Everything and everybody else is a crime unless they say it's otherwise. Pretty much where we're at. Google and social media have given them absolute power to manipulate information turning it into gain and agenda, deplatforming everybody else on the whims of whatever their folly.
In Russia the principle was abolished during the Russian Revolution. According to the earliest Communist decrees, criminal courts were to render judgment on the basis of ‘revolutionary legal spirit’ (revolutionäres Rechtsbewusstsein). The Soviet Penal Codes of 1922 and 1926 permitted the criminalization of ‘socially dangerous acts’ through far-fetched reasoning by analogy. The nullum crimen principle was formally reintroduced in 1958 (Art. 6 Fundamental Principles of Criminal Legislation of the USSR and the Union Republics) but still remained inapplicable in practice for minor offences treated by non-professional Comrades' Courts. Today, the principle of legality is guaranteed in Art. 54 Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993.
Everything and everybody else is a crime unless they say it's otherwise
The majority consenting to the suggested laws of men allows the few to contradict the many with suggested crimes. Meanwhile; the only CRIME, noun - "to separate" within perceivable natural law represents the choice to ignore it...for suggested laws of men.
Indeed. But nobody asked for bullshit laws when they signed a different charter for free speech. Suddenly free speech has a bunch of laws they've made up, can't say this, can't say that, we will tell you what to say and what to think, deviate from the narrative, it's a crime, yes a narrative, preventing free speech. Laws as you're suggesting are being broken by them on the whims of whatever law they make up off the fly, because of the free speech they claim as their rights. Equal no never, fair, nonsense. Instead dystopia reigns, until it is whatever they say it is, and what they say it is, profits only them, they've programmed a narrative of it pays them more.
Naturally nobody can silence you. Unless they act criminally, or uphold tyranny. But here we are today. They hate you for speaking. So they call it hate speech. They're afraid of you speaking, so they call you intolerant. They say you're full of disinformation, because the information cannot be questioned. Or what? No sooner and unnaturally you're prevented from speaking.
Instead dystopia reigns, until it is whatever they say it is
Nature represents a balance based system with each of us as the responding choice at the center. The choice of the many to ignore the perceivable natural order for the suggested orders of the few is what causes the imbalance.
Choice exists within perceivable balance (need/want); yet is tempted to ignore this for suggested imbalance (want versus not want). All the conflicts in this system are based on want vs not want (reasoning) about the suggestions of the few; which brings me to...before the suggested words comes the perceivable sound.
You say "they say"; I question "what does nature say?"
what they say it is
Saying implies responding as suggested information to already perceivable inspiration. All the words the few are suggesting are designed to tempt the many to ignore adapting to perceivable sound as either resonance (need) or dissonance (want).
The few suggest "insane person" so that the many ignore "in sanus" (within sound) + "per sonos" (by sound) aka being within; by; out of and in response to perceivable sound.
profits only them
The highest value (perceivable) in existence represents the evaluation (perceiving) thereof of those within. It's the many wanting to profit; while ignoring the need to grow evaluation; which allows the parasitic few to accumulate all ignored value; while the many are reasoning (want vs not want) about suggested value (money).
Naturally nobody can silence you.
Because we are within perceivable sound; yet being tempted by suggested words into conflicts of reason (want vs not want). Words have no value; consent to suggested words evaluates them for those suggesting and therefore against those consenting.
If I suggest you that "...is truth" and you consent; then I can define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the meaning of the suggested information. That represents the foundation for spell-craft aka me crafting your spelling with suggestion (words) for which you ignore perceived (sound). I shaped sound into word; you reason with others about suggested meaning of word; while ignoring sound. That's the trick being played by the few upon the many.
They hate you for speaking.
Love vs hate represents the rebranding of want vs not want reasoning and the few don't care which side the many are reasoning from; only that they consent to reason about loving vs hating something suggested; instead of adapting to everything perceivable (need).
Same goes for us vs them...the parasitic few represent the response to the ignorance of the many. If the many choose want over need; then that tempts the few to exploit the many with suggested wants as the happy merchants of temptation.
So they call it hate speech
The few simply contradict anything the many consented to love (want) by suggesting anything they hate (not want); which keeps them within imbalance (want vs not want). That represents division (reason) by suggestion (contradiction of perceivable).
They're afraid of you speaking
As long as the many speak; so long are they utilizing the suggested words shaped by the few. Look at the so called jew narrative...being called out for allegedly 2000 years and yet 2022 and still the many are busy reasoning about the so called jews. It's the reasoning (want vs not want) which represents the tool for mass population control (division by suggestion).
The underlying issue represents the ignorance of perceivable (inspiration) for suggested (information) aka ones choice of want (temptation) over need (response-ability). Living represents the response-ability (choice) to resist the constant temptation of dying.
they call you intolerant
INTOL'ERANT, adjective [Latin in and tolero, to endure.] aka the living within the process of dying; while trying to endure; to remain; to abide; to continue without perishing.
It's the many who consent to the suggested meaning of INTOLERANCE - "not being able to endure"; while ignoring the perceivable reality of being the living within the process of dying aka the center of endurance.
Intolerant represents a sleight of hand for those with eyes to see aka those who resist suggestion (information) for perception (inspiration). I can write this down; yet only you wield the choice to change your behavior.
They say you're full of disinformation, because information cannot be questioned. Or what?
