here's something I've wanted to post for a while :
> be proto humans living in africa
> get invaded by homo erectus who don't play by your rules of male competition, but use some trick that totally undermines your natural order of male strength
> be 1st wave homo erectus ( Homo heidelbergensis ) in europe 250,000 ya
> get invaded by neandethals who don't play by your rules of male competition, but use some trick that totally undermines your natural order of male strength
> be neaderthals in europe 30,000 ya
> get invaded by cro-magnon - homo sapiens - a new tribe that came from north africa \ the middle east - who don't play by your rules of male competition, but use some trick that totally undermines your natural order of male strength
> be cro-magnon tribes living in Britain 600 BC
> get invaded by Celts who don't play by your rules of male competition, but use some trick that totally undermines your natural order of male strength
> be celts living in britain 50 BC
> get invade by romans ( the 1st kike funded army ), who cheat by using better weapons
> be brits living in britain 450AD
> get invaded by vikings + saxons ( non kikes )
> be anglo-saxons living in britain 1066 AD
> get invaded by normans ( kike funded )
> be britains living in britain 1509
> kikes gain control over your retard king and influence him into bankrupting the monarchy with pointless endless wars foreign, and allowing usury in your kingdom
> within 120 years kikes have completely overrun your economy with usury, forced a civil war, and overthown the monarchy.
each conquering man will beat the old man
: not by playing a fair game by the old man's rules,
: but by a new game of warfare invented by the conqueror that side steps the strengths of the old man and exploits his weaknesses.
the point is, for any pure blood euros, chinks, japs or any other race now under the thumb of the kikes, if you are looking at history, what does it tell you about the old man?
> The old man always feels that the conqueror cheated, like he never got a chance to fight the conqueror head on in a fair fight, and if he had, he would have beaten his conqueror
> e.g. bronze age tribes fighting the iron age tribes would feel iron was cheating, undermining practices built up over centuries of tradition bronze age warfare
> does a spear chucking nigger in year 1820 feel its fair that the white man has a gun? Does he feel like the white man is better than him, beat him honourably, or does he feel he's cheating bastard by using a brain to invent a cheating weapon?
its arguable that the kikes use of the pen rather than the sword was a step out of savagery, away from violence and towards mind games. They may be filthy lies and tricks, but its more civil than a spear in the gut. Perhaps not as manly and honourable, but more civil.
>Manly and honourable?
As I've argued in the tl;dr of history, appealing to these traits is a sign of fail.
> as a nigger thinks a gun is cheating, so a euro thinks usury, deceit and kikery is cheating.
the kikes just think we're dumb goyim when we sign for their usuarous loans and fall for their brainwashing. And they are right.
the white men in africa just thought niggers were dumb niggers for not inventing themselves out of the stone age. And they were right.
The kike had been a small parasite in europe for 1700 years. Europeans had plenty of time to organise themselves to face the kikes head on : if they were capable of doing it. They weren't. The kikes simply out kiked the euros, who couldn't deal with this new type of warfare, and who could get the kikes to play euro warfare. ( euros tried to out euro the kikes, but the kikes out kiked the euros )