Just Theft

La laaaaa…Jesus is so big in the manly area, the straight men among us just want to be filled with His Grace, to dip our heads into His lap in prayer, and to feel how wonderful and amazing it is when He makes His second c—oh, blogging.  Ists.  Right.  Going on.  

It’s just theft.  It can hurt to admit it, but it’s just theft.  So much of world history is the description of theft happening in very detailed false descriptions that are described that way in order to not be classified as theft.  

Explanations.  Consider a country has ~100K acres of arable farmland, owned by about 50K families.  Next, consider that 25K of those families are exterminated and the remaining ~50K acres of that ~100K acres arable land is no longer tended.  Sometimes aided by the claim of fixing that obvious problem that was caused by the killing of the conquest, the ownership of all that arable farmland is changed.  ~10K of that farmland is retained by the surviving families, and some good Christian families get new aristocratic titles and are appointed to manage the ~90K.  

What has happened?  If you’ve been successfully deceived, then a bunch of people have found the wonder of Jesus.  In truth, a horde of very filthy people has stolen ~90K acres of arable farmland.  Those robbers effectively control what happens with that farmland, because the people still alive “owning” the ~10K acres of land know that if they deny the Christ they get tortured and/or killed (supposedly for everyone’s benefit).  Some sellout assholes and suspiciously helpful but knowledgeable outsiders get new wives who know better than to object like did the last ones (rest in peace), and through those new wives some skin gets lightened so that the children of the outsiders don't seem as foreign.  Getting also new titles, those nobles receive a lot of land to skimanage, and on the rest build huge mansions, do a lot of renting, send their kids to the best schools to make the right contacts for jobs, and so on and so forth.  

This is what happened to Europe.  European history is this.  Noble families started because those were the people who were given lots of wealth during the conquest.  Why those people were so rewarded by the conquerors was either because Jesus is so awesome or because almost all of those people were scum who sold out everyone else around to get rich.  Those disgusting people are who you are supporting when you say that worshiping a rabbi is good for Europe.  The victims of those disgusting people are long dead, and you would be betraying them in utterly noxious ways if you thought that Europe’s tradition was worshiping an all powerful Middle Eastern rabbi.  

Disguised outsiders tricked a lot of people.  Thinking about things in the longer term, the outsiders were not thinking about a human lifetime, but about their genetic grouping’s lifetime: much longer.  A very small portion of the new noble lines was that.  The disguises adopted by the outsiders could therefore include things like children, grandchildren, and so forth.  Someone thinking about things that last only as long as one human’s grandparents,’ parents,’ amd then that human’s lifetimes is completely outclassed this way.  Being surrounded by locals, outsiders would be far less recognizable.  

That’s why there are old noble lines.  Some of those were newer—were created when some king (royal lines were established the same way) said someone was to be treated as officially great, but the majority was because people long ago did very filthy sellouts to the masterminds of the conquerors.  When you say European-descended people should worship S.R.—that one should be a Jesusian—you are being on those people’s sides and against what are probably your ancestors.  Doing that is taking the side of the people who hurt your family!  “You should worship a rabbi,” “Let immigrants become part of your society,” and so forth is a betrayal of your own line—of being on the side of the downfall of Europe.  Saying that the philosophy of rabbi-worship is European tradition is completely wrong.  Considering that there were many years before even the potential beginning of rabbi-worship (S.R.’s life would have started about 0 C.E.), it is extremely stupid to say/think that rabbi-worship is how things were and are traditionally for Europe.  The people who fought for their communities and tried to stop outsiders taking over were killed and excluded from history—or history said they wanted to worship an official wise man from south of Europe.  

It is an obscenity, an insult, to people who honorably, truly tried to protect Europe from invaders, when you say that a rabbi should be worshipped.  Sellouts and traitors got riches and titles, and those loyal, trustworthy, and reliable got killed.  You thinking you are traditional for wanting people to worship a rabbi is like someone in a thousand years thinking it is traditional to live for leftist ideals.  “If you just learn to ignore all that stupid science and think people of all races are equal, things will get better!”  “Trans people are really the new gender!”  Sure—and worship a rabbi while you’re at it.  

Lol.  Whites are so vulnerable.  In the same way that people in Europe were subjected to the power of a bunch of homoerotic pedophiles, they were made the subjects of thieves.  Thieves without what you probably think of as a “conscience.”  That is why there continues to be no interest in investigating themselves, having an influential team of investigators (an influential group of actual journalists), and so forth.  

What is it called when a caveman finds a great stick, swings it around a bunch, carves things off in certain ways, and thinks it really rocks, after which someone else wants his stick and takes it while he is sleeping?  Theft.  That is simple.  What has made this seem more complicated recently is that those kind of thieves do not call what they do stealing.  They still take your stuff, but they say they are doing it for the good of everyone.  

If a person takes a gun and threatens another person to give up their money to the person with the gun, that is called theft.  However, the far more effective strategy of thieves has been to say that they are stealing on behalf of people who need what they steal—or part of what they steal, because everyone knows it takes work to add and subtract and stuff like that.  As establishing aristocratic bloodlines to rule over the conquered populations of Europe, it is not done because of a nice desire to create good government.  It is done partly because the thieves skimanage that money, but more so it is done because it disempowers the person who has been robbed.  If you are regularly being robbed, it is demeaning and it becomes habitual.  Consider the way that people habitually pay taxes without taking any defensive actions to prevent the extraction of their resources.  

