on the contrary, physical fitness has pretty much no correlation with survival in "hard times". it's mostly about being in a defensible community full of likeminded individuals. in fact, an extra 50 lbs of fat would be an asset if you're low on food for a year or two.
during "hard times" you're not going to be humping a ruck 50 miles. you're going to be sitting your drowsy ass in a guardhouse at a checkpoint that guards one of the few roads/access points to your community to keep the roaming gangs of other armed people away.
are you suggesting that wars only happen between genetically unrelated groups?
historically, they happen almost exclusively among closely-related groups since they are the ones that share borders and compete over the same resources
most brits are genetically from that part of europe. as in,a thousand years ago they replaced the native celtic people. a brit and a welshman are further apart than a brit and a german or a welshman and a spaniard.
well, no
the immigration act of 1965 completely changed demographics in a way that no prior migration wave has, and it's qualitatively different
and by "white" people mean "genetically similar europeans". the genetic distance between a brit and a german is nearly zero. the genetic distance between a brit and a bulgarian is still almost zero. the genetic distance between a brit and a mexican is vast. the genetic distance between a brit and someone from sub saharan africa is farther than most closely related species (ie, a dog and wolf are more genetically similar than a brit and a 'xhosa tribesman)
the only upside to "diversity" is that it'll be a lot harder for china to come up with a genetic weapon that destroys the west than it will be for us to come up with a genetic weapon that only targets han chinese.
this is the biggest wedge issue among conservatives right now: whether to push back against anti-white demographic policies but risk alienating others, or to accept genetic extinction in the name of inclusiveness and "everyone is okay with me as long as they're a patriot!"
realistically speaking, the "i dont see race" side is going to win out due to the ease of messaging. as a result, the country is going to turn brown and eventually fragment and dissolve due to a lack of cohesion.
they won every battle but they still lost in the end due to corruption and demographics.
sound familiar?
anyone got a download link for this?
it seems only a random scattering of people understand what automation will really mean for the future, and the scattering has no coherent political ideology or even values.
humanity is going to get fucked by something that could have been good
this isn't constitutional
i know this is a joke, but for all the pedes out there thinking of doing something cute: there's something called "frivolous tax arguments" that are a gigantic red flag for the IRS.
right now, the IRS is so understaffed yet full of retarded affirmative action hires that they literally can't catch anybody doing shit anymore. but what they can do is nail you to the fucking wall if you ever try a smartass "i'm not gonna pay taxes because <longass rant and list of grievances>. so go ahead and fudge your mileage, tell them you're head of a household, have a few failed "businesses" that you "lose money" on, tell them you donated a few thousand to charity. whatever. just don't do a wesley snipes because they will fuck you up for it.
no i'm not happy at all with biden. he's a crooked pedophile and a uniparty neolib/neoconservative corpse being propped up by the deep state whose goals are not at all aligned with america's
as for tulsi, her policy positions align in a few ways with trump's, mostly dealing with civil liberties and isolationism. but that's not what's really important.
the important divide in politics right now isn't left/right but rather patriot vs globalist. there are many globalist conservatives and many patriot liberals. try not to get too much friendly fire on the patriot liberals and be sure not to trust the globalist conservatives even if they cry about abortion and pretend they care about taxes.
overall, the preservation of the union and the constitution is far more important to me than various social or economic issues i might nominally align more w/ the left over. the left right now is taken over almost entirely by the uniparty so i have no interest in voting for any of them.
right, she's a liberal but so am i. i voted for bernie before i voted twice for trump. we're not all conservatives here.
everyone cries about tulsi being on the globalist foundations and w/e and use that as evidence to hate on her each time she says something good.
