I fully agree that people, especially if you believe to be a smart person, should stop watching the day to day political theatre, because it is all useles. Sure, you must scan the news in order to see the general pattern, but debating the stupid theatrics everyday or every week is something only children and imbeciles who cant see trends do...
Now, I take issue with the "Marxist" characterisation. This is not because Marxism is good, or because I'm pro Marxism, but this sort of term implies in the mind of the reader that the what he knows as the "opposite" must surely be good, aka he reflectively thinks that someone who attacks Marxism must be good. This is WRONG.
First of all, because the same ppl that financed the Marxist-communist political systems also financed National-Socialism, and also finance both sides of every fucking conflict all over the world. They also finance BLM, the alt-right, your average cuckservative, and demoncrap politician (there are exceptions!)... What you have to support, is ONLY PRINCIPLES. NEVER SUPPORT SIDES.
a) how could one grow (within perceivable) if one chooses to understand (stand under suggested)?
b) if everything (perceivable); then nothing (suggested)
c) implication (if/then) or reason (want vs NOT want)...your choice. Let's apply it...if living; then dying or want living vs not want dying. Which one contradicts itself?
The game runners
Are the few running or do they suggest the many where to run towards (progressivism)? What if consenting to a suggested game implies being played by others within perceivable?
STOP reacting
Can reaction (living) STOP (cessation of motion) within enacting (process of dying)?
Once you GET IT
What if each one being able to perceive already got everything perceivable to choose within?
to break this cycle
What if consent to suggested collectivism (togetherness); while ignoring perceivable apartheid (being partial within whole) represents a self imposed KIKE; noun - "circle; ring (ouroboros); a visible sign (imbalance) of an invisible bond (choice to choice contract law)"?
What if the many ignore being (living) within (process of dying), which allows the few to lure them into a self destructive cycle (not want); which in return tempts them to "want" to break out?
What if want vs not want represents the self destructive cycle (imbalance); which tempts one to ignore being choice at the center of balance (need/want)?
youl'll stop watching, posting and reacting to shit
Can the perceiving within perceivable ever stop falling for the tempting suggestions by others? What if resisting (perceivable need) temptation (suggested want) grows resistance (living) within temptation (process of dying)?
Does it matter what others are suggesting or does each ones resistance to whatever others are suggesting represents the sustenance of matter (living) within immaterial (process of dying)?
Isn't it amazing how you're allowed to hold these events and blame the:
elite's
marxists
catholics
lizard people
the democrats
the republicans
the chinese
the muslims
the Whites
but the second you place blame on the jew, you get kicked off of everything.
You can call him anything you want, it rolls off him like water on a raincoat, but the second you call him jew, he shrieks in horror: I have been discovered!
LIB (perceiving free will of choice) within DOM (perceivable balance).
rather be rulers in hell than subjects in heaven
a) one represents a subject (living) objectified within (process of dying)
b) suggested heaven (want) vs hell (not want) tempts on to ignore perceivable rule (rego; to govern aka natural law); within one needs to resist (living) temptation (dying).
we simply have to come to grips
Consenting to hold onto (grip) suggested (we); temps one to ignore being (living) moved by (process of dying); hence in need to resist the temptation to want to hold onto.
ANALYT'IC, adjective - " that resolves into first principles; that separates into parts" aka that whole (process of dying) which separates into partial (living); which implies that which RE (responds to) SOLVE (being within solution).
Resolve (living) into first principle (process of dying) represents transmutation of ingredient back to base (alchemy).
M'ARK, noun [Latin mercor, the primary sense of which is to go, to pass.] - "a visible line"...life represents the visible line within the invisible pass from inception towards death; hence those alive (choice) not being able to see their own inception/death (balance).
dialectic puppet-masters
If the many ignore perceivable sound for choice (suggested words) to choice (consent to suggested words) contract law; then the few become their dialectic puppet-masters.
OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe)
a) this represents the organ (process of dying); while this represents the instrument within (living).
b) this represents temptation (process of dying); while this represents the resistance within (living).
c) the only protection (security) for reaction (living) within enacting (process of dying) represents momentum (balance within motion); which is why every one alive represents free will of choice at the center of balance (need/want) aka in-between the need to resist (living) and the want to be tempted to ignore resisting (dying).
d) nature (production) self differentiates into the process of dying (direction) and those living (reaction) within. That implies apartheid aka being a partial within whole.
The parasitic few suggest the inversion of perceivable apartheid....togetherness aka co-operation aka e pluribus unum (out of many; one) aka "united" states aka "united" nations aka european "union" etc.
tl; dr...the few don't require the entire world as a tool to control the many, since consent by the many to the suggestions of the few tempts the many to react as "one" to whatever the few are suggesting.
