TPTB want us to be angry and hate each other
(i.imgflip.com)
Comments (13)
sorted by:
Exact opposite of reality. We hate each other naturally. The ZOG wants us to think we love each other so that whites are all slaughtered.
Blatantly false. Why do you think all this division propaganda exists and the left is radicalized to hate their opponents? Why do you think russia and Ukraine areN'T being told to love each other?
What did Jesus say were the 2 greatest Commands?
And John 3:16
I wish this "zog" thing or whatever term you use is as based as you insist it is.
It doesn’t.
Because killing white people is the point.
Thanks for admitting what you are.
Show me where blacks are being to taught en masse to love whites and consider them as brothers.
Correct.
Thanks for admitting you don't know how "wishing something was X" works.
You’re purposely missing the point.
The point: TPTB want people to hate each other.
Wrong.
Thanks Guy, a couple more such meta reminders would not be excessive. IMHO. Keep the faith.
Ad.
a) Keeping ignores the all giving.
b) Ones faith/bheidh - "trust" permits another to bank it.
Wrong. Keeping implies you know that the giver exists.
Not true. But if true, so what?
Wrong versus right implies keeping within a circle, while ignoring line given.
...taking given; thereby shaping a contradiction in-between taking rightfully vs wrongfully.
One knows...you is based on me, hence an understanding (standing under one another). It's I AM (jesus) who defines what YOU ARE (judah).
a) Giving implies IM-pression, being given implies EX-pression aka impression (inception towards death) gives expression (life).
Taking represses expression or as Madonna put it: "Express yourself; don't repress yourself; and I'm not sorry; it's human nature".
b) Putting THE before GIVER contradicts the first commandment.
If implies then (linear progression); true implies versus false (circular conflict)...that's how ones trust in either true or false side was banked inwardly (logic) and outwardly (reason) within a confining circle.
Nature doesn't give true or false options to bind self...nature gives free will of choice. True and false are optional to what primary gives.
False. It implies a true line and a false line colliding until there is none of the false line and only the true line remains. It's more linear than whatever weird worldview you have.
See above
You don't even need to take anything, Someone can just drop something on your patio as a gift, and you don't need to do anything to have it.
That's a good thing if that were true. If you take something, you only do one or the other.
So are you a Christian? And don't do any "THIS IMPLIES THAT" stupidity with this question.
Nope. The giver exists. "REEEEE GIVING THINGS TO PEOPLE KILLS THEM!!!!!" Nope. "Inception towards death" doesn't exist. Nobody but you believe in such a concept. It's a fairytale you made up. "OH LOOK HE SAID "MADE UP" LEMME CLAIM THAT MEANS SOMETHING ELSE!! MUH PRECIOUS WORD MAGIC SO GREATE!!!!1!1!1!"
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHA you base WORLDVIEW BELIEFS on SONGS??!!? Even more reason your wordgame-based worldview is unsustainable. "Basing implies [WHATEVER I SAY HERE]" in 3, 2,.... (Yes you're that predictable.)
"REEEEEEE MY IDEOLOGICAL OPPONENT PUT CERTAIN WORDS IN CERTAIN POSITIONS!!! THIS MEANS SOMETHING!!!! WORDS ARE MAGICAL AND IF YU SAY THEM IN A CERTAIN ORDER THEY DO A MAGIC THING!!!! BUT BAD WORD POSITION MEANS BAD MAGIC!!1!11! REEEEEE!!!"
If your worldview is false, then you should reject it. If you stop word games and be normal, then lots of good will come your way. Linear progression!!
Arbitrary. It could be shaped an octagonal prism for all I care. Doesn't have any bearing on anything. >"The words "shaped" and "bearing" do/imply something!!11!1" in 3, 2,...
Wrong. There is no circle for trust to be in. You think trust is a physical thing, don't you. Like how athiests believe all is matter. Show me this imagined "circle". Your claims about circles are unfounded and not true.
Because it allows other things to give them. And it's not sentient, so how could it care? DUH.
Wait, you're not the source of FWOC????
