I believe the thinking that I'm laying out here will save some lives at some point.
Background
In particular, people in this community and, in general, suspicious minded people Tend to work with some abstractions and suppositions based upon these abstractions, and among these are things like "the powers that be are evil", etc.
To a large degree these abstractions and suppositions lead to more efficient thinking and intuition. For example, as an analogy, if you know that government agencies do more harm than good, and you are quickly scanning through new stories and come across one titled "CIA thinks we should have Amazon Alexa devices in all of our houses", based on the supposition that the CIA is evil or at least does more harm than good, we can immediately surmise that "We do not want Amazon Alexa devices in our houses at all".
However, the knowledge of the existence of this kind of thinking can easily be used against us, in a manner no less humorous than what was illustrated in the poisoning scene from The Princess Bride (look up that short scene on YouTube, if you've never seen the movie - it's important to know how the scene ends in order to understand the rest of this post).
For example, if the powers that be wants to distract conspiracy theorists from discovering their true motives, which might involve gun confiscation, etc., they can feign a cover-up in the subject of aliens and UFOs, and many a conspiracy theorist will focus all of their attention on trying to prove that aliens and UFOs do, in fact, exist.
When applied to Whitehat theories (like Q), we often deride this kind of thinking as "4-D chess", etc. I believe this derision is the correct reaction, because it's a logical mistake to assume that a group of people smart enough to take over the world is not smart enough to uncover a plot against them that is, otherwise, obvious to us Internet conspiracy theorists.
However, it would also be a mistake to assume that such a powerful group of people would not use this kind of complex "4-D chess" logic against us, unbeknownst to us.
What I propose, as a solution to this risk, is a system of principles that is based on some very high-level suppositions but which does not prescribe automatic (and, thus, predictable) logic, in response to each bit of information we receive.
Theoretical Examples
A good example of such a principal might be "don't trust any bit of information completely", while a bad example would be "every school shooting is a false flag perpetrated by the FBI".
The former example makes us pay attention to the details and look for corroborating information while also looking to uncover clues that might serve too prove the information true or false.
The latter (FBI) example could be true 100% of the time, but if just one part of it is incorrect, then it serves no purpose and could be used against us as a form of character attack. For example, imagine a scenario where a real shooting is actually perpetrated by whatever bad actors are behind the scenes, and they create perfect evidence for this scene by filming the whole thing, but then they make it ostensibly a false flag with all kinds of conflicting and confusing information on CNN, etc., and then after all the conspiracy theorists point out that it's a false flag and publish all kinds of conspiracy documentaries and information, then suddenly the video evidence is released of the shooting and makes us all look like idiots. Another contrive scenario one can imagine is that there is actually a Cabal behind the scenes doing these FF attacks, but it turns out to be a "conservative" group who is doing it to make conservatives afraid that they were going to take guns so that more conservatives will buy guns as quickly as possible. Even if this is not true at all, I'm sure that by the time you finished reading that last sentence you were already thinking "I could see that", so if you could imagine that being the case, then you could also imagine how such a story could be contrived and sold to the sheep over CNN's airwaves.
In the end, what we are left with is a scenario where we have limited real information and gratuitous amounts of false information, potentially from the powers that be and potentially from ourselves. When we stick to principled thinking and limited suppositions based on known facts, we will uncover the true plot more accurately, or we will at least know to what degree we are ignorant of the true plot, instead of ever blindly believing one dogma or another and taking incorrect action based on that dogma.
Personal Example - "COVID Vaccines"
I don't take any vaccines and I definitely would not take any form of medicine that was new in technology (mRNA vaccine) and new in general (COVID "vaccines"). Because I didn't take these "vaccines" and I never will, I might be predisposed to one or more dogmas related to my sentiments about these "vaccines". One such sentiment is that the "vaccines" were created to directly kill a large number of people (e.g., for population control). If I've based what I perceive to be my principles on this supposition, then I am struggling to maintain my principles after most of the people who took the vaccine did not die. If I have based my principles on lower level actual principles, such as "I don't just inject random shit into my veins because Gubment said so", then I could care less about what happens elsewhere in the world. I just do not inject random shit into my veins, period. Another thing that happens when you allow a dogma, like that example, to slip into your thinking, is that you don't consider the unknown unknowns. for example, one thing that I have only seen seldom discussed in conspiracy forums since the beginning of all this is the idea that, perhaps, the vaccines were designed to kill everybody who didn't take the vaccines (allowing the recipients to live with evolved viruses that will spread to the rest of us and kill us while allowing them to live). If my principles are "I don't inject random shit in my veins" then I have to accept that they may be trying to kill me still. It doesn't change whether I want to take the vaccine or not, but it's one more thing to consider. For example, if I'm trying to decide what my preps look like and I am considering a scenario where some form of violent disease will emerge from vaccinated people to kill me, I'm going to prepare for that scenario. If I'm just waiting for all the vaccinated people to drop dead like flies, then I'm not going to prepare for that scenario.
