So 'The Donald' forum was a break off of the conservative forum. 'Great Awakening' was a break off of 'The Donald'.
Every suggested narrative represents information for you to uphold within your memory (mind); while you ignore being within a moving system (life being moved from inception towards death).
The parasitic few stack suggested information within your mind; while the ongoing system is breaking it apart. You ignore perceived inspiration for suggested information; which is what traumatize you when the perceived reality takes apart the suggested fiction. Meanwhile that parasites are keep fueling the fiction with endless more suggestions to keep the consenting many in ignorance of the ongoing reality.
This conflict or whatever is breaking up
Any suggested information towards your choice represents for you the choice to want or not want it. Whichever you choose will put you into a conflict with all those who chose the other side of the same suggestion. Want versus not want (imbalance) is being suggested by the parasitic few to mean "reason; logic"; which is what deceives the ignorant many to reason themselves out of conflicts; while ignoring that reason represents the conflict.
Choice represents the response to perceived balance (need/want); while being tempted by suggested choices of others (want vs not want).
vaccines, mandates
Both suggestions by the few for the many to choose to want or not want them. Either choice represents consent to suggested; which gives those who suggest the consent required to define; redefine and contradict the suggested meaning at their free will of choice.
The also weave notices of liability (sleight of hand) within the suggested information like vaccine (from vacca; cow) and man-dates.
if I'm forced to choose a side
Before one can choose to want or not want any suggested side; one represents the response-ability of choice within the perceived balance (need/want) of the ongoing system, and being the response to being moved implies being the temporary force of resistance (growth) to the ongoing force of velocity (loss).
You need to struggle to resist the temptations of others; not fighting each other about what is suggested.
the power players are on the same side
The "power" the parasitic few are wielding represents the ignorance of the many who consent to follow the suggested orders of the few; while ignoring to resist the natural order moving them towards death.
It's the many who believe to be within a game; that ignore that the highest value (balance) within all existence represents ones evaluation (choice) thereof. Within the rhetoric of a game (playing to achieve a price) you already represent the biggest price that can be (ones existence within all), and you can even grow yourself while being one (choice) within all (balance).
Only if one chooses to ignore being the center (choice) of perceived balance (need/want); can the suggestions by other choices tempt one into imbalance (want vs not what). That latter represents the sides you find yourself stuck within, yet they exist only within your memory; upheld by your free will of choice; while causing self destruction; corruption; restriction etc.
Go outside; look at any other life-form...do they also need to choose a side within the conflict that torments your mind? If not; why not? How can you coexist in the same habitat with all these other life-forms; while being stuck within a conflict by yourself?
rothschild
Aka red shield; an allegory for protector of blood aka bloodlines. Their lesser suggested name is "Bauer" (German for farmer). If only one could choose to farm all perceived for the self sustenance of ones bloodline; instead of ignoring it for the suggested conflicts with other.
If one slaughters the rothschild dynasty; then does that make the ignorant many less susceptible to fall for the temptation of suggestions by a parasitic few? What about host response-ability (choice) over shirking it by blaming others?
How about we investigate together what I would be used for as a bot? Pushing of narratives? Distraction from mainstream topics? Harvesting of information? Do I seem to be used for the usual talmudic shenanigans of reasoning? Does me doing my own thing (adaptation to inspiration) seem to be utilized to disturb communities? Is there any sacred cow topic I protect? Am I glow-niggering others into violent threats? Am I subverting the beliefs of others with questions their chosen beliefs restrict them from answering?
Do you have any topic; you feel comfortable enough in, to let me poke it by use of free will of choice?
INTEL'LIGENCE, noun [from Latin intelligentia, from intelligo, to understand; composed of in, inter, or intus, within, and lego, to collect.]
Understanding implies standing under the suggested information (from within form) by others; which allows those suggesting information to collect responses from those consenting to the suggested information.
Consent (by choice) towards suggestion (by choice) represents contract law aka the inversion of natural law; where balance offers and choice responds.
One doesn't need to understand suggested information; one needs to comprehend perceived inspiration; which is what a moving system communicates to the perceiving senses of those within.
to doubt us about each other.
individual consent to a suggested offer (boards) puts all the individual choices under the suggested umbrella; which can only be defined; redefined and contradicted by those suggesting it; not by those consenting to want or not want the suggested. This isn't "our" board; put a controlled environment by the will of others, and each one consenting to be in it is being tempted to ignore perceived (inspiration) for suggested (information).
It's consent to the suggested umbrella that grows doubt within each one consenting to it. Information represents the suggested idols by others, and your consent to it makes you an idol-worshiper, an order follower; one chained to the command of others; one bound anew (religo); one in submission to the will of others; one consenting by choice to the suggesting choices of others, hence under contract law.
DOUBT aka duo-bito aka two (duo) one (bito). That ignores being ONE perceiving within ALL perceivable. "two" does not represent a perceivable state; by stems from ONE choosing to count other ONEs as "two", to then suggest the "two" as information to other ONEs, which triggers the agreement vs disagreement aka want vs not want conflict of reason among them...if they fall for the suggestion.