Example...the few suggest "abortion" to which the many consent by wanting (pro-choice) or not wanting (pro-life) it. Both sides are then divided against each other; while responding as one (united) to the suggestion (abortion) of the few; who in return not only control both sides of the conflict; but also were given (by consent) the sole power (their choice) to define; redefine and contradict the suggested for everyone consenting to it.
tl; dr...the few don't require the entire world as a tool to control the many, since consent by the many to the suggestions of the few tempts the many to react as "one" to whatever the few are suggesting.
To this point, a lot of people laugh that the propaganda is lame and doesn't affect them, but it doesn't really matter, because the propaganda isn't for the common citizen, it is to convince government employees, journalists, CEOs, HR departments, the wealthy, etc. That segment wields a lot of power and if they believe the propaganda, that is 99% of the battle won for the banksters
to convince government employees, journalists, CEOs, HR departments, the wealthy, etc.
a) the foundation for GOVERN (to control) MENT (Latin mens, mind) represents choice (suggestion) towards choice (consent) contract law. Consenting to suggested puts one into a chain of command under those suggesting.
b) choice is situated at the center of perceivable balance (need/want), while consenting to the suggested choices of others tempts one into imbalance (want vs not want).
c) all the conflicts about suggested represent "reasoning". The few utilize suggestion to divide the many into reasoning against each other over the suggested.
d) employed vs unemployed, journalism (writer vs reader); CEO (chief executive officer) vs submissive subordinate follower; HR (human relations) vs lack of interaction among humans, departed (move from) mind vs mind moved by (inspiration perceived), the rich vs the poor etc.
All of these represent conflicts of reason shaped by consent of the many to the suggestions of the few; which gives the few the power to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and deliberately contradict (talmudic reasoning) whatever the many are reasoning over.
The many within each side of any of those conflicts will only view the opposite side, while ignoring both the contract (choice to choice aka consent to suggested) underneath; nor the contract holder outside the conflicts.
That segment wields a lot of power
Each segregated mind (segment) wields the power of free will of choice (partial) within perceivable balance (whole)...unless ignored for the suggested choices by others.
The few wield what the many willingly ignore to utilize. One cannot give free will of choice away only ignore using it, hence willingly repress the expression of choice within an impressing system.
the battle won for the banksters
a) reason represents the battle; winning vs losing represents the "banked" mind confined into a conflict caused by consenting to the suggestion (money) by others.
b) this represents value (perceivable inspiration); this represents evaluation (perceiving choice); this represents the temptation to ignore value (suggested information).
Whatever others are suggesting tempts one to ignore what perceivable nature is offering. One represents resistance (living) within temptation (dying)...others tempt one to ignore this perceivable natural order for following suggested orders.
I just want to give my 2 cents.
I fully agree that people, especially if you believe to be a smart person, should stop watching the day to day political theatre, because it is all useles. Sure, you must scan the news in order to see the general pattern, but debating the stupid theatrics everyday or every week is something only children and imbeciles who cant see trends do...
Now, I take issue with the "Marxist" characterisation. This is not because Marxism is good, or because I'm pro Marxism, but this sort of term implies in the mind of the reader that the what he knows as the "opposite" must surely be good, aka he reflectively thinks that someone who attacks Marxism must be good. This is WRONG.
First of all, because the same ppl that financed the Marxist-communist political systems also financed National-Socialism, and also finance both sides of every fucking conflict all over the world. They also finance BLM, the alt-right, your average cuckservative, and demoncrap politician (there are exceptions!)... What you have to support, is ONLY PRINCIPLES. NEVER SUPPORT SIDES.
a) how could one grow (within perceivable) if one chooses to understand (stand under suggested)?
b) if everything (perceivable); then nothing (suggested)
c) implication (if/then) or reason (want vs NOT want)...your choice. Let's apply it...if living; then dying or want living vs not want dying. Which one contradicts itself?
Are the few running or do they suggest the many where to run towards (progressivism)? What if consenting to a suggested game implies being played by others within perceivable?
Can reaction (living) STOP (cessation of motion) within enacting (process of dying)?
What if each one being able to perceive already got everything perceivable to choose within?
What if consent to suggested collectivism (togetherness); while ignoring perceivable apartheid (being partial within whole) represents a self imposed KIKE; noun - "circle; ring (ouroboros); a visible sign (imbalance) of an invisible bond (choice to choice contract law)"?
What if the many ignore being (living) within (process of dying), which allows the few to lure them into a self destructive cycle (not want); which in return tempts them to "want" to break out?
What if want vs not want represents the self destructive cycle (imbalance); which tempts one to ignore being choice at the center of balance (need/want)?
Can the perceiving within perceivable ever stop falling for the tempting suggestions by others? What if resisting (perceivable need) temptation (suggested want) grows resistance (living) within temptation (process of dying)?
Does it matter what others are suggesting or does each ones resistance to whatever others are suggesting represents the sustenance of matter (living) within immaterial (process of dying)?
