1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

Not in a single one have I seen

That's the trick...space so big and nano so small one cannot perceive it without others suggesting it.

Sleight of hand...Mork & Mindy aka mork/myrk - "darkness" and mindy - "mind".

Nanu-Nanu..."unless you can say no (nano) there will be no pieces left for yourself"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9xPivDPrCc

talking heads...keep piling up on their own narratives

It's those who consent that are keeping the narrated (narrative) stories (talk) within mind/memory. Those who consent to suggested are claiming ownership.

it is very difficult to take

NaNO-NaNO...it's very tempting to take and very hard to resist that temptation by letting go.

3
free-will-of-choice 3 points ago +3 / -0

The case against

If you assume the position of power (suggestion) then people will soon give it to you (consent).

important context

If you give them what they desire (suggestion); then you can deprive them of what they really need (perception).

3
free-will-of-choice 3 points ago +3 / -0

lets see what the public does

Luring with suggestion to fish for consent.

if no revolt then we will normalize this'.

The norm implies following suggested; revolt implies turning from perceivable, while following suggested.

riot

Sleight of hand: https://genius.com/Quiet-riot-cum-on-feel-the-noize-lyrics

Aka feel (perception) the noize (suggestion)...one is quiet; the other loud.

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

The ring implies religion (that which binds anew); the conflict within implies reason, and the onlookers outside imply mass ignorance.

Those within conflicts of reason are repleting their resistance against each other; while tempting onlookers to focus on the conflict; which thereby are binding themselves too into a box.

The few suggesting what the conflict is about are operating out of bounds; remain hidden among mass ignorance; control both sides of every conflict within the ring, while getting empowered from behind to shape destruction upfront.

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

Shape of earring...

3
free-will-of-choice 3 points ago +3 / -0

JAB Holding Company is owned by the Reimann family..."Reimann (Hebrew: ריימן) is a German and jewish surname, also Reiman, Reinman, Rhinemann, Riemann. It is also commonly associated with Ashkenazi jews."

2
free-will-of-choice 2 points ago +2 / -0

throw up the biggest smokescreen possible with jewmatria

As in gematria/geometria/geometry aka measuring the earth? If all is one in energy; then how does anyone within measure all of it?

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

who are the "real jews"?

a) YOU/jew...if one claims self as "me; myself or I"; then one views others as YOU/jew.

b) Real aka re-al aka ones REsponse (perception) to ALL (perceivable).

c) Fiction aka fic-tion aka feigning (suggestion) action (perception).

am familiar with Revelation

a) Familiar/family/familia - "servants of household" implies held by bondage, which contradicts being set free (revealed)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/family#etymonline_v_1107

b) FAMILIAR; adjective - "the noun meaning "demon, evil spirit that answers one's call" is from 1580s (familiar spirit is attested from 1560s). The Latin plural, used as a noun, meant "the slaves"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/familiar#etymonline_v_1106

c) Revelation aka sharia/shari'ah (the revealed law) shar (revelation)

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

this irrational need to insert Soviet Union in everything bad

Soviet/sovet/suvetu - "assembly" implies putting together. Unit/unitas/unus - "one" implies being apart from one another.

Chosen one (unit) implies set apart from gentiles assembled (soviet) together...same trick as with united states; united kingdom; european union; united nations etc.

There was no KGB...

KGB aka Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti aka Committee of State Harmlessness

Komit/commit - "to commit" implies gentiles giving consent to jewish suggestions, thereby setting a jewish state apart, while uniting gentiles together. That was always the modus operandi for subverting many by few and Bezopasnosti implies the chutzpah to call the suggested harmless upfront, while the later consent by gentiles establishes the harm.

  • Merchant: "Would you like to buy?"
  • Consumer: "What are you selling?"
  • Merchant: "Whatever you want...it's harmless"

First line implies the state; second line implies the committee; third line implies the sales pitch...that's the KGB aka Soviet Union aka happy merchant of temptation operating since Ab immemorabili (time immemorial).

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0
  • IN'TELLECT, noun (Latin intellectus, from intelligo, to understand)

Notice that it's gentiles who are "standing under" all these institutions by electing each jew above them.

Religion; Family; Nation; Property

a) Notice that nature sets free, while religion (Latin religio, to bind anew) implies bondage.

b) Notice that nature sets each off-spring apart from one another, while family (Latin familia) implies a collective body held within a house (household).

c) Notice that nature implies native within action (nat-ion) aka moving apart, while suggested nations tempt natives together.

d) Notice that a moving nature cannot be held onto; while property implies artificial value for ownership.

resulting in

Result/resulto/resilio - "rebound; to leap back". What if each effect (life) rebounds back to cause (inception towards death)?