A quest implies want of outcome; hence others suggesting to seek answers for questions in form of information (from within form). Meanwhile; perceivable inspiration (from within spirit) aka (Latin spiro) - "to breathe" represents adaption to origin (need); not seeking outcomes (want).
-DIS (lack of) implies the want for suggested information (gibs me more); which tempts one to ignore that all reality is offered at any moment to each one within as perceivable inspiration. There's no lack of perceivable reality; yet constant temptation to ignore it for suggested fiction.
Everything and everybody else is a crime unless they say it's otherwise. Pretty much where we're at. Google and social media have given them absolute power to manipulate information turning it into gain and agenda, deplatforming everybody else on the whims of whatever their folly.
aka "nulla crimen sine lege"
The majority consenting to the suggested laws of men allows the few to contradict the many with suggested crimes. Meanwhile; the only CRIME, noun - "to separate" within perceivable natural law represents the choice to ignore it...for suggested laws of men.
Indeed. But nobody asked for bullshit laws when they signed a different charter for free speech. Suddenly free speech has a bunch of laws they've made up, can't say this, can't say that, we will tell you what to say and what to think, deviate from the narrative, it's a crime, yes a narrative, preventing free speech. Laws as you're suggesting are being broken by them on the whims of whatever law they make up off the fly, because of the free speech they claim as their rights. Equal no never, fair, nonsense. Instead dystopia reigns, until it is whatever they say it is, and what they say it is, profits only them, they've programmed a narrative of it pays them more.
Naturally nobody can silence you. Unless they act criminally, or uphold tyranny. But here we are today. They hate you for speaking. So they call it hate speech. They're afraid of you speaking, so they call you intolerant. They say you're full of disinformation, because the information cannot be questioned. Or what? No sooner and unnaturally you're prevented from speaking.
Nature represents a balance based system with each of us as the responding choice at the center. The choice of the many to ignore the perceivable natural order for the suggested orders of the few is what causes the imbalance.
Choice exists within perceivable balance (need/want); yet is tempted to ignore this for suggested imbalance (want versus not want). All the conflicts in this system are based on want vs not want (reasoning) about the suggestions of the few; which brings me to...before the suggested words comes the perceivable sound.
You say "they say"; I question "what does nature say?"
Saying implies responding as suggested information to already perceivable inspiration. All the words the few are suggesting are designed to tempt the many to ignore adapting to perceivable sound as either resonance (need) or dissonance (want).
The few suggest "insane person" so that the many ignore "in sanus" (within sound) + "per sonos" (by sound) aka being within; by; out of and in response to perceivable sound.
The highest value (perceivable) in existence represents the evaluation (perceiving) thereof of those within. It's the many wanting to profit; while ignoring the need to grow evaluation; which allows the parasitic few to accumulate all ignored value; while the many are reasoning (want vs not want) about suggested value (money).
Because we are within perceivable sound; yet being tempted by suggested words into conflicts of reason (want vs not want). Words have no value; consent to suggested words evaluates them for those suggesting and therefore against those consenting.
If I suggest you that "...is truth" and you consent; then I can define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the meaning of the suggested information. That represents the foundation for spell-craft aka me crafting your spelling with suggestion (words) for which you ignore perceived (sound). I shaped sound into word; you reason with others about suggested meaning of word; while ignoring sound. That's the trick being played by the few upon the many.
Love vs hate represents the rebranding of want vs not want reasoning and the few don't care which side the many are reasoning from; only that they consent to reason about loving vs hating something suggested; instead of adapting to everything perceivable (need).
Same goes for us vs them...the parasitic few represent the response to the ignorance of the many. If the many choose want over need; then that tempts the few to exploit the many with suggested wants as the happy merchants of temptation.
The few simply contradict anything the many consented to love (want) by suggesting anything they hate (not want); which keeps them within imbalance (want vs not want). That represents division (reason) by suggestion (contradiction of perceivable).
As long as the many speak; so long are they utilizing the suggested words shaped by the few. Look at the so called jew narrative...being called out for allegedly 2000 years and yet 2022 and still the many are busy reasoning about the so called jews. It's the reasoning (want vs not want) which represents the tool for mass population control (division by suggestion).
The underlying issue represents the ignorance of perceivable (inspiration) for suggested (information) aka ones choice of want (temptation) over need (response-ability). Living represents the response-ability (choice) to resist the constant temptation of dying.
INTOL'ERANT, adjective [Latin in and tolero, to endure.] aka the living within the process of dying; while trying to endure; to remain; to abide; to continue without perishing.
It's the many who consent to the suggested meaning of INTOLERANCE - "not being able to endure"; while ignoring the perceivable reality of being the living within the process of dying aka the center of endurance.
Intolerant represents a sleight of hand for those with eyes to see aka those who resist suggestion (information) for perception (inspiration). I can write this down; yet only you wield the choice to change your behavior.
A quest implies want of outcome; hence others suggesting to seek answers for questions in form of information (from within form). Meanwhile; perceivable inspiration (from within spirit) aka (Latin spiro) - "to breathe" represents adaption to origin (need); not seeking outcomes (want).
-DIS (lack of) implies the want for suggested information (gibs me more); which tempts one to ignore that all reality is offered at any moment to each one within as perceivable inspiration. There's no lack of perceivable reality; yet constant temptation to ignore it for suggested fiction.