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.