The most successful attacks are the ones that go unnoticed and do not alert the system as a whole, or convince the system that they do not exist. Invisible parasites, subtle entrances, etc.
An exploit that straightforwardly pillages an ecosystem (as long as it's not utterly destroyed) will immediately produce anti-bodies/defenses against the attack. It will alert other systems that are vulnerable to the attack.
An exploit that slips between the cracks unnoticed and siphons energy or resources or mindshare is infinitely more effective.
This technology has been developed over millenia, its current form is the fiat money printer
Before one can consent to suggested fiat...one has to ignore being form (perception) within current flow (perceivable).
Aka artifice (techno) and logic/reason (logy)...the suggested inversion of natural implication.
a) Hostility includes host...what if host (inception towards death) implies hostility towards guests (life)?
b) ATTACK = ATTACH...does nature detaches those within from one another?
Success implies outcome...attack (inception towards death) implies origin for defense (life).
...implies VERSUS least aka a conflict tempting one to join the attack.
What if energy implies source and oneself implies re-source aka response within source? Could the suggestions by others tempt one to ignore perceivable source, while siphoning ones consentual energy?
What if cause (whole) and effect (one) cannot be more than one aka energy?
a) System aka syn (together) sta (to stand) implies as partials within whole...not as a whole.
b) A whole implies as opposed to another whole...there can only be one whole for each one partial within.
c) What if few suggest "a whole" to tempt many to consent to "A HOLE"...would many even notice what consent was given to?
The introduction of Christianity in the Middle Ages, the French Revolution, the Fiat Money Printer, the false savior Hitler, and Obama's final sellout that led to the compromised Internet.
All shapeless, all insidious, all causing the indignant end of the free men.
A suggestion implies extro (outwards)...consent implies intro (inwards). A jew extroverts (turning the outside) to tempt gentiles to introduce a suggested inversion into self.
Only within all can one shape.
All cannot be inside...only being can be inside all. Ones ignorance of all perceivable for the suggestions of another one implies the insidious trap.
All causes beginning (inception) and end (death) for each effected one (life) within wielding free will of choice.
One cannot experience the end of free...ones choice can be ignored for a chosen ones suggestion, which tempts one to believe in the end of free.
Like federal school curriculum (public and private are both required) and higher education puts the mail in the coffin as we self Institutionize