interrupt positive progress to debate
That's because choosing to hold onto positive establishes a conflict of reason against negative.
Nature cannot be interrupted...each one within implies rupture aka a partial burst forth from whole.
group solidarity
Fluid (inception towards death) sets solids (life) apart from one another...a jew suggests gentiles to come together aka to join groups, which destroys solidarity.
This means that whenever P is true, Q must also be true.
a) Who defines meaning? Who holds onto truth? Who wields the free will of choice to lie?
b) How does implication define (affix); when it implies ATION (action; motion)?
c) How could one hold onto implication (if/then) if it moves?
d) How could one lie without another holding onto truth?
The Nature of Implication...Logical Structure
What if one can only structure (matter) within nature (motion)? What if reasoning (logic) about structure (suggestion) tempts one to ignore nature (perceivable)?
The conflict within implication arises
a) What if fall (antecedent) generates rise (consequent)?
b) What if "within" implies as partial within whole? How could there be a conflict in-between partial and whole, when each partial implies a part of whole?
Could partials in conflict with one another ignore whole?
The antecedent may not always clearly define the conditions under which the consequent holds.
What if antecedent moves (inception towards death), which prevents consequent (life) from holding onto?
Does a suggested definition tempt ones consent to hold onto it? What if letting go of suggested would clear up ones perception?
saying “All birds can fly” implies...
a) Only within all can one say to one another.
b) Suggested collectivism (all birds) tempts one to ignore each one bird within all aka a differentiation/separation from one another.
if something is
IF everything was perceivable; THEN one can suggest to one another what is. Consenting to the latter establishes a conflict of reason (is vs isn't).
exceptions like ostriches or penguins
Why are exceptions alike? Why can one perceive differences among ostriches and penguins? What is the rule...same; different or alike?
The context in which implications are made
a) If there's an origin; then context can be made within.
b) Implication implies being within (im) fold (plica) of action (ation)...it deosn't require context; it offers each one within the foundation for self discernment.
Consenting to context corrupts self discernment.
If it rains, then the ground will be wet
If it's about rain; then why inject "will be" aka being will?
When considering actions and their reactions
a) There can be only action (motion) and reactions (matter), hence a setting apart of oneness into ones.
b) Con-side implies "siding together"; being implies in-between (life) sides (inception/death).
implications often involve predicting outcomes
What if the one predicting outcomes ignores the implication of being moved from inception towards death within origin?
Could a prediction invert ones sight from origin towards outcome?
“-ation” typically indicates a process or action related to a verb.
Action cannot relate to anything, only reactions can relate to one another. Process (action) exists before differentiation (reactions).
Typical implies symbolic...how does one symbolizes action/motion without contradicting action/motion with an affixed symbol/idol/brand/truth/definition etc.?
The context in which implications are made can alter
If implication is made within motion, then what could motion alternate with?
“Creation” implies bringing something into existence.
Show me creation without transformation aka bring something into existence without transforming it within/out of and in response to everything that already exists...
“Reaction” implies responding to an action or stimulus.
An as oppose to another? If action/motion is one stimuli; then what other stimulates reactions?
actions lead to various outcomes or reactions
If one can react by choice; then one lives within the process of dying, which further implies the only outcome of each living reaction...the enacting process of dying, hence back to same origin.
There's no variety in outcome, because coming out of being implies from variety back into same origin.
logical implications
A contradiction in terms aka imbalance (logic) balance (implication).
helps clarify how implications function logically while recognizing their limitations in real-world applications
Implication implies setting apart IF and THEN...to apply implies joining together, which is why applying reason contradicts implication.
Authoritative Sources
There can be only one source for each effect...
Offers clear definitions
Only motion offers clarity; affixed definitions obscure it.
consciousness arises from unconscious matter
a) Matter (life) rises (inception) and falls (death) during motion.
b) Sciou/scire - "to know" implies as matter (perception) during momentum (perceivable) of motion aka differentiation.
c) Few suggest con (together) scious (to know) to tempt each consenting one of many to ignore differentiation for consenting alike.
if we imagine
Image/imitari - "copy" implies an artificial shape (suggestion) within reality (perceivable). Suggested pluralism (we) tempts ones singular perception to ignore self for others.
face a hard problem
Problem/proballein - "throw forwards" implies an origin (motion) throwing (momentum) one (matter) forwards. Whatever one faces tempts one to ignore origin, because facing implies looking forwards, while ignoring what throws one forwards.
an aspect of consciousness
Con implies "together"...aspect implies special aka particular aka "apart" from one another.
sciences have practically stalled out in terms of advancement, only ever capable of spiraling deeper and deeper down their holes of “specialization”
Consenting to suggested scientism implies specialization advancing forwards. Oneself is the special, nature that which forwards one, and ones resistance to the temptation of following implies stalling ones decline.
the true geniuses capable of bridging the gaps between these chasms seem to be so few and far between.
