![Stand Together In The Face Of Evil [500x558 - 100KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/WGnnkO.jpg){kind=link}
Perhaps we should've taken their natural ressources away.
But that would require an ideology that is not afraid of having imperialistic ambitions, nor too timid to make use of violence against people who are basically the "underdog". As you point out they are backwards and weaker than us. It would require an ideology that roots for Goliath, not (((David))).
Same with shitlibs. It's not socially acceptable to be violent against someone who is weaker. Can't hit women. Can't hit a soycuck if you visit a gym more often than him. You are goliath, they are (((David))).
Will you root for the strong, or would you rather see the meek and underdogs rule?
>Will you root for the strong, or would you rather see the meek and underdogs rule?
That's a loaded question... Don't do it again
I root for the most qualified, always, and that's not necessarily the biggest grunt. In fact it's rarely the biggest grunt. Take the vietnam conflict during the 70s the big grunt wasn't exactly the most appropriate option in that environment. Granted he can carry the machine gun and that helps, but at the same time he's a big ass target moving slow and a grenade magnet... Needless to mention tunels, at that point he's useless he can't enter, too big, you need a tunnel rat/mexican type of guy, with a colt
And the big grunt shits big, eats big, drinks big, is big, and makes noise. And he can also turn out to be the bigger pussy when bullets start flying
So you see, context matters, a lot. And so do individuals. So when it comes to managing an empire...
Yes, I agree. I don't mean strong as in purely physical.
Perhaps a silly example, but:
Napoleons height was 1.68m.
Putins height is 1.7m
Obamas height is 1.87m.
If I had to pick a strong leader to root for, it wouldn't be mister "you didn't built that" .
(post is archived)