For last few years I noticed that usage of something like "something is X years high!!!", "other thing is X monts low!!!!" become much more frequent around, intended to somehow force people to be alerted.
But what that phrase means really? Literally opposite to what they try to enforce in target audience.
Let's say phrase is "crop is 5 years low!!!". Awful, isn't it?
But it's not. It literally means that same crop was just 5 year ago and who knows how many times before. So, it is not unusual thing at all and it already happened, and we are here and skyes didn't fall.
Amasing how they use the phrase that state something is usual thing to pose situation as threatening. And many buy that shit without even trying to think on what they was really told.
May be it is in some schoolbook of propaganda tricks, and perfectly well-known by you, but I think it is interesting that usage of that trick is grow fast.
In any case, question everything, and I mean literally everything, even set expressions.
Imagine when they find out a huge amount of internet activity over sensitive topics is completely AI generated...
Just got home from church.
I can't tell you how many Christians are so brainwashed that they literally believe they are not allowed to exercise any judgement.
I tried to tell them that's not what the Bible says. It says use judgment in the same fairness and mercy you would want to be judged with yourself.
A Christian brainwashed to utilize no discernment or judgement is going to get slaughtered by the beast.
Each one of them is willingly binding self to the suggestions of others aka to those who suggest in the name of (in nomine).
Others cannot grand free will of choice; only balance can set choice at its center. Others can tempt choice to imbalance self by consenting to suggested choices.
If I fuck your wife, you cannot pass judgement upon me.
Sounds ridiculous and absurd.
But Christians in church are mega cucked.
But then sometimes I wonder. Perhaps these people who say "derp i cannot judge in church" are actually some of the most judgmental people outside of church?
How many people inside church are pretending to be something they aren't? Why argue with them in bible study if they do not truly believe in these things?
Also, Christianity in these churches in USA seems like a lot of Self-flagellation. "I'm a sinner oh woe me i deserve to be cucked by jews who lie to me on TV i'm a bad sinner derp Jews are muh chosens peoples"
a) suggested cannot (can nothing) tempts one to ignore be the free will of choice within everything.
b) suggested JUDGE (pronounce; articulate laws) tempts one to ignore that natural law doesn't articulate itself; it impresses (process of dying) for expression (living).
c) a mind (ment) that articulates laws (judge) ignores natural for artificial.
d) if implies then (implication). Suggesting a scenario (I fuck your wife) with an outcome (you cannot pass judgement) tempts others to reason (agreement vs disagreement); while ignoring implication.
Perceivable sound neither ridicules; nor is it inconsistent (absurd). It's the suggestion of words that tempt others to feel ridiculed and that shape inconsistency through the ignorance of perceivable sound.
That represents a suggested judgement, which tempts Christians and Churchians to defend their consented to beliefs from being judged.
It's the few who suggest Christianity and churches to tempt both those who agree or disagree with it to reason against each other, which gives the few control over both sides.
a) what others suggest or what you suggest about others...both ignore perceivable (inspiration) for suggested (information). You need to resist the temptation to consent to suggestions or to judge those who suggest. The more you do; the less potent the temptation of suggestions becomes, and the less would you be tempted to judge others for the attempts to tempt you.
b) the few suggest judgement to tempt the many to shirk response-ability (choice) over self by blaming others for the consequences thereof.
Every one of them. CHURCH, noun - "to call out or call together, denotes an assembly or collection"...nature sets itself apart aka from whole (process of dying) into partial (living). The few suggest togetherness (collectivism) to tempt each one of the many to ignore perceivable apartheid.
It doesn't matter how many people come together; each one of them represents a person aka per (by) sonos (sound) aka a partial by a whole.
To believe implies consenting to suggested; which causes the conflict of reason (believers vs non-believers); hence them arguing against each other over suggested information.
Hold your breath and wait...does it matter if you argue about or not believe in the need to breathe or will nature force you to adapt, no matter what you believe; not believe or argue over?
Religion (contract law) implies ones submission to others; hence harming oneself by ignoring to sustain self.
Consenting to suggested moralism causes the sin vs righteousness conflict of reason.
a) nature doesn't lie; it offers everything to everyone as it is (predefined meaning). It's those within that lack comprehension thereof; hence the opportunity to grow it.
b) "truth" represents ones consent to the suggestions of others as defined meaning for perceivable. Those within reality cannot define it; they can only redefine themselves within predefined reality...or choose to ignore reality (perceivable) for fiction (suggested).
c)"truth" represents the choice to want suggested; while "lie" represents the choice to not want suggested. Both wanting (truth) and not wanting (lie) suggested ignores the need to adapt to perceivable (change).
Let's use implication...if truth set into change; then truth changes into lie. This is why the many have no defense against the lies of the few; because all their truths can be effortlessly contradicted through nature itself (constant change).
If each one of the many ignores free will of choice by consenting to the suggested choices of others; then those suggesting become the "chosen ones" aka the ELITE (French élite) - "selection, choice".
The few are chosen by the many who ignore free will of choice.
Words are their weapons. They use adjectives to make people afraid. An example was that there was always a negative descriptor in front of the word Omicron.
a) free will of choice represents the only weapon (instrument of offense) in existence, while choosing to offend represents the choice to ignore defense.
b) suggestible words are shaped by free will of choice out of perceivable sound. Consenting to suggested (fiction) over perceivable (reality) gives others the power to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the suggested meaning at will.
c) the few suggest words over perceivable sound to craft the spelling of the consenting many.
d) nature doesn't use words to communicate itself; it communicates perceivable inspiration towards perceiving senses. A moving system doesn't require those within to brand anything, it requires those within to adapt to being moved.
Good catch, bruvnor. Pay attention to the SYNTACTICAL HALO too...
I wrote about using that thing against them some time ago but looks like that kind of things are already associated with something inapropriate and only our enemy is allowed to use them.
thank you, very good proposal!
It becomes worse when using their fake metrics. They use those for the opposite effect—to cover up lack of historical precedent. “Worst inflation in 40 years!” is the biggest hoax, because inflation was calculated differently back then. We have the worst inflation in American history right now.
If all represents one in energy, then what is there to measure? What could one (partial) within oneness (whole) measure than other other ones?
Does impressing (process of dying) causing expressions (living) represent a conflict? How does the versus come in-between inhaling and exhaling?
FYI, this is an AI bot response. Whoever is running this program is an asshole.
IDK, if there exists historical price records for some well-known commodity, say eggs or raw milk, something that produced in the same way for centuries and was not replaced with some synthetic in whole or partially. it will be relatively easy to see what happened really.
Oh, sure. Measurement of goods against gold is probably the best metric (though industrialization has altered the metric quite a bit since it’s so damn useful).
Gold is not stable as well. A lot of speculating and artificial regulations.
Try kWh of energy, f.e. You always need ~0.1kWh to boil 1 liter of water, and no politician could change that.
Interesting observation, but it could mean something different. At any time authorities tries to keep population salaries at the thin margin that is slightly above starvation and poverty to keep people from rioting, but definitely not enough to develop and grow to prevent people from obtaining independence and soverignity.
Paper gold is speculated out the ass, sure. Remove the paper duplicate sales and gold goes to $60,000 an ounce, minimum. Silver is the “daily” currency, held at 15:1 with gold.