Bridging the gap is what consent to suggested establishes, while ignoring that nature sets each one within apart from one another. Many willingly choose to ignores this by joining together aka bridging gaps, which sets apart few and far between.
capable of entertaining ideas without necessarily believing
Aka letting through (perceivable inspiration) instead of holding onto (suggested information). That capability implies ones free will of choice resisting (need) temptation (want).
the idea that psyche, aka consciousness, exists in some form or another
a) Psyche implies "animating power" aka flow...not form, which implies animated by flow.
b) Another can only exist among form (partial matter), which the animating power of flow (whole motion) differentiates from one another.
c) Ones consent to suggested idealism tempts one to ignore differences, hence also that which differentiates.
infused throughout
Form (life) coming in (inception) and out (death) of flow...not fused together; but diffused apart.
“limited” or different form
Same flow (inception towards death) as the only limit for each free form (life) differentiated within...just because one is free to limit self to others, doesn't mean that a self imposed limit cannot be lifted by raising self.
trust the experts
EX (out of; from) PER (through, by means of), hence ex (life) per (inception towards death).
Suggested TRUST (want to hold onto) inverts perceivable THRUST (need to let go)...
gamed to advance
Aka suggested progressivism tempting "play to reach".
everyone’s knowledge
Each ones perception within all perceivable implies ledge within known.
scientific publishing
To publish implies making publicly known. Knowledge implies privately (ones perception) known (all perceivable).
Science/scio - "to know" aka ones perception or scientism aka as suggested by another.
You are implying things
Things (plural) implies everything (singularity) aka a setting apart of whole...
No dummy. You are doing that.
Reasoning aka no vs yes; dummy vs smarty; you vs me; are vs aren't; doing vs don't; that vs this...tempts one to ignore implication (if/then).
Where's the conflict within implication?
ATION implicates what? Reactions...
When we eat we usually destroy the organism (Chaos)
a) All implies ongoing hunger; each one within a temporary organ being consumed; while struggling to sustain self during procession.
b) Suggested organism tempts one to organize aka to put consent and suggested together. Doing that tempts one to ignore that ones perception is the organ, set apart, within all perceivable.
c) Natural order establishes (inception) and destroys (death) chaos (life). Sustaining an establishment (stable mind) while being destroyed...that's chaotic; that's life.
Sleight of hand: https://genius.com/The-exploited-chaos-is-my-life-lyrics
turn it into energy for
Energy directs forwards...resistance (life) within velocity (inception towards death) can be directed to turn against each other, when ignoring origin.
Being implies forwarded resistance...others tempt resistance to turn against each other.
for the body (order)
FOR (order) THE (inversion aka suggested the-ism) BODY (chaos)
seeds that survive digestion
Digestion (life) implies procession (inception towards death)...hence inter-course allowing a seed of life to perpetuate self through another as off-spring during procession. Ones free will of choice struggles with planting the seed and tilling the soil...
un eaten
No such thing during ongoing consumption. Hunger doesn't waste food....appetite does.
Temet Nosche - Know Thyself
- Nosche/gnosis/gno - "to know" aka to perceive perceivable.
- Temet/töm-et - "letting be filled" aka consenting to suggested.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/temet + https://venere.it/en/the-meaning-and-history-of-the-name-temet/
cause if you don't
a) Cause moves; effect can choose to de-nial (nihilo; nothing) being moved.
b) Reason (do vs don't) contradicts implication (if/then).
c) Cause does; effects respond to being done aka redo.
will tell you who you are
Others suggest ones free WILL of choice what one wants or not wants to be, which tempts one to ignore that ARE implies being... https://www.etymonline.com/word/are
what does it matter when it's part of the same system
Motion implies same; matter implies different parts within same whole...a suggested system tempts alike consent from different partials, while ignoring same whole.
One joins others to be part of a system...that contradicts being set apart from one another within whole, hence being differentiated (life) during sameness (inception towards death).
forked political system
Being choice within balance implies prodded (press forwards); choosing among suggested choices implies two-prodded (forked) into a conflict of reason against others.
give as illusion of choice
Balance gives choice...taking choices (consenting to suggested) makes given balance illusive to ones choice.
