Mein Kampf Excerpt
(media.conspiracies.win)
Comments (12)
sorted by:
The thing is, here we are a century later and the basic issue still persists, maybe even worse. As Gilad Atzmon pointed out, "Jewishness" is either a religion, an ethnicity, or a nationality... as convenient to the Jewish Power, of course.
Einstein (a Jew of some type or other) said, "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." When we look around, we can see that virtually zero people ask, "When you say 'Jew', are you referring to a religion, an ethnicity, or a nationality?" We could get a long way by getting people just to ask that question.
The Jewish trinity! Good point actually.
a) Base solution (inception towards death) issues ingredients (life)
b) Persistence aka PER (by forwards motion) SISTERE (come to stand, cause to stand still)...what if motion cannot stand still, since it inherent nature implies MOTION?
Even (balance) generates odds (choice)...odds ignoring even "makes it worse".
a) All perceivable WAS before one within can suggest one another what it IS.
b) Being one within all implies nation aka NATIVE within ACTION. What is native within action? Each ones reaction.
c) If ones FREE will of choice chooses to Ignore perception for suggestion, then that implies religion/religio - "to bind anew".
d) Ethnic/ethnos - "nation; people" aka singular native within plural collective.
a) What does singular (one) among plural (we) see from ones surrounding?
b) Notice that moving around while looking/locking onto something implies circling a center...that's the opposite of being center (ones perception) within circumference (all perceivable).
Aka ein st ein aka ONE SAINT ONE.
a) Same solution (inception towards death) generates different problems (life) through internal transmutation.
b) Suggesting creationism (out of nothing) distracts from everything perceivable if consented to.
c) CON (together; with) SCIOUS/SCIRE/SCIO (to know) tempts one to ignore that knowledge implies all perceivable set apart into each ones perception.
One doesn't have a con-sciousness...one is being conned by another ones suggestion to ignore perception (knowledge; scio).
a) What if getting many on a quest (question) to seek answers from others is how a jew tempt gentiles with suggested progressivism to seek desired outcomes?
b) What if each person (singular) among people (plural) already got all sound, hence being per sonos (by sound)? What if trying to get from one another tempts one to ignore self discernment?
Someone here asked about Meim Kamp previously. I think the 2 pages in this book are a good summary of the best parts of Mein Kampf.
This is from page 38 of the book: "The The Nameless War" By Captain Archibald Maule Ramsay. The book in itself is a very good summary of events relating to the Jewish world domination from the British "revolution" (i.e. letting the Jew back in) till WW2.
There is also Unfinished Victory by Arthur Bryant (1940)
and if you can read German the 1920s magazine Simplicissimus is archived
http://www.simplicissimus.info/
Thx for sharing, these links are quite valuable because these are actually hard to find.
How does one get jewed? By buying into what a jew is selling aka by consenting to a chosen ones suggestion aka by establishing a master with ones submission aka by religio - " to bind anew".
Religion/rely - "to gather, assemble an army, followers, a host"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/rely
That implies a suggested temptation for ones consent. It has no power of its own until empowered by ones free will of choice. Rebranding this suggested temptation into for example https://img.gvid.tv/i/2kAnHEvi.jpg ...that's jewing.
Here's the issue...ones free will of choice empowers the master and establishes the manipulation when consenting to a suggested temptation.
Furthermore...ones consent to follow permits another to suggest directions, while manipulating oneself to ignore being (life) directed (inception towards death)...a direction inspiring resistance from those living within.
a) Religion/religio - "to bind anew" implies ones consent to the suggestion of another.
b) Race/raddix/radius/ray implies ones growth within all, hence from center outwards like a seed within soil.
c) Consenting to a jewish suggestion implies religion; which tempts those consenting off-center and into circumference, while permitting those suggesting to erect self at center, which a jew uses to cut off gentiles from circumference aka circumcision.
That's for example how a central bank cuts off trustees within circumference into poverty and debt after tempting each one to give trust aka consent.
Another example...city implies center, which is where jew erects high-rise, while cutting off gentiles first into down-town, then through suburbia into outskirts.
Same action (inception towards death) generating different reactions (life)...a jew suggests gentiles to react alike; to equalize differences (equality through diversity) to mimic action (actor) by following direction (director).
Aka stratos - "multitude" aka stere (to spread) + agein (to lead)...that's few (jew) leading the spread of many (gentiles).
Phonetic JEW/YOU...established by one claiming self as "me; myself or I", which within a balance based system, brands everyone else into a "YOU". That's how jewing works.
If ONE chooses to let go of "me; myself and I", then "you" will fall away from all other ONES including chosen ONES...that's how one reveals what's behind the curtain of ones own ignorance.
Before you make that association by slapping the word onto anything or anyone, your consent made the association with the one suggesting the word...that's the chosen one you don't see; while slapping more and more words onto others to help identify what you see.
Association implies joining together...having a choice implies being set apart within balance, hence FREE to choose at will. Association binds free.
Being cannot have (posses; hold onto; keep to self) while being (life) moved (inception towards death). As resistance within velocity...holding onto wastes resistance.
Few suggest behavior to many so that each one ignores to be FREE to choose at will. Nature makes it very clear what to choose (need) and what to resist (want)...yet temptation implies ignorance of resistance, and guess what? Ignorance is bliss.
Bliss/blithiz - "gentle"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/bliss#etymonline_v_13608 There's the gentile and the jewing to hide it.
ESO (inner) implies suggested information held within ones consenting mind/memory. EXO (outer) implies perceivable inspiration (aka knowledge) moving through each ones perception.
The former tempts one to hord/store it within ones memory; which permits those suggesting it to establish systems and methods of manage (manually directing) ment (mind/memory)...the latter moves and cannot be held onto; an ongoing solution for each temporary problem within to draw from.
One doesn't need to store any information within ones mind/memory...ones consent misuses memory as storage for suggested information. Perceivable inspiration doesn't require ones consent (send together)...it sends one apart from one another, hence in-between moving differences as inspiration for one to sustain self.
Everything is inspiration...the more information one holds within, the less inspiration one draws from outside.
Example...if one doesn't know how to fish, one doesn't require a "how to fish" manual. Hunger inspires one to catch food. Getting hungry next to a river teaches one how to learn fishing.
How could there be a single within a connection? What connects a chosen ONE?
Latin religio - "to bind anew" aka to connect together aka to ignore singularity aka to ignore "thou shalt have no other gods before me".
Aka native (life) within generation (inception towards death)...set apart from one another.
What could matter (life) within motion (inception towards death) hold of or lock up? How could one look at without locking in ones sight?
a) What about everything perceivable?
b) BUT aka butan/beutan aka BE (being) UTANA (from without)...an inversion of being (life) within (inception towards death).
Aka mine - "belonging to me; in my possession; held onto by me"...now consider the nature of a mercantile contract aka selling (to give) and buying (to take).
How is it that a mercantile few have everything when a consumerist many takes everything?
If you ask me what side I'm on, it's the side that Hitler ain't