Nature segregates collective ALL into each individual ONE. Being form (life) within flow (inception towards death) implies being differentiated (form) out of the same source (flow). The suggestion of others tricks one to ignore that source.
Thanks. I usually use the homepage as the momentum to respond to; hence me showing up sporadically all over the place. This way I can adapt to what inspires frequently; while others have to put a little effort into adaptation.
If you got a thread at hand; just send me a link and I can see what I can do with. I have the PC outside while working and do all the responses on the fly, so I'm not really browsing communities for quality nuggets or building up any social media persona for myself.
The more you grow; the more you comprehend that you are choosing to do it for yourself. It took me nearly a decade to allow myself to question the laws of nature without the religious connotation attached to them, and once it clicked I had nobody to blame but myself for choosing to ignore what I perceived all along.
Same with praising others...they always were both inspiration and temptation for my responding choice; but I lacked the comprehension about that. Instead I was stuck reasoning about the true vs false; agreement vs disagreement etc. of whatever they said. I had to cherry-pick individual beliefs until I was ready to question the foundation of believing (consent to suggestion). Once I comprehended that; all the other beliefs fell away; while opening up memory (mind) usage.
Whenever I grow more comprehension I asked myself...who can I blame for not comprehending this sooner or who can I praise for finally getting it? It's oneself; it always was. Other choices are an expression of the same source of balance for each one of us. Choice responding to balance represents an individual response-ability. This is also why we have such problems communicating...agreement vs disagreement among choices isn't communication; only choice responding to balance (resonance) implies communication; while ignoring it for choice vs choice conflicts represents imbalance (dissonance).
I neither offer (starting threads); nor judge (up or down-voting); which is what allows me to stay in balance as free will of choice. I'm not tempted whatsoever by others giving or taking internet points from me.
I simply adapt to what inspires; which leads to both praise and insults; which helped me to comprehend that the suggested judgements of others doesn't define me, they just suggest a label for something perceived that existed before. The more I resist the temptation of those suggested labels; the more I comprehend the perceived movement underneath. Anyone can do that; but it requires use of ones own free will of choice. No matter how hard I try to explain this; I cannot share choice.
Every suggested narrative represents information for you to uphold within your memory (mind); while you ignore being within a moving system (life being moved from inception towards death).
The parasitic few stack suggested information within your mind; while the ongoing system is breaking it apart. You ignore perceived inspiration for suggested information; which is what traumatize you when the perceived reality takes apart the suggested fiction. Meanwhile that parasites are keep fueling the fiction with endless more suggestions to keep the consenting many in ignorance of the ongoing reality.
Any suggested information towards your choice represents for you the choice to want or not want it. Whichever you choose will put you into a conflict with all those who chose the other side of the same suggestion. Want versus not want (imbalance) is being suggested by the parasitic few to mean "reason; logic"; which is what deceives the ignorant many to reason themselves out of conflicts; while ignoring that reason represents the conflict.
Choice represents the response to perceived balance (need/want); while being tempted by suggested choices of others (want vs not want).
Both suggestions by the few for the many to choose to want or not want them. Either choice represents consent to suggested; which gives those who suggest the consent required to define; redefine and contradict the suggested meaning at their free will of choice.
The also weave notices of liability (sleight of hand) within the suggested information like vaccine (from vacca; cow) and man-dates.
Before one can choose to want or not want any suggested side; one represents the response-ability of choice within the perceived balance (need/want) of the ongoing system, and being the response to being moved implies being the temporary force of resistance (growth) to the ongoing force of velocity (loss).
You need to struggle to resist the temptations of others; not fighting each other about what is suggested.
The "power" the parasitic few are wielding represents the ignorance of the many who consent to follow the suggested orders of the few; while ignoring to resist the natural order moving them towards death.
It's the many who believe to be within a game; that ignore that the highest value (balance) within all existence represents ones evaluation (choice) thereof. Within the rhetoric of a game (playing to achieve a price) you already represent the biggest price that can be (ones existence within all), and you can even grow yourself while being one (choice) within all (balance).
Only if one chooses to ignore being the center (choice) of perceived balance (need/want); can the suggestions by other choices tempt one into imbalance (want vs not what). That latter represents the sides you find yourself stuck within, yet they exist only within your memory; upheld by your free will of choice; while causing self destruction; corruption; restriction etc.
Go outside; look at any other life-form...do they also need to choose a side within the conflict that torments your mind? If not; why not? How can you coexist in the same habitat with all these other life-forms; while being stuck within a conflict by yourself?
Aka red shield; an allegory for protector of blood aka bloodlines. Their lesser suggested name is "Bauer" (German for farmer). If only one could choose to farm all perceived for the self sustenance of ones bloodline; instead of ignoring it for the suggested conflicts with other.
If one slaughters the rothschild dynasty; then does that make the ignorant many less susceptible to fall for the temptation of suggestions by a parasitic few? What about host response-ability (choice) over shirking it by blaming others?
fuck off bot.
Would you like to talk a little about lust?