All of our work is for the Creator's Honor
a) Generator (motion) Transformer (momentum) Reactor (matter)...that's how everything generates each thing. Suggested creationism inverts this into "something out of nothing".
b) EN'ERGY, noun (Gr. work) - "internal or inherent power" aka work internally differentiating employees.
Not "our work"; but each one employed within work + not "all of"; but all forwarding each one aka "all for one and one for all".
c) Suggested honorism tempts one to attach; all perceivable detaches each ones perception from one another. If each one honors all, then each different one responds alike to same.
Instead of giving anything...try being within everything given, while resisting the temptation to take.
we are using
All uses one; one reuses all...other ones suggest pluralism (we) to abuse ones consent.
gave us to live
Giving honor back ignores that giving (inception) and taking (death) happens simultaneously, and needs to be (life) resisted.
King David
David implies a suggested noun aka a brand upon; while King implies an addition (adjective) to a noun.
If nature moves, and few within suggest nouns and adjectives to tempt many to hold onto definitions (definite; to affix), then what about verbs denoting motion?
Hebrew Dawidh - "darling, beloved friend; beloved one" aka holding dear; wanting to befriend; loving vs hating...each contradicting motion.
Check this out... https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/davit aka "fishing the anchor"...suggestion fishes for consent; which anchors choice when given. Those suggesting are given consent, which implies Maghen Dawidh (shield of david)...
Anyway...thanks for the inspiration to write.
reached this conclusion
a) Con (together) clude (close)...ion (action) opens up reactions by setting each apart from one another.
b) Reaching implies inclining towards, while ignoring to be center within balance.
Sleight of hand: "reach out and touch faith"... https://genius.com/Depeche-mode-personal-jesus-lyrics
higher ups work by subverting
Consenting to a suggestion implies sub (under) vert (turn), which in return permits another up high, who controls (rolls together) those turning under.
Consent shirks choice aka turning from self (ignorance) and against (reason) others. Suggestion turns one from perception and thereby into ignorance.
operating system
a) Operate (to be in effect) tempts one to ignore being effect (perception) within cause (perceivable). A jew suggests operationalism to invert gentiles perception... https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/
b) System (organized whole) tempts a partial effect within whole cause to ignore self for joining others.
How does one join another? By consenting to a suggestion. Few suggest -ISMS as systems to operate upon/within/through consenting many.
Your inner ideology
Consenting to idealism (ideo) establishes logic/reason (logy) within self, while permitting another to shape it from outside...ideology ain't yours.
Ideo/idea/idein/weid - "to see" implies ones perception within all perceivable...not the suggestions of another.
Not the things you believe are true. But the things you KNOW are true!
Knowledge cannot be held onto (truth) without establishing a contradiction (lie)...
What matters is that you are powerful.
Motion is the power which fills (inception) and drains (death) matter (life). A jew tempts gentiles to hold onto matter as to gain power over one another...the currency used for that exchange/transaction implies the current draining.
survival of the fittest and Darwinism
a) Consenting to follow an -ism makes one weaker than the one suggesting it. A chosen one becomes the fittest by ones choice weakening itself.
b) Erasmus Darwin aka Eros (to love) Deorwine (dear friend) aka wanting to hold together.
c) FITTING where? Together with others or apart within whole?
the intellectual elite
Intelligo (to understand) elite (selection; choice)...selecting another, while choosing to stand under, tempts one to ignore actual (perception) for fictional (suggestion).
A jew suggests THE-ism to tempt gentiles to understand/stand under an external authority.
ALL people
Aka suggested collectivism tempting one to ignore each one person, while permitting another to suggest in the name of "all people" aka "we the people".
like animals
Animation differentiates matter from one another. A jew collectivizes matter into groups such as "humans" and "animals" to distract gentiles from discerning self as being within the animated hue of man.
Their ideology is similar to Judaism
Suggested pluralism (their); idealism (ideo); logism (logy); determinism (is); progressivism (to) and judaism...tempts each ones different free will of choice to consent "similarly" as one another.
...on the other hand.
If energy implies ones hand, then what does "on the other hand" imply? What is the difference between a suggested alternative and being (life) within alternation (inception towards death)?
through intricate intrigue, plotting, scheming
All perceivable moves through ones perception...the suggestions by another don't go through; but tempt one to hold onto it.
