White privilege
(files.catbox.moe)
Comments (17)
sorted by:
https://nypost.com/2022/06/22/richard-rojas-found-not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity/
https://abcnews.go.com/US/charlottesville-car-rammer-james-alex-fields-life-419/story?id=64348470
If blue checkmark (((daniel))) suggests the conflict of reason aka want (white) vs not want (black), then one needs to resist the temptation to ignore perceivable inspiration (need) for suggested information (want).
why are you calling the guy a kike and writing all that inscrutable nonsense?
Seems like a bot gone haywire.
That account exists to derail certain threads that some people find inconvenient.
ahhh... such an odd writing style - not quite a bot but not quite human either.
a) KIKE; noun - "circle; ring; a visible sign of an invisible bond; no beginning; no end" aka an allegory of ongoing flow; suggested by the temporary form within.
b) reading it; responding to it and suggesting judgement upon it implies having "sensed" it. What if the accusation "nonsense" represents ones lack of comprehension towards perceivable?
c) if one from the tribe of daniel makes suggestions in the name of a blue checkmark (hence vetted); then that represents a temptation for others to consent to the suggested.
d) when you look at the picture in the OP then question if your free will of choice is being tempted to consent to a suggested conflict (white vs black); while the one suggesting it stays out of it?
thensensed" it? a) KIKE; noun - "circle; ring flow; suggested by then you look at reprehen your free within.
b) represpon towards perceivable?
c) if ones suggestion it; represent uponding; no end" aka an allegory form within.
d) white vetted consension if ones having; no beginning "sent the ongoing "sent upon for othension if the suggested by the OP the suggested); when you look at reading; a visible sign of a black of choice vetted.
b) responding tempted); when your free within.
d) when the
If this is how you see it; ask yourself if others can comprehend the perceivable sound underneath the suggested words?
One can rearrange the suggested words at will, but others can still perceive the ongoing natural order communicating sound to ones senses. Same with the symmetry underneath the asymmetric forms we choose to shape.
look i like to get weird as much as the next guy, but you're going to have to tone down your schtick if you want a sincere reply from me
It's not so much a shtick as it's me growing my comprehension by adapting to whatever inspiration perceived. I don't write for replies from others; but for the sustenance of self and in response to perceivable inspiration.
What others do with this represents their free will of choice, and so far you chose to reason (want vs not want) about suggested information, hence the conflicting responses.
Try using need over want; perceivable inspiration over suggested information and implication (if/then) over reason (want vs not want; true vs false etc.) when adapting to what you read. Take any of the topics I write about (or any you write about) and try putting it into your perspective; according to your comprehension thereof. I then can adapt while utilizing my different perspective; according to my different comprehension of the same perceivable source (nature; reality; energy; God or whatever you wanna call it).
Maybe you would like to talk about Bernays and how mind-control works or how black and white identitarianism was sold by the parasitic few to the ignorant many? Try utilizing what's written as a tool of inspiration to grow your own comprehension; instead of trying to figure out who writes what you read and into what group you want to confine him within your reasoning.
I'm game with trying to keep it simpler; but I keep my momentum going until others choose to resonate with momentum aka with the ever changing moment.
Most pathetic bot ever
It's called sarcasm and should be pretty obvious to most people.
a) hostility towards others implies ignorance towards sustaining self.
b) most people can be led astray by a suggested laugh track.
c) the contradictions suggested through MSM are deliberately aiming at both sides within the conflict of reason (want vs not want; true vs false; white vs black; copy vs robbers; believing vs not believing etc.). Why? To keep reason (division by suggestion) going; which allows the few making the suggestions to control both sides of whatever suggested the many are reasoning among each others.
This perpetuation of reason through suggestion of contradictions is called "talmudic reasoning", and sarcasm represents a sales-pitch to keep the many reasoning between comedy vs drama.
d) OB'VIOUS, adjective - "open; exposed" represents perceivable inspiration; while consenting to suggested information allows others to prevent disclosure; which curtails expression.
You're half right, but they really don't want mutual White vs black, because that would be a very short conflict. No, Whites in general and straight White males in particular are the designated "oppressors" in the marxist oppressor-oppressed dichotomy, the group who is blamed for everything that is wrong in the world as a means to manipulate people. Like how they used Kulaks as a target in Russia.
a) what if the parasitic few comprehend perceivable need; while using suggestion to tempt the ignorant many into the want vs not want conflict (of reason) among each other?
b) MU'TUAL, adjective [Latin mutuus, from muto, to change.]...as form (life) within flow (inception towards death); each one represents the reaction to enacting change. The status quo for living within the process of dying implies mutual existence.
