The trick (contract law) has a foundation (natural law). Every -ism implies choice (suggestion) to choice (consent) contract law; which represents the inversion of balance (offer) to choice (respond) natural law.
In other words...the few suggest (word); then many consent to ignore perceived (sound). All -ism are being defined; redefined and contradicted only at the will of those suggesting them; while all consenting to them are stuck within the conflict of reason (want vs not want) against each other.
Antisemitism; communism; capitalism; feminism; vegetarianism etc. are suggested by the few; and the many are stuck reasoning among themselves over wanting or not wanting whatever meaning the few attach to it. Why the attachment? Because their consent to the suggestion of the few represents a choice to choice contract aka the submission of those who consent to the will of those who suggest.
Under natural law...only nature offers; and every one within responses by choice; yet choice (need/want) implies the choice to ignore need (natures offer aka perceived inspiration) for want (suggested information by others).
Who makes the rules? Communists.
Communist implies your consent to suggested communism; hence you reasoning (want vs not want) about the suggested orders by others; while ignoring that the natural order for form (life) represents flow (inception towards death). Life needs to resist being moved towards death; hence representing the resistance (form) to the natural order of velocity (flow). Suggestions of others (their orders) can trick you to ignore resistance for obedience aka consenting to suggested progressivism (going with the flow; the mainstream; the chain of command; the communist party-line; the societal norm; the civil code of conduct etc.).
We cannot make; we shape (form) out of everything already made (flow).
You consented to suggested information (want) over perceived inspiration (need); which then tempted you to choose to not want it; while using an accusation (bot) to disregard both suggested information and perceived inspiration.
What if I'm not a bot? More accusations (drug-abuse; schizophrenic; word-salad; nonsense etc.)? What if a less restricted free will of choice isn't bound to suggested -isms; yet those who consent to them (by choice) don't see it?
The trick (contract law) has a foundation (natural law). Every -ism implies choice (suggestion) to choice (consent) contract law; which represents the inversion of balance (offer) to choice (respond) natural law.
In other words...the few suggest (word); then many consent to ignore perceived (sound). All -ism are being defined; redefined and contradicted only at the will of those suggesting them; while all consenting to them are stuck within the conflict of reason (want vs not want) against each other.
Antisemitism; communism; capitalism; feminism; vegetarianism etc. are suggested by the few; and the many are stuck reasoning among themselves over wanting or not wanting whatever meaning the few attach to it. Why the attachment? Because their consent to the suggestion of the few represents a choice to choice contract aka the submission of those who consent to the will of those who suggest.
Under natural law...only nature offers; and every one within responses by choice; yet choice (need/want) implies the choice to ignore need (natures offer aka perceived inspiration) for want (suggested information by others).
Communist implies your consent to suggested communism; hence you reasoning (want vs not want) about the suggested orders by others; while ignoring that the natural order for form (life) represents flow (inception towards death). Life needs to resist being moved towards death; hence representing the resistance (form) to the natural order of velocity (flow). Suggestions of others (their orders) can trick you to ignore resistance for obedience aka consenting to suggested progressivism (going with the flow; the mainstream; the chain of command; the communist party-line; the societal norm; the civil code of conduct etc.).
We cannot make; we shape (form) out of everything already made (flow).
You consented to suggested information (want) over perceived inspiration (need); which then tempted you to choose to not want it; while using an accusation (bot) to disregard both suggested information and perceived inspiration.
What if I'm not a bot? More accusations (drug-abuse; schizophrenic; word-salad; nonsense etc.)? What if a less restricted free will of choice isn't bound to suggested -isms; yet those who consent to them (by choice) don't see it?