How do you break the cycle?

If everybody was strong, how would you differentiate between who is strong and who isn't?
Strength is the very difference between one who can lift a tree trunk and those who can't.

Unironically this. Or brief periods of peace and war about every decade or so. Give young men a chance at glory.

Attached: 1524081514652.png (800x600, 644K)

It's called improvement. If everybody is made stronger, then the standards are just raised.

Getting rid of the yid

Some strong men just tear everything down. Strength is a virtue, but not the only one. It's as dumb as assuming weak men have some kind of virtue when they are peaceful; you get virtue points for being peaceful when you have the capacity to do violence and when peace brings prosperity, not when either of those conditions is lacking.

But even strong men get tired. No one wants to spend every minute struggling. Eventually strong, virtuous men create a situation where strength is no longer required to prosper, and they let weak or corruptible men step into positions of influence and authority. They might even do so because those new weak men are the children of those same strong men, and most decent men wants their children to be successful. If you're going to break the cycle, that's where you have to do it. Find a way to keep the reins of power firmly in the hands of strong, virtuous men, no matter how great the temptation to give even a little to the weak or corruptible.

That's what our own founding fathers tried to do, recognizing that no system of laws can actually do that on its own. It requires conscious decisions on the part of those strong, virtuous men not to fuck up and give it away. If you're looking for a system, you'll be disappointed. It requires good human judgment, without error, forever.

you break the cycle by killing (((them))). it is truly the only way

That is true and commendable. But as soon as one part improves, they would be stronger than the rest and the power asymmetry would be reinstated. OP is asking for a neverending golden age.

Better to have hard times with strong men then good times with weak men. The first is able to survive and weather any storm, the second is doomed to decay and collapse.

Yes but what if we don't allow weakness?
Our own state where we select babies like the spartans. Ok 99% of Jow Forums would land in the pit. But we wouldn't have weakness
youtube.com/watch?v=EvT_ujWSRg0

This is key. There is a big difference between brutality and sadism. Brutality is needed sometimes, while sadism is satanic.

Once we colonized space that might as well be tried on an isolated planet. Keeping a true strength-equality-system like that in check would require the assistance of advanced AIs anyway. But then other strengths would start to appear and matter, the strength of numbers, strength of superiour technology, superior tactics etc.

I guess your right. I think the answer isn't to break the cycle, but rather speed it up. So within one person's lifetime they will experience both good times and hard times.

Attached: 640431.jpg (350x430, 114K)

Please read a single book on greek history before you post again.

Attached: 1525981028378.jpg (1000x800, 98K)

Augmenting with technology to turn us all into Tony Stark Ironmen.

How about you read a book about...
faggot

To have the full spectrum of experiences would certainly aid in the development of a true character. But i guess it is more of a neverending coin flip that you have to struggle to stay on the side of that is face up.

Yeah, it's pretty good.

Attached: 1523864705041.png (1086x1119, 1.02M)

the lefties/liberals/marxist types want to break this cycle because they view it as unfair or unjust.

but this is the very cycle that allows us, the human species, to grow and adapt. This continuation of this cycle, and its conclusion, will usher in an era of space exploration and space travel the likes of which seemed decades, if not centuries, off.

Do not break the cycle.
Speed it up, but be careful.

You extinguish the weak from your brood, keep it strong and healthy. The underlying narrative of a nation must change to overcoming and constant ascension. It can be done.

The cycle continues because there comes the separation of the warrior and the intellectual with the latter eventually assuming positions of leadership.

When you separate your thinkers from your warriors you have your thinking done by cowards and your fighting done by fools.

You educate those in good times so that they know that bad times will always arrive if they think of resting.

Think of Spartans.

From 1415 to 1759 our troops and generals were sent to our Moroccan cities to defend them from the moors and fight them.
It was known as "the school of soldiers". Only after fighting for a while in Morocco would our soldiers graduate to serve the King in other theaters.
You create a space in which men can see bad times even during good times.

I think permanent warfare is not necessary.
What is needed is a permanent awarness of what happens to the weak and when times are bad.

It's pretty close to permanent warfare but not neceassrily permanent warfare.

ye dont

The system is aristocracy.
The Romans were much better at finding that sweet spot than the Americans,
At least, since the West has been settled.

Basically this. To break out of the current cycle the standards must rise. The Superhuman isn't a pipe dream, but a prophecy.

>tfw you read "permanent welfare" instead of "permanent warfare"

Attached: AbsolutelyConcerned.jpg (424x600, 58K)

With a perpetual threat looming over the heads of human beings.

Attached: tumblr_inline_o5xbfyhJkh1r40v3d_500[1].jpg (480x384, 29K)

Since WWI this has had the opposite effect. The scale of casualties is simply too much.