dOnT gO dOwN tHe RaBbIt HoLe
(media.conspiracies.win)
Comments (26)
sorted by:
"No need for critical thinking, just let me lock you down and starve you. You will die in bliss better than we send you to re-education."
Is thinking about what others suggested a need or a want? In other words...what if thinking represents response to what nature offers (need); instead of what others suggest the offered means (want)? What if nature defines itself; while suggesting meaning within represents a parasitic reaction towards the ignorance of the self defining source of meaning?
This guy philosophizes.
Would such a parasitic reaction exist outside of nature itself? If not, then what natural purpose does such a mechanism serve and if so, is there a natural defense against such a parasitic reaction?
As form (life) within flow (inception towards death) all within flow represent choice based reaction to balance; with balance representing the momentum of flow; allowing the temporary sustenance of form within ongoing flow.
In short...no existence outside flow/form (nature) aka to exist represents to react as form to flow.
EXIST', verb intransitive [Latin existo; ex and sisto, or more directly from Gr. to set; Latin sto, to stand. The primary sense is to set, whence the sense of permanence, continuance.] aka form set into the momentum of flow.
Nature (flow/form aka balance/choice) represents everything offered to the perception of all within; while no; not; nothing; nothingness represents the choice to ignore everything for the suggestions of others. In other words...nature (flow/form) offers inspiration through movement towards choice of reaction; while the suggestions of others deceive one to choose to ignore reacting to balance within movement for consent to believe or not believe the affixed (true or false) information suggested by the choice of others.
In short...balance defines choice; choice of reaction to balance represents "need"; while choice to ignore reaction to balance represents "want"; which tempts to instead consent to the suggested choices of others.
The temptation of want is needed to sustain the balance (need/want) for choice to react to. As form within flow...form "needs" to sustain itself by choice based reaction to flow (adaptation); yet the ongoing flow constantly tempts the temporary form to "want" to ignore the needed struggle for sustenance.
Flow represents ongoing velocity; form within the momentum of flow represents temporary resistance to velocity. Both are needed for balance. Velocity represents loss of potentiality; resistance represents growth of potential.
In short...need demands adaptation to inspiration; want tempts to ignore it. Can't have one within out the other; because balance defines choice having two choices (need/want).
One needs to resist the temptation to choose want over need; while struggling to choose need over want.
Nature offers inspiration; we need to adapt to it by choice of reaction; while resisting the temptation to consent to the suggested information by the choice of others.
Lastly...utilization of implication (if/then) aka in accordance to flow/form; while resisting utilization of reason (true vs false) aka a conflict caused by consent to suggestion; allows one to defend oneself from the parasitic suggestions of other ones.
Natural law (flow upon form) operates through offer/consent aka flow offers balance; form consents by choice of reaction within it. The parasitic few exploit our ignorance of natural law; to invert balance/choice towards choice/choice in ignorance of balance. Choice responds to need/want (balance); not to suggested choices of others.
To believe or not believe what another suggests; gives the other the power to define it for those who consent by either believing or not believing it. This is how the many find themselves in a conflict of reason about pro-life versus pro-choice without comprehending that a) the suggestion of abortion caused the conflict and b) that life equals choice aka the few taking the piss out of the many by branding the conflict as pro-life versus pro-choice aka a sleight of hand about ignorance for those with eyes to see. It is that ongoing reasoning about suggested meaning that sustains the suggested abortion for over half a century and counting.
Neither side can win reason; because only those who suggest what both sides are reasoning about; hold the power to choose what it means; which is what they exploit by suggesting constantly contradictions to both sides within reason. This is btw called talmudic reasoning.
The Jew York Times
They only get stats totally wrong.
Shepherd rag for the shitty sheep.
Do you know that reading hebrew is from right to left ? so:
Times -> semiT.
Deium. Nice connection!
a) does nature offer misinformation towards our perception?
b) how does nature offer information as being true or false?
The profit doesn't matter with these media companies. The value is in their reputation and they can influence world politics.
They don't teach critical thinking. That's why they advise against it.
They teach the students to consent to the suggestion of teachers aka to submit by choice to choice of others. What if that represents the domestication of free will through suggestion?
What if consenting to suggestion causes the conflict of reason (true vs false); and those who made the suggestion; afterwards also suggest contradictions to both sides of reason to keep them going?
Would suggestion (-isms) causing division (reason) be a preferred tool for the few to control the many?
I love this headline. Posted it in some other .Win communities a month ago.
It really exposes the MSM for what they are. They couldn't be any more brazen about it if they tried.
A suggested substitute for those who consent to ignore the main stream aka the flow (inception towards death) that cause the form (life) within aka a parasitic middle man...ME'DIATE, adjective [Latin medius, middle.]
The people that would read that and think that is okay in the US, don't know how to find rabbit holes. Real or figurative.
i never thought i could literally overdose on irony.
Someone put this with a picture of Neo at the terminal.
When I read that paragraph I had to check that I wasn't reading 1984.
Yeah it’s not optional for some of us.
The rabbit hole represents suggested information that contradicts other suggested information; which represents the conflict (reason) between wanted and not wanted information suggested by others.
Meanwhile...nature does not suggest information; it offers inspiration to the senses of all within by moving them. Why? To inspire a response by choice (adaptation) aka the choice of need (self sustenance) over want (temptation to ignore need).
A story suggested by human language as an account of past transactions; yet a) there's no debt (account) from from one person (per sonsus aka by sound) to another; and b) each of us represents the accumulation of all things "past". All that was is now; and so is all that can be; for ALL is ONE in energy.
Implies choice of evaluation for measurement in response to balance of value to be measured. "Everything on the surface dies"...ignores form being in the momentum of flow aka in balance. Death represents form to flow transmutation; as oppose to inception representing flow to form transmutation out of base energy.
So far I'm at flow (velocity) meeting form (resistance) representing the cause of friction; vibration; resonance and heat; which thereby implies the natural opposite...liquid based cooling (water; oil; seed; blood etc,) and liquid because it represents that which remains of temporary form within ongoing flow, hence blood representing the self of self sustenance aka our shared identity.
What I'm still hazy about is the accumulation of water; ice; oil etc. in response to our choice of need/want aka growth/loss aka self sustenance/ignorance. Energy self segregates to use differentiation as inspiration for growth; hence us needing to adapt to perceived inspiration to grow our comprehension; yet how ignorance influences form based storage of liquids hasn't clicked yet.
As life I represent the balance within the movement from my inception towards my death...aka struggle to resist ongoing loss representing potential of growth. So a) whatever happens doesn't change me struggling to sustain self and b) as form within flow; anything flow has to offer...form can take. Why? Because form represents the reaction to flow. We represent the temporary resistance of growth to the velocity of ongoing loss...ONE can take ALL loss.
Let me quote rofschild here; "I do affirmatively state that the Mayan "timeline" IS a distraction and has no relevance to "future" events".
What's the main revisionism done from Aztec to Mayan from your point of understanding?
Article Link:
Don’t Go Down the Rabbit Hole https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/opinion/fake-news-media-attention.html