Refute this libcucks!

Refute this libcucks!

How about you empirically prove it?

It's true
It's true

It's wrong.

The only correct analysis of history is one of genetic determinism.

>us trumptards are such STRONG MEN not like those WEAK libcucks

idiot-tier credo

This
To be honest
Family

>not astrological determinism

S
M
H

Times of crisis create violent men. Violent men create hard times. Hard times create radicals. Radicals wear down the state created by the violent to something people would agree to join. A time of crisis occurs again and the violent gain power.

When you view society through the eternal and universal and unchanging caste system it all becomes a lot more clearer.

Okay.
1918: end of world war 1, certainly a hard time for britain
1918-1939: mild economic stagnation, but surely these hard men should've created good times?
1939-45: Without any good times to speak of britain is once again dragged into the second world war, greatly hurting her economic abilities, losing her empire, but theoretically creating strong men once again
1945 onward: britain is faced with the loss of her empire, slowly the commonwealth fades into a meaningless political entity, and the empire reverts back to a small kingdom, almost completely overshadowed by her child the united states, and keeps alive as a nation of merchants
So, world war 1 created strong men who couldn't create good times, and then despite the lack of good times we got into a situation with our strong men that created further hard times, and said hard times continue to this day.

You're full of shit.

bull-headed≠strong

If this were true then one must support nuclear war as that would create the hardest time and thus the strongest man. In reality though these hard times don't create strong men they create dead ones.

"Hard times" create starving men and men bleeding out in some foreign field, this fetish americans seem to have for war is completely disgusting.

What king of cuckoldry is this? Why do you hate whites so much?

why do you hate whites so much you're willing to send millions of them to die in the name of creating an ubermensch on the dead bodies of your fellow man?

>I love whites so much I want to get millions of them killed in WWIII
Bring on those Good Times, Hard Man.

Imperial Russia>Early and mid SU>Reformist SU>1990s Russia

Refute this class cucks!

capitalism generates the impetus needed for people to commit to tasks and become grounded in reality thus preserving the "strong men create good times" stage, even when they are wealthy they strive for yet more wealth giving them the challenge they need

Completle arbitrary bullshit abstracted from biased anecdote.
What's interesting is its simularity to Holling's adaptive renewal cycles. Shows that all points of veiw are looking at the same truth and pragmatism is the only way to look at what you see objectively.

> billions hard times experienced
> zero strong men came from that

Makes exactly as much sense as Sinusoida Juliana Krzyżanowskiego.

>humans are so reductive they personify systems
Ayy lmao

Africa is actually going through a mass eugenic cleansing as we speak.

>strong men create good times
>1940s soviet union and germany

hmm...

are you kidding?

LITERAL strongmen run many of those countries

But where da good times at?

Da strongmen have plenty good times.

> that feel when /pol/ forces islamic sociology
you can't made this shit up

0/10 bait try harder

holy shit

They're both religious authoritarians with right leaning social viewpoints, it's hardly suprising.

that's kinda true though? that seems like pretty much how china's dynasties fell according to my public school understanding of Chinese history.

Cycle definitely exists but they less about strong men and more about strong institutes i.e. elites stagnate while their exploited subject advances until it is strong enough to break from old order

It isn't perfect law of course, just approximation in meta-stable systems

the 2nd and 1st centuries BC were good times for Rome, the wars were due to the spoils of conquest causing power imbalances

I'm saving this just to fuck with /pol/

good times create strong women
strong women create weak men
weak men create hard times
hard times create weak women
weak women create strong men
strong men create good times

The idea that human history follows natural patterns is stupid. Technology alone warps any cyclical aspect.

This is clearly made be someone who wants to benefit from rigid social hierarchy. No doubt seeing themselves as a strong man.

Why would it fuck with /pol/?

Everyone there already agrees with that, they don't care that a Muslim said it, lol. If anything, it reinforces the point that this behavior can be observed everywhere on Earth in all cultures.

wtf i'm #randy4Rand now

>Great Man theory
Oh yeah suck your rulers off more why don't you

Underrated

Loo or street?

>Its on a picture so its real!

Its an entirely different thing thouogh.

It's true though. Try not to do an Ad Hominem and actually understand what Inb Khaldun said. It's brilliant and history supports it.

From the Estrucanvs v Romans, to the Romans v Barbarians, to Byzantines v Turkics, to Abbasids v Mongols, China v Mongols, etc... History is full of such examples. This was true for early Persians who were horse nomads v the semitic civilization of Assyria, Sumer v Akkad, etc... The list is overwhelming.

No /pol/ack will admit they agree with a Muslim. Not without an avalanche of cuck accusations.

If we consider contemporary migration patterns, the demographics of the future and the interracial dating patterns of European and North American countries, that's actually a confirmation of OP's thesis.

African hardship has created a stronger breed of man, that has a conquering mindset, they migrate to North America, Europe, Australia, and once they are there all girls fall for them, desire their cock. In 100 years, the entire world, at least outside of Asia, will be black, they will be the winners of history.

I just don't know if they can create good times.

>because the caste system worked
lol

I love you guys, making /b/ /tv/ and /pol/ great since times immemorial.

typically hard times create ooga boogas

remember what happened to that one country that lost a world war?

I don't even get how this supports conservicuckism if it's all a cycle. There's really not even a point of trying to figure out where in the cycle you are because it's all a cycle anyways.

