Ones consent to suggested money tempts one into a conflict of reason (rich vs poor)
Ones consent to suggested vaccine tempts one into a conflict of reason (vaxxed vs unvaxxed)
Ones consent to suggested words tempts one into a conflict of reason (truth vs lies)
Consenting to a suggested side (left or right) puts one into a conflict of reason (left vs right), while tempting one to ignore that ones consenting choice can only exist in-between left/right balance.
In short...consenting to any suggested side tempts ones choice off center, while permitting a chosen one control over both sides.
They control the entire checker board guys.
White (pure light) and black (absence of light)...neither can be perceived by one within the visible spectrum of light aka by a hue (color) man.
Others suggest black and white sides to distract hue-man from being spec (special; partial) within entire (whole). Only within spectrum can one perceive color, and only within light can there be a spectrum of color.
under the direction...
...distracts one from being (life) within direction (inception towards death). Neither over, nor under, but in-between aka IN (within) BE (being) TWEEN (two).
all wars...
...suggested by few represent the reasoning mind (want vs not want) of the consenting many.
The only difference between big mac vs whooper or ukraine vs russia is the branding of the sides...choosing either tempts one into the same conflict of reason. Take any conflict of reason (truth vs lie; good vs bad; us vs them etc.), then switch sides and notice that you're still within the same conflict.
Conflict cannot be resolved with reason for reason equals conflict.
Example...if two boxers go into one ring, then both are going to lose. They are tricked to fight about who spends more resistance into loss, while being deceived to view not losing as much as the other guy as growth.
Consenting to a suggested side (left or right) puts one into a conflict of reason (left vs right), while tempting one to ignore that ones consenting choice can only exist in-between left/right balance.
In short...consenting to any suggested side tempts ones choice off center, while permitting a chosen one control over both sides.
White (pure light) and black (absence of light)...neither can be perceived by one within the visible spectrum of light aka by a hue (color) man.
Others suggest black and white sides to distract hue-man from being spec (special; partial) within entire (whole). Only within spectrum can one perceive color, and only within light can there be a spectrum of color.
...distracts one from being (life) within direction (inception towards death). Neither over, nor under, but in-between aka IN (within) BE (being) TWEEN (two).
...suggested by few represent the reasoning mind (want vs not want) of the consenting many.
The only difference between big mac vs whooper or ukraine vs russia is the branding of the sides...choosing either tempts one into the same conflict of reason. Take any conflict of reason (truth vs lie; good vs bad; us vs them etc.), then switch sides and notice that you're still within the same conflict.
Conflict cannot be resolved with reason for reason equals conflict.
Example...if two boxers go into one ring, then both are going to lose. They are tricked to fight about who spends more resistance into loss, while being deceived to view not losing as much as the other guy as growth.