Intrigue (to hinder within); plotting (planing; flattening; spreading) and scheming (shaping figures of speech) implies suggested information by a jew being shaped within the mind/memory of consenting gentiles.
decision making and not always simple puppetry
a) One cannot make...only remake aka respond to being made.
b) Choice within balance cannot decide (settle)...balance forces choice to adapt, hence the struggle withing oneself of needing to resist want.
c) Suggested nihilism (nihilo; nothing) tempts one to ignore that everything perceivable implies ALL WAY for each one within. Consenting to a suggestion establishes a conflict of reason (always vs never) within ones ignorant mind/memory.
d) Puppet (consent) selects master of puppets (suggestion).
Sleight of hand: https://genius.com/Metallica-master-of-puppets-lyrics aka "I'm your source of self destruction...Leading on your death's construction".
jews exactly wanted
Exact implies ones EXpression within all ACTion. A jew tempts gentiles to want or not want suggested, while ignoring perceivable need. A jew manipulates reactions to distract gentiles from action.
extreme ideologies are the response of nations and peoples when their existence is at stake
a) Extreme implies on the outside...ones expressed stance (existence) implies within (life) sides (inception/death).
b) Ones consent to outside (suggestion) over inside (perception) tethers one to another, hence staking self.
different ideas
Any different idea suggested tempts alike consent, while one ignores the same perceivable origin.
agency will
Free WILL of choice implies reaction aka regency. Will cannot act; only react to being (life) enacted upon (inception towards death).
If ones choice consents to a chosen ones suggestion, then one selects another as agency for ones regency, hence..."divergences caused by the agentur of the Illuminati"
Psy-ops
- PSYCHE implies animating power aka natural law.
- LOGY implies reasoning about artificial, while ignoring natural.
- OPERATE (to be in effect) inverts being effect within cause.
weapon
There can be only one tool within offense/defense (balance)...free will of choice.
the war against
Logic/logos (word) within self establishes conflicts of reason against others.
disinformation
Aka form within (in) flow (ation) divided (dis) against each other.
crucial/cross
Being alive implies being moved ACROSS (inception towards death).
needs to be replaced
What if being implies placed response (life) within need (inception towards death)? What if waiting for any replacement tempts one to ignore that?
our only hope
a) Our (plural) contradicts only (singular)...what if others suggest pluralism to tempt ONE to ignore self?
b) Hope (and fear) implies towards outcome; being implies in response to origin? What if others suggest outcomes to tempt one to ignore perceivable origin?
meaning
a) What if all meaning is suggested by few to tempt many to respond alike, while reasoning against each other about it?
b) What if meaning/intention/having in mind implies ones consent to hold onto suggested information, while ignoring perceivable inspiration?
what exactly do you mean? At least specify...
This want for exactitude and specification implies tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) aka trying to affix meaning, while ignoring that nature moves.
That is a definition of a word.
Definite/define - "to affix"...hence "the system is broken and needs to be fixed."
That's the trick...a jew suggests a system (word) to tempt gentiles to try to affix it (definition), while ignoring that nature (sound) sets apart each one within.
which
a) Perception is mandatory; suggestion is optional...asking which, while waiting for a suggested answer, tempts one to ignore mandatory adaptation to perceivable.
b) https://www.etymonline.com/word/which
Perceivable implies same; perception implies different; suggestion implies alike.
Order (inception towards death) generates chaos (life)...chaos (growth) struggles to sustain self within order (loss).
Chaos facing each other within conflicts of reason, about suggested information, ignores the natural order of perceivable inspiration.
Sleight of hand: Face/Off...
has always been since the fall
How many beings (life) fall within the way of all (inception towards death)? Each one!
the system is broken
System implies "a whole compounded of parts"; which cannot work, because a moving whole sets partials apart from one another.
Few tempt many to consent to suggested systems called -ISMS, which nature; the moving whole, forces apart no matter how long the consenting many are holding onto it.
needs to be fixed
Aka tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together), set into the consenting minds of gentiles by a suggesting jew. This mindset of "needing" to fix a moving system inverts reality...needing to move; wanting to affix.
Nature cannot be fixed...being can be tricked to ignore "to be" aka towards (inception towards death) being (life).
Being implies temporary chaos (life) within ongoing natural order (inception towards death)...few suggest -ISMS to tempt many to create order out of chaos by fixing together that which nature sets apart.
VS
That's the sub-VERS-ion within a gentiles mind called logic/reason, which tempts gentiles to turn against each other within conflicts of reason about jewish suggestions.
