One thing i’ve struggled to find is a good reason for support of Israel. From the general public I mean, not from politicians who just keep using the grift but actual American citizens. For the life of me i can’t think of a single reason anyone in north america gives two shits about the middle east at all, much less support and quote the tired “muh greatest ally” crap. Where did the push for this come from? How did it start? Was it newspaper propaganda slowly inserting it to where the normies simply accepted it to be truth? Was it something they drilled into you in grade school and it never got questioned later?
Ignoring the entire jew angle for a moment here, greatest ally for what? What help has ever been given to get this title? FRANCE I can see as America’s best ally after the help in the revolutionary war of independence, the whole gifting of the statue of liberty etc. but what has Israel ever done? We know about the U.S.S. Liberty, we know they did espionage for nuclear weapon tech, they don’t exactly keep the middle east secure and quiet and keep the muslims in check at all. Just WHAT is the deal?
Im early 40’s, and have yet to see anything positive in regards to Israel (or the middle East in general to be honest) to the point where i might not even grunt in affirmation to hear that the whole region is now a glowing ocean crater(fiery but mostly peaceful nuclear protest you see). Those who grew up when support for Israel was being pushed, what did you see to cause this?
a) Race (Latin raddix; radius; ray) implies through one outwards...not which out group one chooses to be part of. Being also implies center (perception) of surrounding (perceivable), hence radius radiating outwards into circumference through ones senses.
Inception towards death implies LINE, hence lineage for each living radius within. Sleight of hand: "race to the bottom line".
b) To control implies to restrain; being implies "free" will of choice; hence being free within STRAIN (to stretch). Inception towards death implies the stretch; the life within the free will of choice, momentarily unrestrained.
In other words...only if nature is in control can those within be free to choose, yet what is it that those within nature choose? More control over each other.
c) "division by groups" implies a divided one (partial within whole) joining with other ones into a group. This is called collectivism; it's being suggested by few to tempt many together, while nature continuous to divide everything (whole) into each thing (partials).
To make this more simple...off-spring implies division from another, not joining with another.
Notice that all those who want to join into groups, afterwards try desperately to stand out from all the others...like wearing a uniform to be part of a group; just to do anything to get promotions over others.
d) Character implies a mark made upon form, hence an engraving of characteristics into malleable form within a flowing system. The initial division implies from flow (whole) into form (partials)...the "character" marks are made afterwards.
Sleight of hand: "people always tell me; you're quite a character"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI
BUT implies that you have an issue with division; yet YEAH implies versus NAY aka a conflict of reason (agree vs disagree) aka a division against one another.
If one grows self discernment as partial within whole, then there's no BUT (except; besides; unless) to whole. Sleight of hand...BUTT-HOLE. Many are making themselves the but-end of a joke the few suggested them to play on each other.
Well I suppose it's up to one to believe they are divided by individual characteristics or not. Humanity no doubt is a whole in some ways as in I do believe we are all connected. In order to function as a whole we all need different talents and interest. So is being an individual actually a division or just being part of the whole? I don't agree we should be divided in groups based on those interests either. As in you want to be punk rock so you only hang out with other punk rock kids. Or if you are gay you only hang out with gay people. These are false identities and not actually anything to do with who someone is at the core. The tribal group no matter what it is is one I think that divides people. In my mind an ideal humanity wouldn't need others to tell them their likes or needs but each person would know what they each like and who they are. If humanity truly each followed one's passions I believe we would function better. Most people are afraid to do what they love so they end up going to work in an office or some unfulfilling job. People do this out of fear of failure and desire for security so imo to find some self worth or identity they join some group that then reassures them that they have an identity and purpose even though the group is a superficial identity. The division I believe that is being forced on people is separation into these false identity groups, race, interest, activism, political beliefs and so on. So when I say individual I truly mean this. Why do people only need to hang out with others just like them? Isn't that boring? I have never understood the group mentality and always had peers of all sorts and found it much more interesting. You could use the actual human body as an example. If ears only grew with other ears and refused to grow with other parts of the body they would not be able to function and would die. Until humans start valuing ones own true identity I believe we will be out of balance.
To believe implies ones consent to another ones suggestion. Can you show me a belief that isn't build upon suggestion?