See also his
"Lectures on the Jihadist Threat" series from 2011/12, which contains some very interesting material.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4C29D87AA600650F
American Freedom Alliance https://americanfreedomalliance.org/
This is the most important post I've seen in a year on this forum. This should be pinned to the top for at least one month.
cc u/axolotl_peyotl is that something you can do?
Isn't it amazing how you're allowed to hold these events and blame the:
You can call him anything you want, it rolls off him like water on a raincoat, but the second you call him jew, he shrieks in horror: I have been discovered!
LIB (perceiving free will of choice) within DOM (perceivable balance).
a) one represents a subject (living) objectified within (process of dying)
b) suggested heaven (want) vs hell (not want) tempts on to ignore perceivable rule (rego; to govern aka natural law); within one needs to resist (living) temptation (dying).
Consenting to hold onto (grip) suggested (we); temps one to ignore being (living) moved by (process of dying); hence in need to resist the temptation to want to hold onto.
It’s really good. If someone finds it on YT please post link.
ANALYT'IC, adjective - " that resolves into first principles; that separates into parts" aka that whole (process of dying) which separates into partial (living); which implies that which RE (responds to) SOLVE (being within solution).
Resolve (living) into first principle (process of dying) represents transmutation of ingredient back to base (alchemy).
M'ARK, noun [Latin mercor, the primary sense of which is to go, to pass.] - "a visible line"...life represents the visible line within the invisible pass from inception towards death; hence those alive (choice) not being able to see their own inception/death (balance).
If the many ignore perceivable sound for choice (suggested words) to choice (consent to suggested words) contract law; then the few become their dialectic puppet-masters.
a) this represents the organ (process of dying); while this represents the instrument within (living).
b) this represents temptation (process of dying); while this represents the resistance within (living).
c) the only protection (security) for reaction (living) within enacting (process of dying) represents momentum (balance within motion); which is why every one alive represents free will of choice at the center of balance (need/want) aka in-between the need to resist (living) and the want to be tempted to ignore resisting (dying).
d) nature (production) self differentiates into the process of dying (direction) and those living (reaction) within. That implies apartheid aka being a partial within whole.
The parasitic few suggest the inversion of perceivable apartheid....togetherness aka co-operation aka e pluribus unum (out of many; one) aka "united" states aka "united" nations aka european "union" etc.
tl; dr...the few don't require the entire world as a tool to control the many, since consent by the many to the suggestions of the few tempts the many to react as "one" to whatever the few are suggesting.
Example...the few suggest "abortion" to which the many consent by wanting (pro-choice) or not wanting (pro-life) it. Both sides are then divided against each other; while responding as one (united) to the suggestion (abortion) of the few; who in return not only control both sides of the conflict; but also were given (by consent) the sole power (their choice) to define; redefine and contradict the suggested for everyone consenting to it.
To this point, a lot of people laugh that the propaganda is lame and doesn't affect them, but it doesn't really matter, because the propaganda isn't for the common citizen, it is to convince government employees, journalists, CEOs, HR departments, the wealthy, etc. That segment wields a lot of power and if they believe the propaganda, that is 99% of the battle won for the banksters
a) the foundation for GOVERN (to control) MENT (Latin mens, mind) represents choice (suggestion) towards choice (consent) contract law. Consenting to suggested puts one into a chain of command under those suggesting.
b) choice is situated at the center of perceivable balance (need/want), while consenting to the suggested choices of others tempts one into imbalance (want vs not want).
c) all the conflicts about suggested represent "reasoning". The few utilize suggestion to divide the many into reasoning against each other over the suggested.
d) employed vs unemployed, journalism (writer vs reader); CEO (chief executive officer) vs submissive subordinate follower; HR (human relations) vs lack of interaction among humans, departed (move from) mind vs mind moved by (inspiration perceived), the rich vs the poor etc.
All of these represent conflicts of reason shaped by consent of the many to the suggestions of the few; which gives the few the power to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and deliberately contradict (talmudic reasoning) whatever the many are reasoning over.
The many within each side of any of those conflicts will only view the opposite side, while ignoring both the contract (choice to choice aka consent to suggested) underneath; nor the contract holder outside the conflicts.
Each segregated mind (segment) wields the power of free will of choice (partial) within perceivable balance (whole)...unless ignored for the suggested choices by others.
The few wield what the many willingly ignore to utilize. One cannot give free will of choice away only ignore using it, hence willingly repress the expression of choice within an impressing system.
a) reason represents the battle; winning vs losing represents the "banked" mind confined into a conflict caused by consenting to the suggestion (money) by others.
b) this represents value (perceivable inspiration); this represents evaluation (perceiving choice); this represents the temptation to ignore value (suggested information).
Whatever others are suggesting tempts one to ignore what perceivable nature is offering. One represents resistance (living) within temptation (dying)...others tempt one to ignore this perceivable natural order for following suggested orders.