Another problem with this thinking is that we tend to prepare for the scenarios that are most believable and, often, most survivable (e.g., simply don't take the vaccine and wait for everybody who did take it to die), while not considering that, if seriously powerful and evil players were planning this behind the scenes, they would not offer us the most survivable scenario that we could prepare for easily. And this does not even take into account that we do not even know the true motives behind the plan that is unfolding.
The bottom line is that there are unknown unknowns, and for everything that we think we know but we don't actually know for sure, there are many unknown unknowns that we will not prepare for, until it's too late.
I appreciate the reductionism from a philosophical standpoint.
That said, we (the physical human beings in the non-platonic sense) require energy, in the form of food, in order to survive. There is a natural economy in the non-platonic/territory sense, and an abstract economy in the platonic/map sense, and to a certain degree, we all choose to exist within the agreement of this framework.
That said, one supposition that my entire post makes is that we mostly all agree that there is a concept called "evil". This concept is similar to the concept of color, in the sense that each one of us intuitively knows what evil is on the map, even if each of us sees it differently in the territory.
Same for other concepts in the post. The goal is not to get everybody to agree on the framework for existence or to reduce our existence down to the elementary parts. The goal is to create a logos framework for better understanding of what is going on around us, using the elementary principles that we mostly already agree upon.
In other words, it serves little purpose, in the context of my post, to further reduce our physical "existence", simply as a means of debating the ontology of thought and reason itself.
For example, when I say "the powers that be are evil" is a supposition that might be useful, what I mean is that there is a group of people that desires an outcome for us (the proletariat) that does not represent what we desire, at least not through our informed consent. (for example, we might want peace and prosperity, and the death of 7 billion people is necessary for this outcome to be sustainable, but surely the death of 7 billion people is not desired by those 7 billion people - I am working with the supposition that the average user on this forum would agree with that statement, and would agree that's such a group of people who would make such a decision for those 7 billion people is "evil").
a) the -ism implies suggested information; which ignores perceived inspiration. Ongoing flow (loss) represents reduction; while temporary form (growth) represents expression within reduction.
b) PHILOS'OPHY, noun [Latin philosophia] - "the want (love) for wisdom (knowledge)"; which represents the suggested inversion of the need for knowledge (perceived inspiration).
To take a step back on philosophy...SCI'ENCE, noun [Latin scientia, from scio, to know.] aka once again perceivable inspiration; not suggested information under the umbrella of scientism.
a) ALL represents ONE in EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "internal or inherent power". This internal power represents the balance of loss/growth aka potentiality/potential aka electric/magnetic aka ongoing/temporary aka velocity/resistance aka flow/form aka balance/choice aka ONE within ALL.
The sleight of hand for this goes: "all for one and one for all".
b) RE (response) QUAERO (to seek aka to want). That ignores being the response to need; hence the resistance to the temptation of want.
Need represents "hunger"; want represents "taste". The want for food tempts one to ignore the need of hunger; which allowed the parasitic few to first suggest the convenience of suggested food; which once consented to allowed them to shape it into inconvenience like fear of starvation; famines; exponential increase of taste to hide exponential decrease of nourishment; dependency to food distribution; legislation to curtail food production among the many and so on.
You can quickly test this with breathing...hold your breathe and wait. While you do that; reason about wanting vs not wanting to breathe until need will be forced upon you. Same with hunger. The outside food doesn't communicate the need to eat it; it's the impressed hunger that one expresses outwards which represents the origin of need.
Within the natural order (flow to form)...adaptation by resistance is needed to sustain self. Notice also that survival (to outlive others) ignores the perceivable need to grow life within the process of dying for the suggested want of outliving others.
Before one can choose to agree (want) or disagree (not want) to a suggested framework; one responds as choice at the center of perceivable balance to the natural order (flow) causing the balance (momentum) for the formed choice within.