What if gentiles giving consent to a jewish suggestion will always result/rebound in a jew getting and gentiles giving away?

the real problem is the representative system.

a) System implies particular connected together within a whole...nature sets whole (action) apart (reactions).

b) Solution (inception towards death) generates problems (life)...hence ones struggle to sustain life while dying aka to temporary grow within ongoing loss.

c) Represent implies ones response (perception) to all presented (perceivable)...voting "representatives" implies ones consent to the suggestion of another one, while ignoring to respond to what nature presents.

Furthermore...present (before sending) + presense (before sensing) + presence (before being) implies origin sending; making sense available and establishing being.

Weimar

Aka WIH (holy) MAR/MERE (sea) implying the whole (holy) seeing (sea) I. Mere/mori aka body (life) of water (inception towards death).

Frankfurt

Aka FRANK (free) FURT (fort; stronghold) implying binding free will of choice by tempting consent to hold onto suggested. Frankfurt is located in HESSE aka essence of being, and the location for the European (u are peon) Central Bank.

Being implies center (choice) of circumference (balance) and banking a center implies tempting choice to hold onto suggested sides; thereby establishing imbalance for self within an ongoing current by holding onto a temporary currency (current sea), hence Frankfurt am Main aka ones free (frank) will of choice holding onto (furt) what is mine/mein (main).

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

impossible to find alternate history

Alternation implies change of position...few suggest stories/storage to distract many from alternation by tempting them to hold onto suggested stories, hence becoming the mental/memory storage.

lost the info

Inform implies during flow aka formed growth (life) within flowing loss (inception towards death)...that's why all info gets lost.

the ones which don't parrot the same

What if few suggest all the different information to tempt many to parrot the same consent, while regurgitating it to one another?

Does nature require consent given back from those within? Do those within nature tempt each other with suggestion (does Polly want a cracker) to give consent (Polly wants a cracker)?

recommend

MEND (mind) RE (responding) COM (together)...within nature each different mind responds differently to the same source. Suggested COM tempts different minds to parrot the same consent.

tl;dr: Try adapting to perceivable inspiration instead of searching for suggested information. The former constantly alternates, while the latter tempts you to hold onto it.

2
free-will-of-choice 2 points ago +2 / -0

What Happens When You Name The Talmud?

a) Choice is being ignored for chance (happenstance).

b) To label (name) makes one liable to another.

c) Suggested theism (the) tempts one into bondage to another.

If one hasn't learned how to teach self to discern the aforementioned, then talmud (instruction) will be utilized by others for destruction.

IN (being within) or DE (against another) STRUCT (to spread) ION (action)...reactions (life) spread within action (inception towards death) both by sustaining self and by destroying others.

In short...motion carries matter as structures (growth) within destruction (loss). In-struction implies talmud aka state of being; de-struction implies talmudic reasoning aka being against another.

2
free-will-of-choice 2 points ago +2 / -0

they would prefer one thing over another

a) What if chosen ONEs suggest many things to establish a conflict of reason (over vs under) among others?

b) Does "over vs under" contradict "as above so below"? How is a fish in conflict with water?

they control

Control implies "rolled together"...few suggest pluralism (they) to roll the consent of many together within circular logic aka conflicts of reason.

party-line

PARTials (life) within a LINE (inception towards death) need to resist the wanted temptation to follow...

We need to be as flexible

Ones consent to suggested pluralism (we) binds singular, hence preventing ones ability to bend (flexibility) as ray within light.

Participate in any group and try to be more flexible to experience mass resistance.

thinking is also how we arrive

Being implies in-between (life) arrival (inception) and departure (death) as an arriving partial.

unplug every thing for every one

How does one unplug from "we"? How did one (singular) plug into we (plural)?

2
free-will-of-choice 2 points ago +2 / -0

want linear

Needing to resist (life) linear (inception towards death) progression or wanting to follow suggested progressivism.

TPTB have a rolodex

Reasoning among many aka circular logic implies the rolodex (rolling index) utilized by few, while many ignore power (motion) of being (matter).

to arrive at a destination through numerous scenarios

Same destination (death); different scenarios (life)...numerology (reasoning about enumeration) tempts ONE to ignore the ONE and only scenic route to each ONES final destination.

