Who created
Few suggest creationism; consent by many establishes it.
If God is all knowing
Only within all (perceivable) can one know (perceive)...others suggest what all is (god), and ones consent permits others to invert "one knowing" into "all knowing".
Knowledge can only exist for partials within whole...otherwise a partial couldn't grow self discernment. Whole cannot grow, since it already implies maximum; omnipotence; all; entire etc.
It's the partials who trick each other to ADD onto whole. Why? Because whatever suggested information one believes to ADD to perceivable inspiration only adds a burden to oneself. Gentiles are burdening themselves with whatever a jew suggests them to hold onto; believe in; have faith in.
knows the future
One cannot know (perceive) past or future...only now aka perceivable moment (um) of motion. Where is before and after right NOW?
Also; present tempts one to consent to what another presents, which in return tempts one to ignore self aka one's presence.
enemy
Aka adversary; adverse; to turn. If wave (life) ignores line (inception towards death) it turns on itself. Ever seen a wave become unstable and break?
In different words...if ONES CHOICE consents to CHOSEN ONES suggestion, then it implies turning on self aka "the enemy within"... https://genius.com/Rush-the-enemy-within-lyrics
sparring...fail to win
a) Succeed vs fail and win vs loose implies fighting, not SPA'RING - "using frugally; forbearing; omitting to punish or destroy".
b) Suggested progressivism (to; towards) tempts gentiles into conflicts of reason (succeed vs fail; win vs loose)...a jew shaping -isms utilizes sparing (implication) before the fights (reason) among gentiles.
partner
P'ARTNER, noun - "one who partakes or shares with another; a partaker"...being implies partial (perception) within whole (perceivable), while sharing (suggestion) tempts others to partake (take by consent the suggested part of another).
One is PART; one needs to resist the wanted temptation to TAKE from another. Taking from another implies giving self away.
catholic
- KATA (down) HODOS (a way, path, track, road)
- ANA (up) HODOS (a way, path, track, road)
a) Rising up (life) while falling down (inception towards death) aka the rise and fall of men.
b) A jew suggests catholicism (kata; down) and anabaptism (ana; up) to gain permission to control both sides of reason from consenting gentiles.
two pair of scales
a) Suggested dualism by jew to tempt each gentile to choose a side.
b) Being implies ONE (choice) within ONENESS (balance).
c) Balance exists before choice; in-between choices exists only imbalance. What one perceives implies balance; what another suggests implies imbalance IF one consents to it.
If you want to train a good boxer
a) Want vs not want and good vs bad...a conflict of reason established faster than a boxer can put his gloves on.
b) BOX implies SQUARE; reason implies CIRCLE...winning vs loosing implies the circle a boxer ignores when entering a ring.
What a jew does here is "circling the square" by tempting square (perception) into circle (suggestion). To be implies in-between left/right + up/down + front/back aka within a cube, which center (perception) of circumference (perceivable) can only discern for self, not sharing (suggestion) with another.
Sleight of hand for those with eyes to see...https://www.lyrics.com/lyric-lf/1176001/Freundeskreis/Quadratur+des+Kreises (check out the whole album).
LSD
Psychedelic aka PSYKHE (animating power) DELOUN (make visible; reveal) implies being revealed (life) through animation (inception towards death)...consenting to suggested PHARMAKON - "a drug, a poison, philter, charm, spell, enchantment" tempts one to ignore that.
reality might come into focus.
Being implies as living sentence within moving reality...ones choice to focus establishes a point of convergence, which diminishes ones life sentence. It's resistance spend by bending light.
Each suggestion by another tempts ones consent to focus on and hold onto it; while all perceivable inspires one to adapt and let go off. Choosing the latter increases ones resistance to the temptation of former.
Merely a conductor of ignorance...by free will of choice.
a) One (Jesus) cannot debase all (God); for it's all (whole) which debases into each one (partials).
b) Only during loss (inception towards death) can one rise (life).
c) Suggested (words) cannot debase perceivable (sound)...BUT suggested can tempt one to ignore perceivable, hence debasing self, while submitting to another.
c) All perceivable implies value; each ones perception implies evaluation...whatever another suggests tempts ones consent to devalue self.
d) Condition implies "set together into order"...an inversion of ongoing natural order (inception towards death) setting temporary chaos (life) apart from one another, hence each ones struggle to sustain self within natural order.
e) Judge (suggestion) not others lest ye (perception) be judged (perceivable)...
a) "And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming." ~2 Thessalonians 2:8
b) Would implies "if could"...a distraction from being free WILL of choice.
c) B'ASTARD, noun - "a natural child; a child begotten and born out of wedlock"... https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/bastard
Natural child implies male (motion) through fe-male (momentum) for off-spring (matter)...others suggest wedlock (to join in marriage) as the inversion of perceivable divorce (Latin divortium; separation).
Intercourse for off-spring...not joining together in "wedlock". Why do you think intercourse (need) and lust (want) force ones choice to adapt?
Jesus would not...