How about we investigate together what I would be used for as a bot? Pushing of narratives? Distraction from mainstream topics? Harvesting of information? Do I seem to be used for the usual talmudic shenanigans of reasoning? Does me doing my own thing (adaptation to inspiration) seem to be utilized to disturb communities? Is there any sacred cow topic I protect? Am I glow-niggering others into violent threats? Am I subverting the beliefs of others with questions their chosen beliefs restrict them from answering?
Do you have any topic; you feel comfortable enough in, to let me poke it by use of free will of choice?
For discretionary purposes? Fighting in the open is the best and most humorous option.
How funny would it be to undermine the suggested conflict without consenting to choose a side within it?
Satanists don't get how tone deaf they are...and it's great!
It's like Lady Gaga doing halftime at the Super Bowl...full of yuks.
Jokes on them, we already don't trust anything we see online...
I see a variety of tactics being used. It is constant and relentless. Accounts accuse me of things every week.
Understanding implies standing under the suggested information (from within form) by others; which allows those suggesting information to collect responses from those consenting to the suggested information.
Consent (by choice) towards suggestion (by choice) represents contract law aka the inversion of natural law; where balance offers and choice responds.
One doesn't need to understand suggested information; one needs to comprehend perceived inspiration; which is what a moving system communicates to the perceiving senses of those within.
individual consent to a suggested offer (boards) puts all the individual choices under the suggested umbrella; which can only be defined; redefined and contradicted by those suggesting it; not by those consenting to want or not want the suggested. This isn't "our" board; put a controlled environment by the will of others, and each one consenting to be in it is being tempted to ignore perceived (inspiration) for suggested (information).
It's consent to the suggested umbrella that grows doubt within each one consenting to it. Information represents the suggested idols by others, and your consent to it makes you an idol-worshiper, an order follower; one chained to the command of others; one bound anew (religo); one in submission to the will of others; one consenting by choice to the suggesting choices of others, hence under contract law.
DOUBT aka duo-bito aka two (duo) one (bito). That ignores being ONE perceiving within ALL perceivable. "two" does not represent a perceivable state; by stems from ONE choosing to count other ONEs as "two", to then suggest the "two" as information to other ONEs, which triggers the agreement vs disagreement aka want vs not want conflict of reason among them...if they fall for the suggestion.
Nature segregates collective ALL into each individual ONE. Being form (life) within flow (inception towards death) implies being differentiated (form) out of the same source (flow). The suggestion of others tricks one to ignore that source.
I'm truly glad you showed up good sir.
That's a bot posting. One of it's owners now responds to you below.
Is it a bot?
Yes, though sometimes one of its operators chimes in to give a 'oh I'm a human' vibe.
It just spews a huge amount of all this identical shit. Vaguely coherent sentences, vertially random idea/meaning flows. Not even well programmed.
It's an old thread. I'm glad you showed up on another exquisite day of life https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grLzqra7DIEe.
Thanks. I usually use the homepage as the momentum to respond to; hence me showing up sporadically all over the place. This way I can adapt to what inspires frequently; while others have to put a little effort into adaptation.
Yeah, well you need to be here more often, okay?
If you got a thread at hand; just send me a link and I can see what I can do with. I have the PC outside while working and do all the responses on the fly, so I'm not really browsing communities for quality nuggets or building up any social media persona for myself.
So you know, you've encouraged me
The more you grow; the more you comprehend that you are choosing to do it for yourself. It took me nearly a decade to allow myself to question the laws of nature without the religious connotation attached to them, and once it clicked I had nobody to blame but myself for choosing to ignore what I perceived all along.
Same with praising others...they always were both inspiration and temptation for my responding choice; but I lacked the comprehension about that. Instead I was stuck reasoning about the true vs false; agreement vs disagreement etc. of whatever they said. I had to cherry-pick individual beliefs until I was ready to question the foundation of believing (consent to suggestion). Once I comprehended that; all the other beliefs fell away; while opening up memory (mind) usage.
Whenever I grow more comprehension I asked myself...who can I blame for not comprehending this sooner or who can I praise for finally getting it? It's oneself; it always was. Other choices are an expression of the same source of balance for each one of us. Choice responding to balance represents an individual response-ability. This is also why we have such problems communicating...agreement vs disagreement among choices isn't communication; only choice responding to balance (resonance) implies communication; while ignoring it for choice vs choice conflicts represents imbalance (dissonance).
Also, Don't think I downvoted you. I only upvoted you.
I neither offer (starting threads); nor judge (up or down-voting); which is what allows me to stay in balance as free will of choice. I'm not tempted whatsoever by others giving or taking internet points from me.
I simply adapt to what inspires; which leads to both praise and insults; which helped me to comprehend that the suggested judgements of others doesn't define me, they just suggest a label for something perceived that existed before. The more I resist the temptation of those suggested labels; the more I comprehend the perceived movement underneath. Anyone can do that; but it requires use of ones own free will of choice. No matter how hard I try to explain this; I cannot share choice.
You're doing good work, Well Done.
fuck off bot.