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.
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.