INCORRECT. Every day we live as if they are integrated into all reality and concretely true. Optional, no.
"Primary" can't and doesn't give anything because it's not a noun. You messed up. Try a different word. Mabye you meant "optional to what pretzel gives". "Meant implies or does something!! Look he said the word meant! So special and magical!! Woooowwww!!" in 3, 2,....
Sorry for the late reply...
a) God implies one aka singularity...true and false implies dualism aka a plurality.
b) False versus true implies versus/verto - "to turn" aka a circular rotation.
c) Before one can collide (strike together) there has to be a separation from one another...only during linear progression (inception towards death) can there be potential separation (life) to collide against one another.
d) True and false imply options for ones choice...God giving choice implies a linear procession of cause into effect aka of action into reaction aka of if into then.
e) Remain implies each ones response (life) to the main line (inception toward death)
f) What you call true and false lines implies the beginning and end of one line put together into a circle aka the ouroboros eating its own tail. This circle of self harm represents logic inwardly and reason outwardly.
g) If there's only truth, then there couldn't be choice.
a) YOU is based on taking possession of self as "me; myself or I". Without I no YOU, hence I O U (I owe/own You). All gives each one the free will of choice to take self into possession, but not without getting possessed by another, hence IAM (jesus) getting possessed by YOU ARE (judah).
b) DON'T implies taking possession of "doing nothing", while ignoring being done within everything given.
c) Both YOU and DON'T put one at odds with one another, while ignoring that even (balance) gives odd (choice).
d) Anything implies a separation of everything, which requires from each thing the need to resist the wanted temptation of anything else.
Being given free will of choice implies being able to choose to take anything...taking binds choice within given.
One implies apart from one another (analysis)...some/sum implies together with one another (synthesis). What you call just is at odds with one another aka a contradiction.
The sum of all things implies dying; the separation of each thing implies living. A jew utilizes mosaic law to summon gentiles together; thereby inverting living into dying.
Only all perceivable gives/gifts ones perception; while any suggested gift implies poison... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Giftpilz
a) Nature does, while each being within pretends to do right or wrong against one another, instead of re-doing self.
b) Right/reg - "to move in a straight line"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/*reg- not right vs wrong circular conflict.
Coming into being implies christ (to anoint)...joining christianity destroys the anointed mind through possession aka I AM (jesus).
What's Christianity without Jesus? Torah (instruction) aka being within (in) structure (struct) of action (ion).
Implication (if/then) represents the foundation for thinking straight aka if cause (perceivable); then effect (perception)...others tempting one into do vs don't reasoning doesn't change the foundation.
EX implies "outwards". If God could express outwards, then there would be more than God outside of God...that contradicts "one and only".
So what if God (whole) impresses each ones (partial) expression within God? What if God implies energy (internal/inherent power)?
Only inwards (impression) can there be outwards (expression). Nature impresses before a being expresses. Nature forces animation through before a being inhales/ exhales in response.
God giving person aka per (by) sonos (sound) generates each instrument (mind structured within)...a singular process. A jew suggests plurality (people) while distracting gentiles from perceivable sound with suggestible words.
What about the life in-between? Doesn't life have an inception and a death? What moves life from beginning towards end? If life is animated, then how could animation not generate a momentum (inception towards death) for matter (life) to become re-animated?
a) Concept implies taking together... how could "nobody but you" take anything together?
b) To believe implies holding onto, so how could one hold onto "inception towards death", which implies an ongoing momentum?
c) Concepts and beliefs imply synthesis (holding together)...free-will-of-choice analyses (sets apart). This is why you had to ask me if I am a christian believer.
Only within sound can a song be shaped...few write songs to distract many from sound, while using the written spell-craft as a sleight of hand for those with eyes to see.
Or to quote another song... https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/simongarfunkel/thesoundofsilence.html
Words are based on sound. Games are based on given choice taking chance.
What if sound allowing instrument to discern self reveals ones position within all to each one, while the words shaped by one another make everything uncertain?