Sleight of hand:

  • "Here we go, yo, here we go, yo" (inception towards death)
  • "So what, so what, so what's the scenario?" (life)

Why is life struggling with self discernment?

both war and no-war

Yes vs no implies a conflict of reason aka the foundation of war.

to enslave

a) Slave/slav/slovo - "word; speech"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/Slav

b) Perceivable sound sets choice free; suggested words bind choice by consent.

headed for...trending towards...current trends continue

Aka suggested progressivism tempting ones consent to follow into a conflict of reason (war) against other ones.

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

only thing they fear is force more powerful than them

Gentiles are the more powerful force...a jew isn't afraid of gentiles; a jew suggests terror-ism to frighten gentiles.

If you give them power over to you

Gentiles are the more powerful force...given consensual to each chosen ones suggestion.

see themselves as superior and others as inferior

a) Chosen one implies selected to be superior by inferior choice.

b) If ones choice selects chosen ones suggestion, then one lowers self while heightening another.

They operate from a completely different set of moral and ethical codes and values

Each chosen one implies differentiated from one another, while gentiles are collectively consenting to suggested norms; morals; ethical codes and values...all suggested by a jew.

Nature implies moving value; each one within a different evaluation thereof.

Lying is no problem to them

Because holding onto a truth becomes a problem within a moving system. Motion cannot lie; ignoring motion for an affixed definition called "truth" permits others to "lie" aka to contradict truth.

They are 100% open about it

a) Because nature offers everything perceivable to each ones perception openly and b) Because gentiles ignore natural (perception) for artificial (suggestion)...artifice like percentages.

What is 1% 25% 50% 75% 100% of energy? Does it take energy to make those measurements? What gives energy to measure?

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

I engaged...and wasted energy on my replies

ENGAGE; verb - "binding as by a pledge"...hence wasting ones "free" will of choice when engaging into bondage to others.

I have been attacked

By text on a screen? Being offended implies taking an offer willingly. Getting ATTACHed tempts one to feel ATTACKed...

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

Do you think the Olympics are scripted, the events that is?

If a participant is invited, then that implies a vetting process for a controlled environment. Consenting to such an invite implies following a scripted event, which is accompanied with endless more vetting processes until every aspect of the event is controlled.

Script/skribh - "to cut/separate"...it's compartmentalization; where each participant is tempted into a box until a hidden hand positions the boxes near each other for the event. All these boxes can be separately manipulated without anyone else being aware.

And if so, why?

There's no chance in this world...only choice. Many choosing to watch sports implies mass consent to chosen ones suggestions aka many ignoring choice, while willingly permitting few to make all the choices.

From a different perspective...win/wen - "to desire; strive for". If life desires/strives for a suggested outcome, then it ignores being moved from inception towards the only outcome...death.

Being implies growth (life) within loss (inception towards death)...few suggest "winning" to tempt many to desire outcome over origin.

In short...life cannot win at the end. Why not distract life with a temporary win from ongoing loss?

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

will say that it is a customers who choose...it is kind of forcing customers

a) How does one use a search engine without willingly consenting to search among information suggested by another?

b) If balance (action) forces choice (reaction), then how could choice force choice without ignoring the origin of force?

c) Can one use GOOGLE without consenting to a GOGGLE distorting ones sight with what others are showing?

d) Can one look/lock/focus on a screen without narrowing ones sight?

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

with enough compression anything can eventually become a brick

a) Compression implies pressing together...what about impression (inception towards death) generating expression (life) by pressing apart?

b) Brick (suggested information) and mortar (consent) implies free-masonry...

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

Impossible.

Can a few suggest many to believe in impossibility? Could mass consent to a suggestion be utilized by few as potential?

https://www.footpack.fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/adidas-impossible-is-nothin.jpeg

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

Aging is caused by so many factors

a) Cause implies motion...suggested facts tempt one to hold onto, while ignoring to be (life) moved (inception towards death).

b) Being implies in-between inception and death...few suggest age as an "indefinite period" to tempt many to reason against each other about the definition (definite; affixed) of age, which in return tempts them to ignore being within motion.

c) Age/aetas/aevum/aiw - "life force" implies force (motion) generating life (matter).

2
free-will-of-choice 2 points ago +2 / -0

biological immortality

Only within zoe (animation) can bio (life) be mortal...logic implies mortals fighting each other about what bio means, while ignoring what zoe does.

2
free-will-of-choice 2 points ago +2 / -0

something nobody even considered

Like that a body cannot be nothing (no-body); that together (con) contradicts apart (side) or to be odd (choice) within even (balance)?

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›