Again...hold your breath; choose to not agree with breathing and wait a couple of minutes to be forcefully inspired to adapt by resistance to the process of dying.
The framework you agree to represents the beast system (society); where the free will of choice of the many is being domesticated by the suggestions of the few; who parasitically farm mass ignorance towards the perceived natural system; where temporary choice represents the center of an ongoing balance.
That ain't fucking philosophy...before want vs not want (imbalance); you choose within need/want (balance); yet the ignorance of need (perceived) for want (suggested) is what corrupts comprehension of perceived for suggested narratives by others like philosophy; scientism; his-story; mainstream media etc.
"free" will of choice within the "dom"inance of balance (free-dom) doesn't need to agree; it's demanded to adapt as choice to need (growth) or want (loss); hence balancing aka living within the process of dying.
How does one agree? By choice. How does one suggest concepts? By choice. How does one react to being enacted upon? By choice. Let's use "rape" as the example...those who are raped choose to not want it; while those who rape chose to want it. What do both ignore? Need (sustenance of life by intercourse) for want (temptation of lust luring towards death). Same scene; reversed roles...raped wants to be raped; rapist doesn't want to rape. Good vs evil or evil vs good..irrelevant reasoning (want vs not want; while ignoring need).
Nature doesn't communicate good or evil; true or false; believer or non-believer; rich or poor; big mac or whooper etc. Choice chooses to shape perceived need into suggested wants; which causes the want vs not want conflicts.
The parasitic few suggest "moralism" to tempt the many to ignore response-ability of choice as the center of balance (need/want). Moralism suggests rules of behavior to domesticate the choice of the ignorant many to consent to the suggested "laws of men" by the choices of the parasitic few; while the ignore to respond as choice to the laws of nature.
In short...suggested moralism (comply to choice); perceived response-ability (adapt to balance)....want or need...it's your choice.
That represents suggested progressivism aka tempting life to consent to wanted outcomes; while ignoring that a) inception predefines outcome of life as death and b) that life represents the response to origin; hence adaptation to being moved towards death aka needed resistance or wanted temptation to go with the flow.
Each of the many consenting to the suggestions of the few puts them into a "chain of command" caste system; the party-line: the main stream; as order followers instead of being the resistance within the natural order.
One being able to perceive (form) implies existing within all perceivable (flow). What your senses are perceiving represents ingredient form out of base flow transmutation aka flow to form (inception); form within flow (life), and form to flow (death)...not suggested creationism; which implies creation out of nothing. Transmutation represents reshaping out of preexisting. Try to create any "new" thought without shaping it out of already perceivable inspiration...impossible.
The parasitic few utilize ingredient 1. ignorance of perceived + 2. consent to suggested to transmute form back to base flow, hence suggesting leaders to follow; goals to reach; achievements to get; prizes to win; hopes to put forwards; futures to want; career ladders to climb; profits to make; races to win; temptations to fall for; dats to me gibs aka always outcome oriented aka progressivism aka with the flow instead of resisting it.
In short...the few shape through suggestion the non-existing "created wants" within the minds (memory) of the many who ignore the perceivable need for it. Now compare this to the reaction of those among the many who get what they want...it's never enough; they want more. Why? Because they set their wants for outcomes into the flow moving them towards death aka acceleration of corruption (dying) caused by ignorance of resisting (living).
"in the beginning was the word..." that's what the few suggest; yet the word implies being shaped by choice out of perceivable sound, and the suggested as meaning towards the consenting choice of others; who thereby consent to stand under (understanding) suggested information.
Meanwhile; what's going on around us represents constant change aka the momentum (balance) of flow-state energy; with us as the form-state energy at the responding center (choice).
Your want (better) to understand suggested information is what causes the conflict with all those who don't want (worse) to understand it. What one needs to do is grow comprehension (compressed within one) out of perceived (impressed upon one) for expression of growth...or if ignored regression (loss).
The many are being tricked to slap labels (word) on a moving (sound) system; thereby giving those who suggest the labels the power to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the suggested meaning at will; while everyone else is busy reasoning (want vs not want) among each other about the suggested meanings.
"wind" doesn't require the label "wind" to be perceived by ones senses, and the more one adapts to perceived motion; the more one comprehends about the origin of what moves it. Form (life) cannot perceive flow (inception and death); only the consequences of being moved by the reactions of other form aka moving differences (inspiration). While alive, you cannot perceived your own inception and death; yet you have no issue comprehending the implication (if/then) of being alive aka being moved from inception towards death.