Left VS right is based on gentile consent to suggested left-ism and right-ism by a jew...while choosing to ignore perceivable balance (right/left) within nature. It's the VS which imbalances ones consenting choice, when choosing to hold onto a side.
the system is working as intended and needs to be destroyed.
Underneath any suggested system WORKS perceivable natural aka an ongoing process of dying (loss) which generates temporary life (growth).
EN'ERGY, noun (Greek work) - "internal or inherent power"...a being is employed within work as the power of growth within the power of loss aka as reaction within action aka as one within all aka as partial within whole aka as choice within balance aka as resistance within velocity etc.
Work cannot be destroyed...only employment can be terminated.
Which one is it?
Only oneself can consent to what another suggest IS, while ignoring what WAS perceivable beforehand. Nature was moving before anyone within can choose to hold onto what is...doing that turns one away from nature (motion) and against each other (matter).
Davos
a) Davos (Latin tubus; ravine) - "to rob; to plunder"
b) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CHE_Davos_Flag.svg + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#/media/File:Flag_of_Ukraine.svg
ideas coming from desire
Aka suggested idealism tempting ones desire to consent.
Ideas coming from emotion
Emotion (moving out) tempts one to ignore being within motion...others suggest idealism to tempt ones consent to hold onto ideas, which ignores motion.
to minimize reality
Reality cannot be minimized or maximized...all is real. Each one within reality can be tempted to minimize or maximize exposure to fiction, while ignoring reality.
nobody
How could there be no material frame (body) during animation?
talking
Nature doesn't articulate sound...it moves it.
retard
There can be no retardation during animation...only a material frame ignoring to be (life) moved (inception towards death).
a) All perceivable implies same; each ones perception implies difference...others suggest likeness to distract from that.
b) Coincidence suggests "being identical in nature"; which tempts one to ignore that essence (being) is differentiated from one another within the same nature.
c) Equador aka "to make equal" aka e pluribus unum (out of many; one) aka tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) aka abrahamism (father of multitude) aka equalizing (equality) differences (diversity) etc.
d) Mesopotamia aka mesos (middle) potamos (river) aka being at middle (life) of river (inception towards death) aka different matter at the middle of the same motion.
resistance leaders
If resistance (life) within velocity (inception towards death), then one needs to resist being led by temptation.
cowardice seems to be the root...
a) Consenting to a suggestion implies shirking of ones response-ability (free will of choice) onto another.
b) Choice needs to respond to origin (balance), while being tempted to want or not want to respond to suggested outcomes.
c) A chosen one tempts a consenting one with "coward" + "braveheart; hero; lion; champion etc." to keep responding to outcome (suggestion) over origin (perception).
Edit: a hero journey aka from zero to hero tempts one to believe that fighting towards an outcome is heroic, while not fighting is cowardly. In reality...one needs to resist (life) origin (inception towards death), while struggling with the temptation to go along.
If Mario is a hero for journeying through levels; defeating Bowser and saving Peach, then why is there one Mario came after the next with no end in sight? When Shigeru Miyamoto dies...cowards will praise him a hero and continue his legacy by playing Mario games.
Live Action Genocide Tourism
From camera-teams in Vietnam, over Hollywood style ISIS executions, to GoPro and drone footage in the Russia vs Ukraine theater of war...all eclipsed by the internet of things positioning cameras everywhere, including into the hands of those within the genocide.
Imaging a live-streamer showing drone footage of the drones hunting him to those he seeks help from...
Doing implies bringing to pass...being implies responding to be (life) passed (inception towards death). Few tempt many to wait for things to be done, while ignoring to re-do self.
One can never run out of inspiration, but driving others out of patience with information is easy...
Luck implies getting in return...that turns one against others, while tempting one to ignore what one already got.
Consider "running out of luck"...if luck gets one something along the line, then how could one run out of the line?
a) The division (dis) of onward motion (course) cannot be destroyed...the divided (life) within onward motion (inception towards death) can be tempted against each other within conflicts of reason for mutual destruction.
b) What if me taking words apart that others hold together...makes confusion clearer to see?
c) What if I didn't consent to suggested objectivism by simply adapting as subject to perceivable origin?
Can one live without trying to reach objects? Can one subject self to whatever comes along? Does objectivism contradict adaptation?
a) zoo/zoion/zion...
b) Zoo (animal) Bio (life). Few suggest zoology and biology to distract many from living within animation.