Only one way (inception towards death) makes ones (life) possible.
to have peace...
...implies one consent to oppose war within a conflict. Choosing peace (want) over war (not want) or war (want) over peace (not want) implies the same conflict from a different side.
One exists in-between need/want (balance)...ignoring this puts one into want vs not want (imbalance). Choice ignoring balance imbalances choice.
...ism should be the norm.
The few suggest norms as a standard (a position in battle to serve as a rallying point for a military force) for the conflicts of reason among the many.
Nature represents an ongoing order; setting those within free to choose how to react, which represents a chaotic state of being...others suggest -isms to tempt one to behave according to norms; to standards; to rules of behavior; to moralism; uniformity etc.
The few suggest the many to consent by "free" will of choice to "bind" themselves to norms.
You don't mix...
Being implies partial within whole, hence the natural order (action) setting itself apart into chaotic choices (reaction)...from same into difference; both in balance with each other.
Others suggest mixing aka e pluribus unum (out of many; one) aka abrahamism (father of multitude) aka tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) aka equality through diversity aka uniformity; unicode; university; universal serial bus; universal pictures; universal studios; united states; united nations; european union; unicef aka migration; miscegenation; melting pot and so on...
Ones consent to the suggestions by others implies oneself binding self to others, hence mixing. Self discernment has to be grown by self; hence apart from others, not together.
The suggested word "together" implies "towards getting", which tempts life to ignore being moved towards death. Towards implies within loss...not towards getting.
so contradictory to each other
Before one can contradict each other; one exists apart from one another...this one ignores when reasoning about suggested contradictions.
known since Aristotle.
Knowledge implies perceivable (inspiration); aristotelianism represents suggested (information)....consenting to suggested tempts one to ignore perceivable.
depends on your jurisdiction. The Blue backed us during the 2020 riots and the covid hysteria in my town. your sheriff is an electable position, if your local government isn't compromised, you have the power to make sure they keep backing you.
They're just regular humans sharing a dress code, their power comes from a notable majority condoning their behavioral choices, they can arrest a drunk driver because a notable majority of society agrees with the decision, in Ireland there are way more Irish men who are not employed by law enforcement versus the number of Irish men working as police officers, the majority of Irish men could end this madness in 48 hours but have chosen not to do so, they are "okay" with losing their civilization, it's not an easy choice by any means, to choose to sacrifice now for a better future for their civilization, but nonetheless they are making a choice, they are choosing to surrender to a little army of cucks
You have to look at police tactics and why they are effective. They excel at using overwhelming force against individuals, who are typically unarmed and untrained. When the odds are evened up either numerically or by training, they don't fare so well. Just something to think about when the jewish oligarchy attempts its inevitable disarmament scam.
As the brainwashed conservatards cry out, "as long as we are invaded legally!"
"Make the Muslims and Somalians fill out the proper paperwork before they replace us!"
Traditionalism and Racial/Religious Nationalism should be the norm for all nations in this world, it's the only possible way to have peace.
You don't mix people who have views and customs (or DNA) so contradictory to each other they will end up in perpetual war forever.
This has been well known since Aristotle.
marxism never was about helping people, it was always about destruction.
Only one way (inception towards death) makes ones (life) possible.
...implies one consent to oppose war within a conflict. Choosing peace (want) over war (not want) or war (want) over peace (not want) implies the same conflict from a different side.
One exists in-between need/want (balance)...ignoring this puts one into want vs not want (imbalance). Choice ignoring balance imbalances choice.
The few suggest norms as a standard (a position in battle to serve as a rallying point for a military force) for the conflicts of reason among the many.
Nature represents an ongoing order; setting those within free to choose how to react, which represents a chaotic state of being...others suggest -isms to tempt one to behave according to norms; to standards; to rules of behavior; to moralism; uniformity etc.
The few suggest the many to consent by "free" will of choice to "bind" themselves to norms.
Being implies partial within whole, hence the natural order (action) setting itself apart into chaotic choices (reaction)...from same into difference; both in balance with each other.
Others suggest mixing aka e pluribus unum (out of many; one) aka abrahamism (father of multitude) aka tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) aka equality through diversity aka uniformity; unicode; university; universal serial bus; universal pictures; universal studios; united states; united nations; european union; unicef aka migration; miscegenation; melting pot and so on...
Ones consent to the suggestions by others implies oneself binding self to others, hence mixing. Self discernment has to be grown by self; hence apart from others, not together.
The suggested word "together" implies "towards getting", which tempts life to ignore being moved towards death. Towards implies within loss...not towards getting.
Before one can contradict each other; one exists apart from one another...this one ignores when reasoning about suggested contradictions.
Knowledge implies perceivable (inspiration); aristotelianism represents suggested (information)....consenting to suggested tempts one to ignore perceivable.
depends on your jurisdiction. The Blue backed us during the 2020 riots and the covid hysteria in my town. your sheriff is an electable position, if your local government isn't compromised, you have the power to make sure they keep backing you.
They're just regular humans sharing a dress code, their power comes from a notable majority condoning their behavioral choices, they can arrest a drunk driver because a notable majority of society agrees with the decision, in Ireland there are way more Irish men who are not employed by law enforcement versus the number of Irish men working as police officers, the majority of Irish men could end this madness in 48 hours but have chosen not to do so, they are "okay" with losing their civilization, it's not an easy choice by any means, to choose to sacrifice now for a better future for their civilization, but nonetheless they are making a choice, they are choosing to surrender to a little army of cucks
IRA revival time?
Police DO NOT SERVE YOU.
The police, in an emergency, primarily guard government buildings and government officials and corrupt government politicians.
The police will follow the commandments of Government orders which lead up to ZOG. Therefore, government police are merely ZOGBOTS.
You have to look at police tactics and why they are effective. They excel at using overwhelming force against individuals, who are typically unarmed and untrained. When the odds are evened up either numerically or by training, they don't fare so well. Just something to think about when the jewish oligarchy attempts its inevitable disarmament scam.