but there are other reasons to belong to organizations other than to perpetuate that organization's ideals and she hasn't really ever done anything to demonstrate that she's party of the cabal of globalists who wnat to fuck america in her buttery pink ass
Wonder how many here realize that to get a court hearing, some semblance of evidence has to be provided in the filing itself
and courts don't have to look at any evidence to reject a case on standing, which almost all of them did. not a single case has 1) looked at the evidence and 2) said "this evidence isn't good or enough". once there's a bunch of cases dismissed because many judges all agreed the evidence wasn't compelling, then we can talk
Also know that Karl Rove stated that every election has minor hanky panky but there is simply no credible evidence of any kind to suggest that the "fraud" was at a level to change the outcome of the election.
karl rove is a uniparty globalist who hates americans so i don't care what lies he says
it's 3 things all at once:
- shoulders as you say
- upper body strength is only 40% of mens
- elbows on women splay out so their arms dont constantly bump into their hips. a surefire way to tell a tranny is check his elbows. if they don't bow out at all, it's a dude. they don't do surgery for that
SA breaks even at ~$8-9. usa breaks even around $19. some of the USA is also taxes
yes SA can make oil for about 2x as cheap as the USA. however, their economy is tied almost entirely to the price of crude. in other words, if they flood the market, they get hurt more than us. furthermore, we produce about the same amount as they do if you include lease condensate and we produce double the amount of petroleum they do. we are the leader of fossil fuels and SA is basically an oily appendage of the USA's foreign energy policy.
it is vastly in our interests to keep fossil fuels around as long as possible
Nothing you said was correct
everything i said was correct.
Per watt doesn't matter in regards to nuclear because any calculations you can find publicly and even many industry ones are based on currently utilized tech, regulations, and massive inefficiencies in production.
right, and if we implement nuclear today, it will use those "massively inefficient" numbers. and, as i said, it's the most expensive todayhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Were we to fully adopt nuclear the price for usage would go down dramatically.
i agree. i didn't contradict this point at all. in fact i said we should still go for nuclear and it's partially for this reason
In regards to realpolitik, this also isn't true. The United States would benefit massively from adoption of nuclear and an end to the petrodollar. Hell, we could today be providing power for the entirety of two continents today if we had begun adoption of nuclear fully in the 60s.
it is true. of all countries apart from SA, the USA benefits the most from a fossil fuel world.
- we currently benefit hugely from the petrodollar.
- we are a net exporter of fossil fuel energy
- our dominance of the world is in a large part due to our navy whose primary job is to ensure oil tankers move freely. if we were to remove oil tankers and our navy, we'd go back to being isolationists and the rest of the world would rely far less on us. that gives us far less leverage than we currently have.
my point is far more nuanced than you picked up on, so i'll try it again: it is everybody else relying on fossil fuels that makes us want to keep using fossil. if the USA themselves swapped to nuclear there'd be very little difference for us domestically apart from increased energy costs in the short term and decreased in the long term. domestic energy production for the USA isn't important in this discussion. what is important is 1) how much we control fossil energy in the world right now and 2) how much other nations rely on it.
as you agreed earlier, if the USA unilaterally adopted nuclear energy, we would plummet the per MW cost of nuclear energy. this would be good for humanity but bad for us because we'd pretty much destroy any advantage we have in the fossil sector.
it's like if we're all making sandwiches and the USA has all the bread and you want to release a "free bread" device into the world. that'd be good overall, yes, but bad for us even though we get free bread. the benefit of the free bread is far less than the advantage we lose from having cornered the bread already.
propaganda aside, the reason nuclear isn't truly being adopted is because it's more expensive per watt than existing forms of electricity, once you account for all externalities. that said, if i were in control of the world, i'd definitely switch everything to nuclear as soon as possible.
but from a realpolitik perspective, the USA benefits the most from nuclear not being out there yet, so don't be surprised if it takes a long-ass time for us to allow the world to make the switch.
anyone have a gabtv link?
they're telling you this so you miss the presidential alert.
keep your phones on
the best is yet to come
you posted about one day too soon, we'll know by noon tomorrow and not one moment before
and for the other people in this thread who aren't so full of hate, greatawakening.win is a sister site to td, feel free to hop in
dismantling class is literally communism...
and since they're funded by rich people, their real outcome will just be "lowering the floor and bringing everyone down but the elite"