They are 100% trying to conquer and control language. George Lakoff and the field of political psycholinguistics. "Don't think about a red polar bear". You can't read that without visualizing for I too hope human cognition works- thus undermining willpower.
What defines the meaning of a word...the source of sound perceived or the choice of those shaping the words into suggestible meaning for you to consent to?
Have a quote: "Word has no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in commerce." ~timecube
Change the term...and the narrative inverses.
How do the few change terms? By choice of suggestion. What is needed from the many to change terms? Choice of consent to suggestion. There's a choice to choice contract in-between the change of every term. This contract is called RELIGION, noun [Latin religio, to bind anew] and represents the inversion of the original bond under natural law...choice represents the response to perceived balance (need/want); not to the suggested choices (want vs not want) of others.
More importantly...the narrative for form (life) represents flow (inception towards death) aka being moved forwards; hence form representing the resistance to being moved forwards. Any suggested narrative by the parasitic few aims forwards aka with the flow towards death; hence progressivism; reaching goals; wanting achievements; putting hope towards outcomes etc.
Control of language is important
Choice vs choice aka agreement vs disagreement (reasoning) doesn't represent communication; but the ignorance thereof. Choice needs to respond to perceived balance (resonance); yet is tempted to want to respond to suggested choices (dissonance).
Words are used to suggest inverted meaning (spell-craft); as to corrupt ones (form) comprehension of all (flow) perceived. For example...the few suggest "insane person" and the consenting many ignore "in sanus" (within sound) + "per sonos" (by sound). Another example... the few suggest "humans and animals"; while the many ignore HU'MAN, adjective [Latin humanus; Heb. form] + AN'IMAL, noun [Latin animal from anima, air, breath, soul.] aka animated (animal) form (human).
Before one can choose to suggest or consent to any languages; one perceives sound...the movement that communicates sound as inspiration to perceiving senses represents the source of ALL value (balance) for each ONEs evaluation (choice) thereof...unless ignored.
what if these cases rising in the hospital are ACTUALLY vaccinated people with ADE and shit like that, but they are blatantly LYING saying it's unvaccinated people
A follow up from last week with actual data this time shows that this is way worse than expected even in the models of fraud: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/alberta-gets-caught-palming-cards
All because of a definition change.
Change the term "vaccinated" to mean anyone who got the shot at any point, and the narrative inverses.
Control of language is important (to prevent it from changing/deteriorating). Maybe u/free-will-of-choice is onto something.
They are 100% trying to conquer and control language. George Lakoff and the field of political psycholinguistics. "Don't think about a red polar bear". You can't read that without visualizing for I too hope human cognition works- thus undermining willpower.
What defines the meaning of a word...the source of sound perceived or the choice of those shaping the words into suggestible meaning for you to consent to?
Have a quote: "Word has no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in commerce." ~timecube
How do the few change terms? By choice of suggestion. What is needed from the many to change terms? Choice of consent to suggestion. There's a choice to choice contract in-between the change of every term. This contract is called RELIGION, noun [Latin religio, to bind anew] and represents the inversion of the original bond under natural law...choice represents the response to perceived balance (need/want); not to the suggested choices (want vs not want) of others.
More importantly...the narrative for form (life) represents flow (inception towards death) aka being moved forwards; hence form representing the resistance to being moved forwards. Any suggested narrative by the parasitic few aims forwards aka with the flow towards death; hence progressivism; reaching goals; wanting achievements; putting hope towards outcomes etc.
Choice vs choice aka agreement vs disagreement (reasoning) doesn't represent communication; but the ignorance thereof. Choice needs to respond to perceived balance (resonance); yet is tempted to want to respond to suggested choices (dissonance).
Words are used to suggest inverted meaning (spell-craft); as to corrupt ones (form) comprehension of all (flow) perceived. For example...the few suggest "insane person" and the consenting many ignore "in sanus" (within sound) + "per sonos" (by sound). Another example... the few suggest "humans and animals"; while the many ignore HU'MAN, adjective [Latin humanus; Heb. form] + AN'IMAL, noun [Latin animal from anima, air, breath, soul.] aka animated (animal) form (human).
Before one can choose to suggest or consent to any languages; one perceives sound...the movement that communicates sound as inspiration to perceiving senses represents the source of ALL value (balance) for each ONEs evaluation (choice) thereof...unless ignored.
Yeah not only are there math and data issues but we know the vax causes immunodeficiency and ADE type complications. Self fulfilling
what if these cases rising in the hospital are ACTUALLY vaccinated people with ADE and shit like that, but they are blatantly LYING saying it's unvaccinated people
47% of cases are in recently vax