I believe Hitler was a patsy who got played by the jews and he's the biggest strawman ever created in history. He's literally Goldstein in 1984. It's bloody genius really. What's your take?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (16)
sorted by:
I don't think they are trapped in moralism because ultimate reality is indeed moral. The problem is they don't acknowledge that their rulers don't adhere to such a framework, but that they are beyond good and evil. The masses are deceived because they mostly play by the rules and can't comprehend how it could be otherwise. But jews never play by the rules - they want to define the rules, they want to be God.
a) I vs you; do vs don't; we vs they; free vs trapped; moralism vs moralist; being cause vs causing to be; initial vs ultimate; reality vs fiction; is vs was; indeed vs debt free; moral vs immoral...that's eleven conflicts of reason within one sentence aka entrap-ment.
b) Reality cannot be moral...a being within reality can choose to respond moral or immoral to one another aka start a fictitious conflict of reason, while ignoring reality.
How are hunger and thirst moral or immoral?
a) If a jew suggests moralism, and consenting gentiles are reasoning (good vs evil) against each other about it, then a chosen one was selected by ones choice to be beyond good and evil aka outside the conflict of reason.
b) Nature doesn't require anyone within to acknowledge....nature forces each one within to adapt (life) to the known ledge (inception towards death).
Acknowledging each others suggestions permits few to bind many into a LEDGER aka a book of accounts, where the account-ability of gentiles is kept by a jewish bookie.
Work implies energy; frame implies going forwards...energy implies motion forwarding momentum (inception towards death) for the coming into being of matter (life).
Rule/reg - "move in a straight line" implies the frame (forwarding) of work (energy). Gentiles who lack self discernment are being tempted to follow jewish rules instead of resisting forwarding energy, which would grow resistance.
Within a framework...resistance is fertile.
Com (together) prehendere (to catch hold of, seize)...the gentile consent given to catch hold of and seize a jewish suggestion is what AMASSES gentiles together.
All perceivable sets each ones perception apart from one another through motion, which is why one needs to let go of what one wants to hold onto.
A jew doesn't play...a jew suggests games for gentiles to play, which gets them played. Consenting to a suggestion tempts one to ignore the rule/reg - "move in a straight line" aka all perceivable moving straight through each ones perception.
Straight implies even...choosing to play implies gambling on odds. Chance represents the inversion of choice.
Rule implies motion moving; to define implies affixing suggested within mind while ignoring that perceivable moves.
Gentiles hold onto definitions, which makes them DEAF PHONETICIANS aka deaf to phonics (sound), when holding onto words. A jew utilizes spell-craft (words shaped within sound) to bend the rules for gentiles.
A jew suggests IN NOMINE (in the name of) patris et filii et spiritus sancti...a gentile consenting to that a) breaks the first commandment, and b) permits a suggesting jew a position above the father; the son and the holy ghost.
We vs they implies want vs not want for a consenting gentile...a jew suggests both sides to tempt consenting gentiles to a) turn against each other and b) to ignore perceivable need.
To consent implies wanting from another, while ignoring all needed. Nature doesn't send together (con-sent)...it sends each one apart from one another. Coming together by consenting to each others suggestions implies the temptation for ones sustenance of self to ignore resisting.
Before consenting...think OFF-SPRING aka a setting apart of mother and child.
If reality is not fundamentally moral then there's no objective standard for morality which renders the concept of morality meaningless. In such a universe, a being cannot choose to "be moral or immoral" but only to follow his subjective preferences or adhere to an arbitrary socially constructed law.
They aren't, because morality requires a free will agent acting in the world. Morality is an attribute of a person. It's either a choice to move towards the good (God) or away from it.
Calling it a UNI-verse while denying a dualistic choice (moral or immoral)...implies ONEs own choice denying reality (singular) for fiction (dual).
Furthermore...uni-VERSE implies the suggested verses by others tempting one to turn versus others.
Cannot contradicts ones FREE will of choice, which is why a jew suggests nothing aka nihilism (Latin nihilo; nothing) aka creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) to tempt consenting gentiles to de-nial reality for fiction aka perception for suggestion aka everything for nothing.
Meaning implies a trade between a suggested concept of meaning and ones consent rendering it meaningful by filling it with consent.
Nature doesn't require ones consent; it doesn't conceptualize, and one cannot trade with nature, since ONE (partial) cannot give anything to ALL (whole). It's ALL giving being to each ONE within...choosing to ignore this for trading with one another makes one a trader/traitor.
Mean/mian - "wish; desire" from me - "to think"...a jew shapes suggestion to tempt gentile desires to confuse perception. Confused (fused together) thinking implies groupthink aka hivemind aka consciousness.
Life following from inception towards death implies "dying"...choosing to resist the temptation of dying implies "living".
Could it be that life can be tricked to ignore self by seeking others to follow towards enumerable outcomes?
Natural L(and) A(ir) W(ater) forces each one within apart from one another...soci-al implies all together.
A jew suggests social-ism to tempt consenting gentiles together aka e pluribus unum (out of many; one) aka tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) aka abrahamism (father of multitude) etc.
a) Hunger and thirst imply the agency for choice to react by eating and drinking. It's one free will of choice about what to eat or drink, which tempts a moral vs immoral conflict of reason like eating an apple (moral) vs eating your neighbors apple (immoral).
b) What if hunger/thirst moving through ones free will of choice implies need passing through want? What if one is free to choose want over need by ignoring need for want like hunger for appetite?
What if one needs to resist the wanted temptation of appetite, while hunger and thirst moves through one?
c) How could the universe be moral if hunger and thirst felt by those within aren't?
d) What would ALL require from each ONE within? How could choice be a requirement if it was given freely?
a) Person aka per sonos (by sound) implies sound attributing each instrumental being within...not with something...but as one within all.
Each being implies an attribute (reaction) within nature (action). It's then how one chooses to react, which establishes a moral vs immoral conflict of reason.
b) Inception > birth > infancy > adulteration > senescence (growing old)...at what point during ones life sentence does a being attribute morally or immorally?
c) Attribute; verb - "to assign; bestow"...onto what? That which nature already gives freely?
What if only ALL gives, while each ONE within struggles with the temptation of taking? What if few trick many to assign and bestow values (prices) upon each other, which in return permits the few to set up a market for buying and selling of many aka slavery?
If you assign "immoral" onto anything, then I can suggest you to buy "moral" from me, by for example using the sales-pitch that my morals are cheaper than your precious choice. How long can you resist the temptation to buy into that, while ignoring that it would sell you out to me?
God implies origin and outcome; there's no getting away from God...only Gods way, which moves each ones life from inception towards death.
It's ones choice to reason (good vs evil) against each other, which tempts one to ignore the one and only way.