- ABCDEF
- 123456
"Don’t ascribe to malice what can be plainly explained by incompetence"
Ascribe/ascrive/attribute/credit/creed implies ones consent to a suggestion by another, which also implies a) coming together (competere) and b) the malice to contest another within a conflict of reason.
Anything ascribed to another tempts one to ignore being an attribute of nature.
in front of the curtain
Curtain implies ignorance...therefore ones free will of choice in front of the curtain; suggestions by another on stage, and perceivable behind the curtain.
Malice is being attributed by those in front of the curtain to those on stage and to one another.
DEI is a distraction
a) Equal (inception towards death) sets Diverse (life) free from one another...many consenting to few includes/encloses them within suggested aka collectivism.
b) WAS implies perceivable revelation; IS implies suggested distraction.
One doesn't need to suggest anyone what is....one needs to adapt to all that was (perceivable) before one came to be (perception).
All was perceivable before one can suggest what it is, which tempts others to add to suggested...like doubling down on opinions.
enough is enough
If it's enough, then why double it?
they want...people had been kept falling for this
To keep implies wanting to hold onto vs not wanting to let go. This conflict is called reason and contradicts implication of being (life) within motion (inception towards death), hence needing to let go of wanted temptations.
Robspierre and Hitler
Aka wanting to follow leaders vs not wanting to be left behind the lead.
money is made from the advertisements
M-one-y/my one is made from turning (vert) minds (ments) towards (ad) outcome, hence away from origin and against one another.
controversies sell
Buying vs selling implies a conflict of reason aka ones mind turned (ver) against (contra) another.
to claim that advertisement doesn't want
An advertisement implies a suggestion aiming at the consent of those who claim a side aka wanting or not wanting suggested. Whichever side is chosen turns those consenting against one another, hence ad-vert + contro-ver.
mainstream
Coming to be implies as opposite within mainstream aka as resistance (life) within velocity (inception towards death)...the suggested mainstream tempts one to follow, while turning from ones position as resistance aka ad-vert.
over the target
Targeting implies towards an outcome, hence turning away from origin...God.
the land itself is what is spewing us out
Natural L(and) A(ir) W(ater) spews/expels/drives out each one balancing on land; breathing air, and being solid (life) within fluid (inception towards death) of water.
In short...spewing (flow) generates land (form).
things like beastiality
a) Beast aka being astute/discerning.
b) Animal/anima/animation, hence being (life) animated (inception towards death).
c) To be implies different (life) during same (inception towards death)...few tempt many to respond "alike", which equalizes differences among them.
This also implies mixing human and animal. So long as many ignore to be different from one another, so long will few utilize mixing against them, by simply tempting together all differences.
the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up
Hence L(and) A(ir) W(ater) implying a flow state (inception towards death) for each form (life) within.
In other words...an off-spring (child) sprouts from the seed (man) within soil (woman), and withers back into origin (motion).
All the descriptions within scriptures suggested tempt one to hold onto the written/spoken word, while ignoring the flowing sound.
When you hear "land" you think matter. What you ignore is that you are balancing on land, which implies motion. Notice a child struggling to stand up and walk, and how easy it is for an adult to ignore that continuous struggle until getting older...
overcome
Coming implies to be within...over vs under tempts one to ignore that, while establishing imbalance to ones position.
Is there a conflict between "waters above and waters below" or are they in balance with one another?
What does life, while being moved from inception towards death, overcome? What can a problem (temporary form) within a solution (ongoing flow) overcome? Itself?
What if one doesn't need to overcome or understand others; but rise (life) during fall (inception towards death)?
I do not think God cares
Care implies "burden of mind"...God implies caretaker aka taking whatever burden those within choose to hold onto.
In other words...caring implies wanting to hold onto; care-taking implies needing to let go. If one cares; then one carries burdens of another within self, while ignoring that nature implies nurture; nourish aka the loss (inception towards death) which promotes growth (life).
two different
There can be only one. First commandment..."you shall have no other gods before me".
Differentiation implies from whole (oneness) into partials (ones)...two implies counting together that which the one and only "god" set apart from one another.
pervert nature
Latin pervertere implies "to overturn". Partials cannot overturn whole, but they can trick each other to turn against one another within conflicts of reason aka "circular" logic.
Nature implies implication (balance); perversion implies reason (imbalance).
which is a sin
Nature directs (inception towards death); those within react (life). Choosing to ignore direction by reacting against one another implies ones voluntary departure aka sin.
Sin/syn - "together; with" contradicts being "apart from one another"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/syn-#etymonline_v_24489
if you have Scripture that shows other wise, I will reconsider.
