. Burn in hell, commie.

>They died to protect their loved loves.
Exactly, but dying for your loved ones is essentially the same as dying for your country.
In both cases they gave up their individual lives for the collective, whether the collective is their family or their nation is of no differences.

Humans have a limited, (about 500 or so I believe) number of humans they can actually conceptualize as other people.
This is "intuitively true" if you walk along a busy street, that means humans have a "primary group", this "primary group" is what people actually fight and die for.
A state is just an interwoven collective of people and their primary groups and thus fighting for any part of that greater collective is the same as fighting for the state.

And I don't care about what fucked up shit the CIA is getting themselves into, that obviously has nothing to do with I want to see happen.

The state IS the soul.
It is the embodiment of the collective will of the people, you aren't serving some *abstract* thing when you serve the state, you serve the state by serving the people around you.

You dumb fucking nigger, I've been saying how import civil liberties are this entire thread.
I love guns and I love that US citizens can own them.
You are litterally one of those knuckle dragging fuckwits that places everything in 1 of 2 categories.

wtfs happening in OPs pic

a rain, nice, we could use some rain like that

Nukes don't do shit because no one is going to use them.
I wish they fucking would, I'd welcome London's glassing

*funding ISIS

OP is a retard, with no understanding of use of force, or what makes a functional society. Tries to create a false binary of nukes or nothing, when obvious counter examples like the former soviet union exists.

It's like claiming that nukes make police officers obsolete.

here

You love guns, nukes and civil liberties but you're not fighting the people who are trying to take away the first, own the next, and as long as the central bank exists there is no such thing as civil liberties.
If you want to make America into a threat then get rid of the central bank and watch the zionists around the world make you out to look like Nazi Germany 2.0

Unlike you, I can love any human with empathy, regardless of ethnicity.
That's why I'll never equate the collective to the state.
To me, the collective is any person who does no harm.

Why does technology advance leaps and bounds during and around wartime?

10/10 would do Vietnam all over again and lose another propaganda war while crying in front of his gear, "we didn't lose :'("
I fucking hate burgers, thanks pol.

Necessity?

>Unlike you, I can love any human with empathy, regardless of ethnicity.
I personally think humanism is disgusting and ultimately the most *globalist* you can possibly be.
It is what ultimately led to the downfall of Europe, when you care about "people abroad" just as much as you care about your own people then the world will inevitably collapse.

There are now billions of people living in absolutely horrible conditions all over the world, humanism dictates us that we need to help these people and ease their suffering, but ultimately that will never work, there are too many of the and to few of us.

I believe that for the "third world", two possibilities exist, either we all embrace nationalism and leave Africa alone to suffer by themselves, so that in a century or so they may have reached better living standards, or we let whites rules their countries in a form of "neo-colonialism".

What we are doing right now, on the basis of your humanism, is bringing these people in and/or making them depended on us through food and water aid, which simply can lead to no good.

So necons scaring us into burning HALF our taxes on bullshit is good for society and should continue?

The 3rd world wouldn't be 3rd world without the IMF.