(Alongside this, consider how many people very much do not like paying their taxes which taxes they say will benefit someone who opposes the special man they love the most.  Coupled with those actions, they claim that they believe pure happiness will be in being with a special man when they die, which they say will surely happen.  They pay their taxes, and clearly, they don't really believe what they say will happen when they die.  The link between why they have to pay those taxes and the opponents cursed by that special man with whom they say they will be when they die, show that they do not actually believe what they say they believe.  Those behaviors (British: “behave-ours”) that do not mix—them doing things in complete opposition to what they say they believe—are why Christianity was perfectly developed to change immigration into Europe.  The erratic behavior of the fictional Jesus are thus explained.)  

This same type of process can be seen in the way that people have accepted aristocratic rule.  Consider how people do not take it as unusual—take no defensive actions their entire lives—when the profits from the use of nearby land are regularly channeled to somewhere else.  It is taken as a given that someone else—that many someone elses—own those resources, and that you personally do not own them.  The initial formation of this trend occurred when Europe was Christianized, and now when some person making $40K/year has to pay taxes, never get dividends for the rent paid by six restaurants nearby, he takes it for granted.  That person is a useful resource, and when there are 10 million people like that, it makes for a very useful resource.  

Decay and their subordinate associates do not acknowledge this.  In fact, Decay lack the ability to even perceive that it is happening.  This is because when all the people who have provided Decay those resources are killed off, then Decay themselves must die.  All the resources, all the protection, will be gone.  That is why Decay seek to weaken and then kill—heterogenize—the very means of their support: because Decay are the means for causing decay.  As attractive as ideas of predation or parasitism may be, Decay are not predators or parasites.  As they pursue the deaths of others, so too do they pursue the deaths of themselves.  That makes no sense at all, unless you learn to think of them as agents of decay—parts of a vital environmental process.  

Much of what we know of as the historical record is corrupted by the process of making decay happen.  For example, when Europe was conquered, given a new ruling class which subscribed to a new ideology, those events were called “christianization” (may be capitalized).  It has been said for centuries that the conquered victims were not conquered victims, but were eager acceptors of changing their whole lives and those of their children, their governments, their societies in every teensy detail, and so forth to subscribe to this new ideology.  

Similarly, when the people of Russia (and then China and other places) were taken over—were the victims of a coup where the old rulers were thrown out and killed, the entire society changed, new people given decades of control of all resources (permitting those resources be skimanaged), and so forth—those things were called “the Russian Revolution” and similar.  Before Russia, ’round about 1789, that happened in France.  People still use the term “the French Revolution” even decades after it has been proven that the lower-income people of France right before the revolution had been doing a lot better than the lower-income people elsewhere, and that those same lower-income people were the primary victims of a “revolution” supposedly perpetuated by and/or for them.  This pattern has held in many other places—including notably Cuba—of people having a coup, stealing all the stuff, and then handing some of it out and saying what happened was a revolution for the people.  

Like the common use of united verse-type terms (“universe”) and calling people happy (“gay”) for formally severing themselves from the life process, the use of “revolution” to disguise what happened plagues historical understanding.  

(There were surely many, many males afflicted with sexual-type desire malfunctions aimed not at life-making processes, but at males.  For over a thousand years, many of them kept the fulfillment of those desires private and publicly did things such as paid for women for life, fathered and provided for the growing of children, etc.  What is now called acceptance of gay people is succeeding at stopping this by tricking people into thinking that it is just fine and normal to make the fulfillment of desires for orgasms become what you do for your whole life.  In different cultures, some perv occasionally did a few dozen miscellaneous dudes, but meanwhile also had a wife who never worked and a house for his four kids.  As he grew old and successively less interested in orgasming, he could expire just as comfortably as everyone else, knowing that his genetic offspring would carry on, and who cares what he did to orgasm you perv?  We shall never know how many men did that kind of thing in the proverbial bedroom, and who cares, because they also made and grew life.  Maybe they jerked off or screwed chickens or rubbed light-poles or—who cares?  What really matters meiotically is paying for females to eat, sleep, and be safe, and from that having offspring.  Just like with idiots now being told to put on dresses and say they’re women, people leading proud lives with a same-sex partner produces zero children and leaves them at 40 [and 50 and 72 and so on] realizing they were the one with whom those genes will end: they dropped the baton.  Centuries ago, homos knew to keep it on the down-low and in the meantime have kids.  Nowadays, saying that you should be proud to make an imitation partnership with your butt-buddy.  1,000 years later, guess who’s won: we can’t hold a contest, because there’s no one to compete with the descendants of the “reproduce/raise” faction.  Wow I wonder why.)  

Given these deceptions regarding very well known instances called revolutions, it is no surprise that people’s perceptions of the world are skewed.  People with PhDs and decades of experience in studying the history of the world can and do truly believe that they understand how Europe got Christianized, and how there were a Russian Revolution and a French Revolution.  Like many centuries of officially very smart and learned people insisting that Christ made the world, the subscription to salvation/liberation from matter continues.  Christianity rules.