A suggestion in the name of another; while ignoring "anointed one" aka each off-spring coming to be through a mother.
his words
Who suggested you to vocalize sound into articulated words? What can you tell me about "ineffable" aka that which is beyond expression? Could it be that there's perceivable sound beyond the expression of suggestible words?
we are of...evil one
Ones (partials) are of one (whole)...both pluralism (we) and reason (good vs evil) are suggested by other ones.
Ask yourself this...are you and me "we" or does each one has to consent to the label "we" to be a part of it? Can you show me a "we" within nature?
to see...demonic
Demon aka dai-mon (divider-provider)...reasoning about a provided suggestion implies a division of ones sight/perspective/optics.
appear distorted
Perceivable (inspiration) appears distorted if one consents to suggested (information).
I think they don't know what they're doing anymore and it's driving people together instead of dividing them...
E pluribus unum (out of many; one) aka tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) aka united states.
Few collectivize many, while nature (whole) sets itself apart (partials). Many ignoring perceivable nature for suggestions by few are trying to hold together what nature sets apart from one another.
tl;dr...nature drives (inception towards death) apart (life)...artifice (suggestions by few) tempt together (consent by many).
why would one side be attempting to imprison the other side
"Lock her up" vs "Lock him up"...both sides where suggested to tempt ones consenting choice into a conflict of reason (versus)..which implies mind (ment) within (in) confine (prison) aka im-prison-ment.
"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws" ~Mayer Amschel Rothschild
a) Value (inception towards death) generates evaluation (life)...evaluating the suggested values by another devalues oneself.
b) Nothing implies suggested nihil-ism (Latin nihilo; nothing) and ones consenting de-nial of everything perceivable for it.
c) Contribute and discussion implies CON (together; with) DIS (apart, asunder, in a different direction) aka a contradiction, hence all contributing partials within any discussion finding themselves within a conflict of reason against one another.
Notice the option (up-vote or down-vote) next to each "contribution" to any "discussion"...it doesn't matter what is written, only that those reading it consent to conflicts of reason about it.
d) Honor implies versus dishonor...yet another conflict of reason, and no matter how much honor or dishonor one has; the conflict continues.
e) Notice that contribute implies TRIBUTE; noun - "stated sum of money or other valuable consideration paid by one ruler or country to another in acknowledgment of submission or as the price of peace or protection"
Next notice that free-will-of-choice doesn't con-tribute (Post Score - 0)...why?...because choice implies reaction within enacting balance.
Motion offers balance (inception/death)...matter reacts as choice (life). Ignoring this for each others suggested choices implies imbalance.
f) How about this...can nature contribute nothing of value to those within?
g) The topic here is about revolt...so how does discussing contributions revolt against anything?
If I'm the one standing out with my behavior from the norm of contributing to discussions, then what if I'm the one breaking apart from established authority aka revolting?
Do jews contribute to discussions or do jewish suggestions set the foundation for consenting gentiles to contribute their opinions within discussions?
Without comment... https://files.catbox.moe/7wf8u1.mp4
The ONLY option IS anarchy.
a) Suggested AN (without) ARKHON (ruler) inverts perceivable aka being (life) within rule (inception towards death).
b) Suggested option (choice) tempts one to ignore perceivable essence (balance)...only within essence can there be options.
c) If only (one), then why consent to or suggest options to other ones?
Do you see?!
How could one see if one looks at what another shows?
- GIB'BERISH, noun - "rapid and inarticulate talk"
What if I write about natural (perceivable sound), while you choose to ignore it for artificial (suggested words), hence making it inarticulate for your view?
What if perceived as self implies natural; while suggested by another implies artificial?
Does nature articulate anything? Do those within nature have the free will of choice to articulate to each other, while ignoring nature?
a) Being alive implies FO'CUS, noun - "a fire, hearth"...focusing burns one out.
b) LOT, noun - "that which, in human speech, is called chance; hazard, fortune; fate; the determination of Providence" aka the effect of an unknown cause.
Being implies as effect (life) within known cause (inception towards death). Few are "casting a lot" to aggregate many, which nature scatters apart.
c) As matter (life) within momentum (inception towards death) of motion, one needs to balance as choice, hence resisting to incline to either suggested side, as to remain at center of perceivable.
d) Being alive implies withIN process of dying...other suggest ON death to tempt life onwards towards death. It's being called progressivism.
One needs to resist wanted progression...not follow along suggested progressivism.
that's the beginning of that sentence
When I wrote it? When you wrote it? When Julius Evola wrote "Rivolta contro il mondo moderno"? When few suggested information (words) over inspiration (sound) towards many? When inception sets ones life-sentence towards death? When energy generated (motion) beginning towards end (momentum) for the matter within?
the more we retreat from the culture at large the more room we will have
a) Ones consent to suggested culturalism shapes one mind/memory into the place of confinement, which implies a retreat into self.
b) What one ignores when consenting to suggested culturalism is that the ongoing process of dying cultivates (to advance the growth of) those living within...a growth requiring one to resist loss.
c) There is no retreat from response-ability (free will of choice)...denial/ignorance and shirking onto others implies ones free will of choice.
to wall off the flood of illusions
Perceivable inspiration implies flood/flow...suggested inFORMation implies ones consent to take on; hold onto, and thereby burden self with whatever others are suggesting.
