The stupidity amazes me.
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (22)
sorted by:
The issue with that is that safety for choice represents its origin of perceived balance...not the suggested choices of others. A TREAT (to subject to suggested information) MENT (mind; memory) further corrupts memory with more suggestions aka more temptations to ignore adapting to perceived (which would re-balance the conflicted mind).
The woke represent the consequence of the many consenting to idols such as "John Hopkins" which are used as an umbrella for the healthcare racket. As long as the many focus on the prestige; reliability; curated image of the suggested "John Hopkins" idol; so long can the few wreak havoc underneath the curtain.
Choice represents "caring for health" by adapting to perceived balance; the inversion thereof represents ignoring balance for the suggested "healthcare" choice. Others taking care of your health implies being unhealthy.
No. Children do not have safety of choice. Children should be growing up knowing they are safe, and loved. When something goes wrong, this person defending the pedos should be nowhere near the healing process.
The family unit (unitas; the state of being one; oneness) represents the propagation of self (offspring) by choice in response to balance (male/female). Mental problems requiring healing implies a corruption of the family unit; hence ignorance of balance ergo unsafe environment.
Instead of allowing the child to grow comprehension about how to wield free will of choice; the many are tricked to suggest restricting choices to follow, hence domesticating free will under suggestion; while ignoring perceived. If choice ignores its foundation (balance) for suggested choices; then safety becomes unsafe, and since all of this flourishes in ignorance, we also see mental problems arise.
Choice within the balance of need/want teaches/learns itself the responsibility of need; through the consequences of falling for the temptations of want.
a) temporary living implies within ongoing dying. Life isn't about safety from death; but about growing resistance to velocity.
b) love implies versus hate...a rebranding of want (love) vs not want (hate) reasoning. If one comprehends self sustenance and the propagation of individual self (blood) into collective self (bloodline); then the need for self sustenance keeps expanding ones ecosystem within all. Suggested love tempts one a) to ignore the need for self sustenance and b) into reasoning against suggested hate.
Saying "I love you" tempts want of confirmation within want vs not want reasoning; hence feeding into a conflict. "I don't hate" you is implied; whenever you say "I love you". This tempts "how much?"; which will tempts even more reasoning until you're dealing too much or too less confirmation for suggested love, and just like that "I hate you" slips out.
Reasoning about wrong (not want) vs right (want) ignores the need to heal self. A rape for example represents a perceived loss and growth is required to work through it. One exists as growth (life) within loss (inception towards death) so one can take all loss has to offer; but it requires the struggle of resistance...not against the rapist; but for the sustenance of self.
When you keep suggesting "wrong" to the raped; then they will ignore healing themselves for blaming others (the rapists; the system; the laws etc.); which is where the parasites bring in healthcare; both mental and physical racketeering of ongoing trauma.