Something implies "sum of things". Thinks within a sum implies a measurement taken aka a meaning. While beings hold artificial meaning together...nature separates each being from one another.
guywholikesDjtof2024 + free-will-of-choice means "two"; yet being apart from "one" another contradicts meaning...what if one was perceivable (natural analysis), while two is suggested (artificial synthesis)?
a) True vs false (reason) contradicts if/then (implication)...if and then aren't in conflict with one another. If was before then comes into being.
b) Re-ject-ion implies reaction (life) ejected by action (inception towards death).
If...then...implies motion. Stop implies the suggested "cessation of motion". If I park a car at a stop sign, then does it stop the car from rusting? What about saying "stop" while being raped? Seems like stop represents a mental distortion of an ongoing reality...
Normal/norma - "carpenter's square"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/normal A jew uses a compass to draw a circle around gentile norms aka freemasonry.
What if free will of choice allows each one to be exceptional instead of a normie?
Being implies coming into will (life) within way (inception towards death)...
Your implies taking possession aka holding onto a side (yours vs mine) aka circular conflict.
a) Arbiter; noun - "person who has power of judging absolutely according to his own pleasure"...hence judge not; lest ye be judged.
b) Versus/verto - "to turn" aka a circle.
All was linear before anything can be shaped within. Try to shape a circle or an octagonal prism without a line...
Trust VERSUS (verto; to turn) distrust...holding onto either side shapes the circle. Same trick as is vs isn't and yes vs no.
Physical trust implies reason, mental trust implies logic...baiting mental trust (consent) into physical trust (consensus) implies logos.
Consenting to an -ism (atheism) shapes different beings alike one another. Believing implies consenting to one another's suggestions. Only within all motion can each one matter come into being.
Imagination aka image (artificial circle) within action (natural line). Image; noun - "piece of statuary; artificial representation "... https://www.etymonline.com/word/image
Holding onto anything during linear progression establishes rotation...
Claim/clamer - "to call, name, describe"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/claim Notice that nature doesn't call; name or describe any being within.
Nature gives the separation of each being from one another...pretending to give allowances to one another ignores that all was already given to each one within. Nature (linear progression) cannot hold back; only give forwards.
Notice that them (plural) contradicts it (singular)...
Sentience implies being SEND, to care implies being CARRIED aka a transfer of life from inception towards death. Nature sends each sentient being, while carrying things to carry for those who ignore singularity for plurality.
a) Nature cannot wait; it moves, which generates momentum (balance) for matter (choice).
b) Free implies within dominance; will/want implies within need; of implies out of/within/in response to, and choice implies within balance.
c) Being within nature implies effect within source...viewing one another as source of anything implies the temptation of "affection".
Source separates each effect (analysis); affection tempts effects together (synthesis).
How did you choose between correct or incorrect? Option (choice) al (balance) implies nature giving each being the option how to adapt. True vs false represent artificial imbalance for ones optional choice.
Living implies apart from one another, hence as an OFF-SPRING. Others suggest pluralism to invert each singular mind into a controlled environment called "consensus".
Integration (together within) represents the inversion of separation (apart within). Only within whole can there be partials, putting partials together implies summation, hence being summoned by others.
A sum of partials cannot ever form a whole, because the process of separation from whole into partial takes a toll. Look at any puzzle...putting the pieces together cannot ever achieve the whole picture on the box, because the separating lines will always show.
Mosaic law implies a game of puzzle each jew plays with the sum of consenting gentiles. That's tikkun olam (repairing the world by bringing together)...falling for it tricks each gentiles to waste being on trying to fix and fit into, instead of shaping temporary form (life) within ongoing flow (inception towards death).
Prim (first) al (all)...then anyone within. Nouns are utilized by chosen ones to trick consenting to ones to hold onto secondary labels within primary motion.
Nature doesn't noun/name any being. Natural sound moves each instrumental being apart from one another, which another exploits to shape words as names to direct instruments aka each jew playing most gentiles like a fiddle.
Prim (first) al (all) + option (choice) al (all)...that's how analysis works, while holding onto meaning implies a synthesis.