Ones consent to a suggested script contradicts SCRIPT/SKRIBH - "to separate" because consent joins together with suggested, hence con-sider (siding together).
using technology to manipulate biology
If bio (life) uses tekhnē (artifice); then it manipulates itself against one another within conflicts of reason (logy).
A crime against God
a) Partials within whole can only be against one another...never against whole.
b) Crime/crimen/krei - "to distinguish" implies natural law setting itself apart into each crime within.
important
Nature gives out whole (balance) for free (choice)...few within tempt many to ignore that with import (consent) and export (suggestion) for the fee of selling self out.
before all is lost
All implies loss (inception towards death) forwarding being (life)....few suggest before as the inversion of forward being; what all is as the inversion of what all was before one came to be within, and lost as that which cannot be found to distract one from discerning self as being growth within the foundation of loss.
Psycho/psyche implies animating power. Synagogue aka syn (together) agein (put in motion) tempts one to ignore that animating power (inception towards death) sets each off-spring within (life) apart from one another.
Ones consent to any suggestion tempts one to claim/take into possession/take ownership of, while ignoring that perceivable cannot be held onto, since it's an animating power.
Possession (consent) diminishes potential (choice) by shirking response-ability onto another...onto a chosen one. Ignoring ones choice by consenting to a chosen ones suggestion turns one against every other one within a conflict of reason.
Turning while being (life) directed (inception towards death) implies "one who opposes, obstructs, or reacts as an adversary" aka satan.
It's implied...otherwise one couldn't be alive.
Experts all agree
a) Being able to agree and test out (ex peritus) implies as one within all.
b) Expert vs amateur and agree vs disagree implies conflicts of reason, shaped by ones consent to a suggestion (scientism + definitionism) by another.
utopia
Suggested ou (not) topos (place) aka nowhere tempts one to ignore being within all aka placed somewhere within everywhere.
is possible, and it's desirable
What if desire (wanting outcome) diminishes potential (needing origin)?
all people are equal
That implies equalizing (inception towards death) each different (life) person.
equal, free
Equal (whole) differentiates (partials) by setting each one apart from one another, hence setting free (choice) within dominance (balance).
How does whole (motion) differentiate (matter)? Balance (momentum)...
brothers
Who suggested the Brotherhood of Man?
white light
White implies "pure light"; black implies "absence of light"...neither of which one can perceive from within the visible spectrum of light. Why? Because each ray (matter) within spectrum (momentum) of light (motion) is different from one another, hence neither pure, nor able to exist with the absence of light.
Sleight of hand: https://genius.com/Def-leppard-white-lightning-lyrics
- You (life) got both ends (inception/death) burning like a moth to a flame
- You're (choice) going off the rails (balance) like a runaway train
- It's a no win situation (because outcome implies origin), there's no way out (while being within way)
Bible/biblio/book/boken/bocian - "to grant or assign by charter; to record"...ones consent grants or assigns by charter of ones will to record within ones mind/memory the suggested information by another.
Consent permits others to inscribe information; definition; truth; matter of fact etc. into one...digging into that doesn't help one to clear ones mind.
There are plenty
There can be only one...
old
Nothing new aka choosing suggested "new" over perceivable "now" implies ones de-nial (Latin nihilo; nothing).
a number which binds
Aka ONE binding self to another when consenting to suggestions.
Time would appear to traverse faster and faster
Appearances can be deceiving...velocity (inception towards death) remains steady; while resistance (life) fluctuates.
There would not be one...
There can be only one...unless ONE ignores self by counting others.
black cube kikes
a) Being implies in-between left/right + front/back + up/down aka within a cube.
b) Ones ignorance of perceivable for suggested implies an absence of light (black), hence one lacking self discernment within pure light (white).
c) Consenting to suggested tempts one into a conflict of reason aka circular logic, hence permitting a kike/kikel - "circle" to encircle the square of ones cube in darkness.
Sleight of hand....al-Ka'ba al-Musharrafa aka Kaaba or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratur_des_Kreises
devil...divine
Divine/devil/divide/deviate/david as in affidavit aka AD (oath) FIDES (faith) DAVID (division)
mistaking
Taking (suggested information) implies missing (perceivable inspiration)...the former establishes a division (conflict of reason) by ones oath (will) of faith (consent) to another.
don't believe everything you hear
a) One hears perceivable; others whisper suggested.
b) E'AR, noun (Latin auris, auricula; audio) from root au - "to perceive".
c) Ones consent to suggested splits perceivable (audio/ear)...