The choice to grow comprehension out of perceived represents form (choice) finding level (balance) within flow. Another funny example of finding level represents male/female leading to inception of offspring.
Sleight of hand: 'Offspring - Self Esteem' aka evaluation (choice) of value (balance) hence esteem for the sustenance of self. "Well, I guess I should stick up for myself"..."But I really think it's better this way"..."The more you suffer"..."The more it shows you really care"..."Right? Yeah, yeah, yeah".
a) an ingredient (element) has to respond to base; not agree with other elements.
b) EL (Latin ille; that) MENT (mind; memory)...use it; while resisting others abusing it.
c) ELOHIM - "gods" aka plural (form) in singular (flow).
a) the temporary physical existence of living implies while being reduced within the ongoing process of dying, hence the need for constant adaptation.
b) the physical existence you perceive represents the response to a moving foundation. The many are tempted by the few to seek physical solutions to suggested problems; while ignoring that flow represents the solution (act of separating) for form as the temporary RE (response to) SOLUTION (act of being separated).
c) choosing to ignore perceived origin for suggested outcomes represents self "dissolving" within ongoing solution; while reasoning about suggested problems (imbalance) within the ignored balance based system.
The modus operandi of the parasitic few represents suggesting the inversion of everything perceivable to the consenting ignorant many.
Reason represents the debate over suggested information; which ignores that ONTO (to be) implies out of perceivable inspiration; while LOGY (to speak) represents the ignorant reaction to previously perceived. Reaction (choice) needs to express enacted action (balance); not suggest other reactions affixed definitions for action (imbalance).
Nature communicates itself to the perceiving senses of those within by simply moving them; which they perceive as inspiration for adaptation; which when chosen to respond to grows comprehension.
What if the wants (desires) of the many represents a) the ignorance of need; which b) represents the host weakness of the many that causes the parasitic exploitation thereof by the few? Furthermore; the mass ignorance of the many tempts the exponential insolence by the few within a balance based system.
As for desired outcomes...it's predefined at inception as death; which could be utilized as inspiration for the sustenance of the life within unless ignored for reacting with fear; caused by consenting to the suggested outcomes of others.
If the many each resist the temptation of consenting to suggested information (want) ; while ignoring perceived inspiration (need); then the suggestions of the few would become impotent. Yet; the many ignore being the center (choice) of a balance (need/want) based system for reasoning within a suggested imbalance (want vs not want).
CON (together with) SENT (received) aka together as form within received flow...not agreement among form; while ignoring the origin of flow. What's being send to mind represents perceivable inspiration for adaptation; not suggested information to agree (want) vs disagree (not want) over.
Peace (want) implies vs war (not want) another rebrand for the conflict of reason; which ignores being temporary chaos (life) out of ongoing order (inception towards death).
Desire for advancement; while ignoring being resistance (form) to velocity (flow). Suggested prosperity tempts one to desire to advance towards death; which those who are advancing don't see; because the view advancement through the lens of suggested outcomes, hence trying to reach the "promised lands".
Remember when the parasitic few had to propagate millionaires to billionaires to trillionairs in a couple of decades; because the exponentially increasing debt ceiling had to be sold to the slaves of money?
Same trick with the suggested exponentially increasing population numbers; while they exponentially decreasing access to the world to those who consent to borders, all under the disguise of environmentalism.
Ever been to a large festival or parade and the next day they give these fluctuating estimates (50k; 250k; a million); yet while you were there; you can't comprehend any of those numbers, only your vicinity aka being one within the momentum of all. Which brings me to the trick...the suggestion of counting tempts the designated unit (unitas; the state of being one; oneness) to count others ones as two; three; million; billion;trillion...
"two" does not represent a perceivable state for the perceiving ONE within the perceivable ALL; for ALL represents ONE in energy. One can only perceive differences (other ones); not any sameness (two). The parasites of course suggest the inversion...E pluribus unum (out of many one); while selling the narrative of unity (oneness) against diversity (differences), when it implies the "same" thing.
They are fucking with our comprehension of fundamental level by using suggestion as the parasite between perception and comprehension; which is where free will of choice operates, hence the injections of suggested choices by others.
Anyway; thanks for the inspiration. This one was great.