The wall implies ones denial/ignorance of perceivable flow, when consenting to suggested form, which is why mason of free (will of choice) utilizes suggested information as bricks and ones consent as mortar to build walls of ignorance within ones mind/memory.
Sleight of hand... https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/serjtankian/emptywalls.html
- Your empty walls
- Pretentious attention...Dismissive apprehension
- When we decline, from the confines of our mind
- Desolate and full of yearning
- Dying of anticipation
- Choking from intoxication
sanity in an insane
Aka sound (sanus) and being within (in) sound (sanus).
to curse the darkness
CURSE, verb - "to utter imprecations; to affirm or deny" aka ones consent (affirm or deny) to the suggested information by another, which implies ones denial/ignorance (darkness) of perceivable (light).
Furthermore...curse; cursive; current; course, hence cursing (inception towards death) self (life) when ignoring perceivable for suggested.
Bonus...cursive writing implies written with a running hand without raising the pen. The opposite of that (unical) implies each one letter apart from one another aka cursive (inception towards death) generating unical (life).
- RE (respond to) VOLT (a round or circular tread) AGAINST (in an opposite direction)
Direction (inception towards death) generates responses (life) within itself...few suggest circular reasoning to tempt many into opposition to each other.
NOT
"For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it" ~1 Timothy 6:7-8
Everything (perceivable) exists before nothing (suggested) can be brought into it. Taking suggested (information) takes nothing from perceivable (inspiration), but it takes oneself out.
"How does it feel, in the light of all that's going on, to be the father of terrorism in the Middle East?" "In the Middle East?"..."In all the world!"
~Russell Warren Howe interview with Menachem Begin, January 1974
civilization
Action (inception towards death) generates reactions (life)...others utilize suggestions to civilize ones reactions, which when consented to, domesticates one.
Reason implies agreeing vs disagreeing about what others are suggesting...that ain't voice; that's perpetual noise, hence always a conflict.
VOICE, noun (Latin vox; voco) - "to drive out sound; and voice is that which is driven out"...only nature drives sound, and each one within is being driven out.
Only while drowning (inception towards death) can there be stayin' alive, and only within consumption (loss) can being (growth) prolong.
One dude on Twitter (7500 employees in 2021). How many are employed to sustain the world wide web so that one dude can make a tweet in it?
Understanding Jewish Supremacy
If a gentile chooses to stand under (understand) a jewish suggestion, then a jew was chosen to be supreme.
To understand the current...
...implies ignoring to resist (life) current (inception towards death).
need to understand
One needs to resist the wanted temptation to stand under another...otherwise one cannot sustain self.
debate
Aka reasoning over suggested information; while ignoring the implication of perceivable inspiration.
jews get to define antisemitism
Gentiles consenting to suggested -isms permits a jew to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the suggested at will.
definition changes overtime
a) A jew suggests definition and time to tempt gentiles to ignore being solid (life) within fluid (inception towards death) aka constantly changing. Holding onto suggested definitions; while contemplating affixed states (past; present; future) tempts one to ignore being moved.
b) A jew suggests words to tempt gentiles to ignore perceivable sound, hence suggested "definition" tempting one to ignore perceivable "DEAF PHONETICIAN" aka being deaf to perceivable phonics (sound).
Another example: suggested "insane person" tempts one to ignore perceivable....being in sanus (within sound) and per sonos (by sound).
Suggesting words (information) over sound (inspiration) implies spell-craft.
they are in the sole position to define
a) Sole (all perceivable) generates positions (ones perception) by separating itself from whole into partial.
b) Whole/sole/soul aka "one for all and all for one" aka "there can be only one" aka "alone - ALL(in)ONE"
c) Consenting to suggested definition implies ONES CHOICE establishing CHOSEN ONES position over self by submitting of self to another.
d) Suggested pluralism (they) tempts perceiving singular (one) to ignore self for others.
There is no rational or objective definition that lies outside jewish control
a) Rational implies reasoning over suggested definitions. A jew suggests to tempt gentiles to reason against one another over suggested; which permits a jew control over both sides of every conflict of reason.
Nature operates on implication (if/then)...not on reason (want vs not want; true vs false; yes vs no; agree vs disagree; believe vs denial; good vs bad etc.)
Being implies choice within balance, hence if balance; then choice...reasoning against other choices implies imbalance.
b) Objective implies as perceived by self; consenting to anything suggested by another tempts one to subject self.
c) Being (life) implies in (inception) and out (death) of sides (inception/death balance aka momentum of motion for matter within).
d) jews suggest sides to tempt gentiles off-center and into circumference, which permits jews to erect self at center, while cutting off circumference. This implies circumcision.
Being implies center (perception) within circumference (perceivable)...
a) PROTEST', verb (Latin protestor; pro and testor, to affirm it) - "to affirm with solemnity"...hence not against, but for...PRO/PRE implies FORWARDS.
b) TEST implies "to weave together". Protestors are weaving their consent into the suggested -isms by others, hence making what they're protesting stronger, while weakening themselves with the burden thereof.