The parasitic few suggest sameness (equality) to tempt the many into not just ignoring; but opposing perceivable differences (diversity). Nature self differentiates from ALL (perceivable) into each ONE (perceiving); which those within sense as perceivable inspiration for adaptation as to sustain themselves. If everything perceivable would be the same; then what would inspire one to struggle as the temporary living within the ongoing process of dying to sustain oneself?
Right vs wrong aka a rebranding of want vs not want reasoning over the suggested information by others; while ignoring being choice at the center of perceivable balance (need/want).
Should the center of balance be measured as half of it? Should the center of balance measure itself or does it need to be the response-ability (choice) within?
Want vs not want; true vs false; believing vs not believing; love vs hate; short vs long; peace vs war; moral vs immoral; right-wing vs left-wing; capitalism vs communism; feminism vs patriarchy; rich vs poor; Nintendo vs Sony; soccer vs football; coffee vs tea; handjob vs blowjob; Christianity vs Islam; public vs private; nationalism vs internationalism and so on.
Infinite rebranding of the same want vs not want conflict of reason caused by consenting to want or not want the suggested information by others; while ignoring the need to adapt to perceivable inspiration.
a) it doesn't matter which side one chooses, since the resulting conflict of reason is being defined (idolatry); redefined (revisionism) and contradicted (talmudic reasoning) only by the will of those making the suggestions to reason about. Reason represents division of the many by suggestions of the few.
b) any consent (want or not want) to any suggested information causes yet another conflict (imbalance) within the perceivable system (balance), a system communicating itself through perceivable inspiration.
Notice also that nature doesn't brand anything; it doesn't suggest any true or false information; it simply moves everything, and perceiving moving differences represents inspiration for adaptation.
...ignore being a different choice within a perceivable black/white balance; hence the free will of choice to shape oneself within a perceivable spectrum of differentiation (diversity of colors; like a rainbow).
The parasitic few (masons of free will) are using the black vs white reasoning caused by consent to suggested identitarianism, to tempt them into each other aka E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one) aka miscegenation aka using mass ignorance to destroy diversity (perceivable differences) with equality (suggested sameness).
The aim of all of this isn't to destroy whites or blacks; but to curtail each ones growth of comprehension within all perceivable inspiration. If the many start to resist the temptation of consenting to the suggestions of the few; then suggestion becomes impotent for the few to direct the ignorance of the many into self destruction.
You ain't white; nor are you black; you are different and need to sustain your differences by adapting to what differentiates you.
Dying aka being moved from inception towards death represents the straight; the living within represents the bend (put into order for use) aka the temporary resistance (growth) within ongoing velocity (loss).
All the words suggested to us are a) ignoring perceivable sound and b) used to suggest the many the inversion of everything perceivable, hence representing spell-craft aka the few crafting the spelling of the many through suggestion. In short...suggested words idolize perceivable sound.
What the many ignore represents impression (perception) to compression (comprehension) for either expression (growth) or repression (loss). Oppression vs oppression (want vs not want) represents the friction among resisting form (growth); while repressing flow (loss). In other words...the few use suggestion to tempt the many to grind each others resistance down.
Sleight of hand for those with eyes to see..."express yourself; don't repress yourself"..."and I'm not sorry; it's human nature"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPL_qGqSJxA
Blaming others implies shirking responsibility to sustain self; while using others as justification for the consequences of ignorance. The parasitic few not only suggest endless boogeymen to blame, they also cloak themselves within accusations; which they reflect as blame of persecution; hence strengthening their position; their resistance to the suggested accusations of others.
The parasitic few represents the response to the ignorance of the many; they parasitically exploit the ignorance towards perceivable inspiration through the suggestion of information. They utilize choice (suggestion) towards choice (consent) contract law as the inversion of perceivable balance (offer) towards choice (response) natural law.
The main issue with ignorance are a) self destruction; b) self restriction of comprehending perceivable with self imposed suggestions (memory filled with suggested information aka the ego) and c) hostility towards anyone pointing out ignorance; because that would be perceived as admission of guilt for those who wield blame as their main defense.
Targeted because they held onto; instead of keep growing for the sustenance of self. Accumulating what others have accumulated can then be used to suggest distribution; which tricks the many to perceive the few as the source for everything distributed; hence causing dependency to suggested distribution.
What the many ignore is that each one of the represents a temporary seed (living) within the ongoing soil (dying) aka a finite growth potential within infinite loss of potentiality.
The few are farming the many within an energy based system; which the many are tempted to ignore for the suggestions of the few; starting with the suggested word over the perceivable sound, as to corrupt communication into agreement (want) versus disagreement (not want) dissonance; while ignoring choice responding to perceivable balance (need/want) resonance. One needs to resonate with the perceivable source of sound...not to what others within sound are shaping out of it (words).