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:
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.