>exploited subject advances until it is strong enough to break from old order
SOUNDS MARXIST TO ME LAD

To be fair, marxism is cyclical as well with all the revolutions and such.

Genetic determinism is over simplistic and doesn't account for the effect of the environment on phenotypes when it comes to actual gene expression, or the influence of social factors around sexual selection and violence that alter the frequency of various alleles. Heritability is also frequently conflated with genetic inheritance, despite the fact that any behavior that passes down between generations is inherited, even if taught. Very seldom does the wannabe eugenicist distinguish between genotype and phenotype whatsoever, or consider the fitness value of genetic diversity which he actually aims to reduce, or that certain traits disadvantageous for reproduction may aid kin selection. It refers to quasi-mythological fixed natures of black people and such, despite mutability being the cornerstone of evolution, and very seldom offers concrete evidence for why traits like intelligence or empathy would be less beneficial in Africa or The Americas than Europe. At best you tend to get airy speculations about ancestral psychology that we have no good primary sources for, usually based on stereotypes of cavemen... "redpill" fags do the same shit with sexual dimorphism and their ad hoc, unfalsifiable explanations for it.

The real reason some people love biological determinism is not scientific rigor, but because it gives them a sense of superiority (a word that is almost meaningless in actual biology) and gives them a justification for killing people. Self righteousness and grand fantasies of mass murder are bread and butter for neckbeard neo-nazis.

Marxism doesn't believe in a cycle or a straight line
History is chaotic

t. /pol/

Marxism is epy straight line, user. Why do you think communism is inevitable?

Weak men indeed, such as Adolph "I found Berlin a city of stone and left it a city of rubble" Hitler.

Marxism is actually a cycle plotted over time. In other words, a sine wave or a spiral.

You are right about that.

>Ibn Khaldun
Great-tier thinker.

Also, I'd like to add that Marxist historical materialism is equally as fallacious when it comes to history. The world is not a narrative: the world existed long before humans wrote certain events down and called it "history". There are no heroes, villains, or any other Hegelian crap that Nazis and Marxists gloat about in anticipation of their future triumphs. The left-liberal narrative of progress and the right-conservative narrative of decline are just value judgements... the world is bigger than that. Nobody knows what the future really holds. The truth isn't even in the middle, both "sides" are just plain confusing their sentiment with reality.

>I just don't know if black people can create good times.
take a wild fucking guess

>very seldom offers concrete evidence for why traits like intelligence or empathy would be less beneficial in Africa or The Americas than Europe

Because you get intelligence and empathy from people who use them as deadly tools. Not to mention the icy north requires cognition about future states and how to provide for the hard times. When weather is an absolute enemy, being able to compare alternative outcomes with expected reward becomes a life saver.

The brain is lazy homeostatic piece of shit because its computational processes use up a lot of energy.


Not to mention 10000 years of accelerated evolution as civilization created pots of wealth that boss men continually fought over. We have the genes of conquerors and rapists. No shame because we literally wouldn't be as intelligent without them.

>Not to mention the icy north requires cognition about future states and how to provide for the hard times. When weather is an absolute enemy, being able to compare alternative outcomes with expected reward becomes a life saver.

And you think building shelter, storing food, tool use, irrigation, knowledge of the weather etc. isn't useful in hot environments? Laughable. Funny how civilization started in the Middle East despite all factors you mentioned.

Not all of Europe is icy, either. Southern Europe is much warmer and was far more advanced for most of history.

Pol is divided now.

ITT crony notions get btfoed

>unny how civilization started in the Middle East despite all factors you mentioned.

Civlization was a disaster for the transitional population. Boss men and the priestly class might have had a (significant) improvement in living standards. But for the vast majority of people, toiling at growing grain crops and eating them is a horrible experience that one can see in the skeletons.

You're spoiled by the wonders of the past two centuries.

"Civilization" isn't a morally good or bad idealism. It's literally a ruling class leveraging surpluses of resources to lord over most people.

> Southern Europe is much warmer and was far more advanced for most of history.

Of course but thousands of years of accelerated evolution via the warrings of boss men already happened before the most famous cultures of that region. And not only that, they had a fantastic diet courtesy of the Mediterranean.

>And you think building shelter, storing food, tool use, irrigation, knowledge of the weather etc. isn't useful in hot environments?

Not as much. The river parasites and hostile fauna kind of force selective pressures towards modes of production OTHER than farming.

So what type of man is more successful as a nomad?
What type of man is more successful as a tribal raider?

And I think the selective environmental pressure towards future thinking is far more intense in boreal regions. Remember that there was a migration where people from the north were figurative white walkers who slaughtered and replaced the European cultures south of the ice.

The men who destroyed their Capitol were the same as them in the end. The Soviets were quite literally using Blitzkrieg tactics and unified by one dictator who called all the shots, very similar story with the U.S. and Britain. Same story with the socialist state controlled military economies of the allies as well.

Really gets the noggin joggin'.

I'd argue, though, that people giving themselves up to STRONG MEN has generally not led to GOOD TIMES.

refute this cuckonomists

The whole reason the soviets won was because stalin learned to delegate power to his army officials, instead of himself calling dumb shots.

NOT
AN
ARGUMENT

I strongly suspect based on the Veeky Forums filename and typing style that this is a troll post rather than a genuine fascist poster
Fuck off

>Thinking /pol/ would freak out at Ibn Khaldun
Unironically /ourguy/