OR implies origin. NOT (Latin nihilo, nothing) implies ones denial of perceivable origin.
a) Human aka HUE (color) of man implies within visible spectrum of light, with light implying the origin aka the whole for each partial within.
b) DOUBT, verb - "waver; fluctuation in opinion" implies the status quo of being a wave-form; fluctuation within light. Others suggest belief; trust; faith; truth etc. as the inversion of doubt, hence tricking one to hold onto something affixed while ignoring everything moving.
If singular (one) consents to suggested pluralism (we) a connection; bond; contract is being made. Also; the opposite of all (whole) implies each one (partial)...not we (partials put together).
Only within connection (inception towards death) can there be separation (life). Others tempt one to ignore separation for re-connection aka mixing together to destroy partials.
Whole implies natural order; partials within imply chaos; struggling to sustain self within order. Only then can those within establish chaos without harming order.
Function implies FUNCOR (to perfom) TION (action) aka reacting form within enacting flow. So being implies partial function within order of whole.
It doesn't matter how many partials come together...they can never be a whole, because each partial already exist within whole. Nature is already complete; nobody within can add anything to it, only draw from it to transmute within it.
Consider the opposite...different want (life) within same need (inception towards death), which implies ones need to resist want as to be able to sustain self.
How could partials come to be without "internal" division of whole? The trick to deceive one from comprehending this is suggested dualism (two). Whole doesn't divide into two, but remains oneness (whole) for each one (partial) within.
There is no TWO in nature, only ONE whole aka energy (internal/inherent power). If energy implies one, that what does two imply? Two energy? What does more energy imply to energy itself? Once again it's the opposite...each one within all energy implies less than origin provides, which only then allows each ones growth.
Ask yourself about the origin of "two"...does two exist without oneself counting other ones as two? Show me any two things and I will describe how each one is only discernible from one another; because each one exist at a different position from one another, hence within/during/in-between ongoing differentiation aka natural order aka momentum (inception towards death) of motion.
Show me the being "we"...
So what happens if one of the kids also does jazz; pop; hip-hop and gospel? How many labels (pluralism) does one (singular) need to satisfy wants?
Yet so is "identity aka identical aka same", because each one is different from one another. Core (perception) also implies within periphery (perceivable)...suggestions like identitarianism corrupts core.
Core (life) moves within periphery (inception towards death)...identity implies an affixed label slapped onto core.
Which requires each ones self discernment as choice in-between balance (need/want)...as opposed to imbalance (want vs not want or would vs wouldn't).
Sleight of hand: William Tell aka I am free will of choice (will-i-am) uttering words (tell)... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tell
PAS'SION, noun (Latin passio, from patior, to suffer) - "the impression or effect of an external agent upon a body" aka being (life) within passion (inception towards death); also passion of christ (anointed one).
One needs to resist the temptation/passion of wanting to follow...others tempt one to follow suggested, while ignoring to resist perceivable.
PASS (passage) ION (action) aka ones passage within action.
Fear implies towards suggested outcomes; while ignoring perceivable origin. Love implies versus hate aka a conflict of reason shaped by ones consent to suggested moralism.
That implies wanting to be filled; while ignoring needing to resist stuffing self, while within procession. Filling self leads to constipation (a pressing together); letting go of constipation within procession leads to relief.
Being implies evaluation (perception) within value (perceivable)...others suggest worth to corrupt ones evaluation, and if one consents, then others are permitted to devalue ones evaluation.
Value implies within motion (inspiration); suggested worth tempts one to hold onto it (information)...filling oneself with information constipates self, while tempting one to ignore perceivable inspiration.
Few suggest many to amalgamate; mix; come together etc. which tempts each consenting one to ignore being a partial within a moving whole. Natural order forces separation (inception to life) and unification (life to death)...beings within natural order suggest unification (coming together) to distract from separation (being apart) and ones consent to that suggestion binds one together with others.
Like for example being part of a punk rock band/bind/bund or religion (Latin religion; to bind anew) etc.
It's ones consent to suggested pluralism (them; people); which tempts one to ignore that that each one person is different from one another.
Understand aka "standing under" the suggestions of others when consenting to follow...group mentality.
Which implies self discernment aka something one cannot get through suggestions by others. Also; one cannot be out of balance; since being implies center (choice) of balance (need/want). It's ignorance/denial which imbalances self (want vs not want), while ignoring being within balance (need/want).
The conflict (reason) only exist within ones mind, because one willingly chooses to hold onto it. Others cannot release that hold, but it's super easy to tempt others to keep holding onto, hence a few merchants of temptations tricking many to hold onto all kinds of shit.
Thanks for inspiring me to write this btw. Great post.