Notice that gentiles seek confirmation to affix and settle something, while anything a jew suggests changes.
no chief
What's the message? Can't hide free will of choice behind "I'm just following orders" without someone to shirk response-ability onto.
no local
Where's choice situated? At center (choice) of circumference (balance) aka local (ones choice within perceivable balance) among foreign (suggested choices tempting imbalance).
authorities' actions
a) Does choice require another choice to authorize reaction?
b) Does balance act upon reacting choices?
c) If authorities follow directions (I'm just following orders) then that implies reaction...not action.
police action
How can police/polis/city/center act, when it's circumference (inception towards death) which establishes each reacting center (life)?
Why are few building cities to simultaneously draw in order followers, while driving out those who resist? Why are cities the center of crime, while having the most law enforcement?
I have a group which tracks things that connect to me
a) Notice few suggesting the internet of things to connect many, while using "groups" to prevent anyone to "connect" to few.
b) TRACK, noun - "a mark left by something that has passed along"...what mark does being (life) passed along (inception towards death) leave?
Why is it called a track record (Latin recorder; to call to mind)?
a) Ones consent to the suggestion of another establishes a conflict of reason within ones mind aka an argue-ment...clearly vs obscure; obvious vs oblivious, and simple vs complex.
b) Suggested writing tempts one to ignore perceivable delineation aka being (life) moved within a line (inception towards death). Why? Because to write implies to outline; while to be implies inline.
c) Question implies pursuing (quest) action (tion)...being implies reaction (life) resisting the temptation of action (inception towards death).
In other words...questions towards outcome tempts being to ignore origin.
d) The suggested rhetoric "beggars can't be choosers" tempts one to ignore that begging implies by ones free will of choice. So begging for question nonetheless implies shirking of ones response-ability (free will of choice) onto another.
e) Notice that appropriate implies taking into possession, which is what few are exploiting when many give consent to take suggested into possession.
In nature...a solid (life) cannot take possession of fluid (inception towards death); yet can be tricked to spend resistance on holding onto other solids, hence selling self out when consenting to the suggestions of another.
torn apart
The Giselle was set apart within whole; the lion tearing apart makes the Giselle whole again.
feeds the lion's power
Whole empowers (inception) and feeds upon (death) partials (life)...a lion feeds upon a Giselle to resist being consumed.
The lord giveth, the lord taketh away
Momentum of motion gives (inception) and takes (death) matter (life).
witness such an act
One can only perceive reactions (partials) while being enacted upon (whole)...others suggest one to witness (affirm) acts (action) aka to hold onto form within flow aka to ignore reacting to being enacted upon.
a way to cope
Way (inception towards death) doesn't cope (contend on equal terms)...it puts each one (life) at odds (choice) during equal (balance).
Few suggest many to cope against one another within conflicts of reason, which equalizes odds.
malevolent creator
Malevolent aka mal (bad) volens (will) implies ones free will of choice reacting to a suggestion like creationism, while ignoring to be transformed (life) within flow (inception towards death).
we must break free
From all to one implies break; being choice within balance implies free within dom, and consenting to suggested pluralism (we) binds singular (one) to another.
In short...choose to let go of "we" to discern ones free will of choice.
free of charge
Charging (inception towards death) free (life)...ones consent to suggested permits others to utilize that charge, while one ignores to re-charge within perceivable.
without fear
Being implies within; fear tempts one to ignore that for without.
No coincidences...Danny Trejo gets in fight at LA 4th of July parade - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3l_AE7bSZE
are you
a) "I am whatever you say I am...cause if I wasn't, then why would I say I am?"
b) The foundation of you (phonetic jew) is based on one claiming self as "me; myself or I"; which in return brands everyone else as "you".
A jew tricks gentiles to define each other aka to slap labels onto each other aka to brand each other like cattle. How? By tempting them to consent to any suggested label. Are you... implies such a temptation aiming at the consent of another.
or
OR, conjunction - "a connective that marks an alternative"...alternation implies action/motion/movement; trying to connect alternation with a mark contradicts that.
Direction (inception towards death) generates alternation (life)...few within tempt many to connect marks by consenting to suggested information, while ignoring that perceivable inspiration alternates through each ones perception.
21st century
To be implies within (life) momentum (inception towards death) aka within perceivable moment aka NOW...not before or after. Few suggest "21st Century" to tempt many to ignore now aka to ignore perceivable reality for suggested fiction.
21st Century only exists as a suggested label within a consenting ones mind, and no other life form chooses to hold onto such a label.
schizoid
Coined by Eugene Bleuler who conspired with Sigismund Schlomo Freud to "conquer psychiatry". Gentiles using it to psychoanalyze each other implies being conquered by a jewish suggestion, while branding each other like cattle.
tl; dr: Does one have the free will of choice to respond differently from one another? If so...voilà ce que tu m’as demandé.