when processing other people
- PEOPLE, noun [Latin populus.] - "body of persons who compose a community"
a) what comes first...one person or a composition of people?
b) does composition (people) happens automatically or is there a manual input required (person)?
c) what if composing person into "community" of people can be achieved by suggesting a person to consent to "commune-ism", hence collectivizing each person into a people (we the people).
d) what if a person is processed PER (by) SONOS (sound)?
categorize into
a) if this (inception towards death) generates that (life) into itself, then does that represent a category (contained under a genus) or free unit (partial) within genus (whole)?
b) does the ongoing natural order CATA (against) AGORA (public assembly) or does it disassemble itself into temporary chaos? What if being one implies being one part within whole, hence neither assembled together, nor in conflict with other ones?
c) what if the few suggest categories to tempt the consenting many to put themselves into an exponential number of mental and physical cattle-pens...all by free will of choice? Why is it so hard these days to get out of a category others suggested one to be in?
It's nigger tier logic
Logic represents the conflict of reason (right vs wrong), hence always tempting both sides to attack each other. Both sides consent to the same conflict, while feeling offended by the behavior of the other side.
retarded or stupid
- RET'ARD, verb [Latin retardo; re and tardo, to delay, tardus, slow, late.] - "to diminish the velocity of motion"
- STUPID, adjective - "to be stupefied, properly to stop"
Life being moved from inception towards death can neither diminish velocity nor stop it. The few utilize suggest rhetoric like "retard + stupid" as a litmus test for the ignorance of the many who are insulting each other with it.
demonstrating how they are wrong
Nature shows itself as whole (perceivable) to each partial (perceiving)...those within ignore that when demonstrating to each other how right or wrong they believe the other to be.
Take a mental step back and consider if nature offers perceivable WRONG, adjective - "literally wrung, twisted or turned from a straight line"? What if the natural order represents a straight line (inception towards death) for those living within? What if ignoring this, twists and turns ones perspective of straight into a confused clusterfuck?
insult
Ignorance breeds insolence aka INSULT', verb [Latin insulto.] - "to treat with gross abuse, insolence or contempt"
In what way would automated algorithms hurt anything that isn't already?
Within the only way (inception towards death) continued ignorance of natural (perceivable) for artificial (suggested) depletes life faster...
The so called bots can respond quicker with regurgitated suggestions towards a majority lacking more and more resistance to it. How long have the few conditioned the many to accept automated help-hotlines, while squeezing the resistance out of those waiting to be connected to a real human?
a) "Heil unserem Herzog, heil" (Hail to our Duke, hail)...the old Saxe-Coburg and Gotha anthem.
b) way too close a connection between Saxe-Coburg and Rothschild...
in the military...they are NOT suggestions
How does one get into it? Recruitment aka ones consent to the suggestion of another. What keeps one within it? Consenting to serve suggested commands. If one resists, then one gets discharged (to free from any load or burden). Ones consent burdens one with the suggestions by others, hence piling up until a violent release, which others can direct with their suggested commands.
- MIL'ITARY, adjective [Latin militaris, from miles, a soldier; milito, to fight.]
- RECRUIT, verb [Latin cresco] - "to repair by fresh supplies any thing wasted"
Fighting others wastes ones resistance (life) within velocity (inception towards death)...others exploit ones lack of resistance by suggesting one to fight.
you have
- HAVE, verb [Latin habeo.] - "to possess; to hold in possession"
The suggestions of others posses the ones consenting to them. Ask any VET'ERAN, adjective [Latin veteranus, from vetero, to grow old, from vetus, old.] if they still posses youth or if fighting others helped them to hold onto youth?
Consider if the few utilize suggestions to posses the consenting many, which then allows the few to exorcise all the possessions of the many right out of them?
you do consent to obey his commands
a) "sir yes sir" implies ones agreement to obey suggested commands by others, and soldiers are being domesticated by frequency of repetition into compliance, hence grinding down their resistance until they represent a regiment (a mind that moves in a straight line) aka order followers aka e pluribus unum (out of many; one) aka uniformity aka tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) etc.
b) OBEY, verb - " [Latin obedio] - "to submit to direction of"...if life submits to direction (inception towards death), then life dies quicker. Life represents the resistance within direction....others suggest the inversion thereof as "progressivism".
the oft-stated notion
- NO'TION, noun [Latin to know.] + KNOWL'EDGE, noun -"perception of that which exists"
Any stated suggestion tempts one to ignore perceivable notion. One represents the temporary state (growth) within ongoing notion (loss), hence ones struggle to sustain self.
an absolute idiot
- ID'IOT, noun [Latin idiota; separate, simple.See Idiom.] - "peculiar to one's self"
How can an absolute be peculiar to one's partial self?
a) what if the chain of command cannot be broken by chopping off those above, but only by choosing to resist following alongside it?
b) what if an ongoing chain (inception towards death) commands those temporary within (life) to resist?
c) what if others invert the perceivable chain with a suggested chain, while ones consent to the suggested chain tempts one to ignore the perceivable chain...of events?
Is hating your commander out of the question?
a) having a suggesting commander implies ones consent to service the suggested commands.
b) those in service are on the quest to seek answers by following commands.
c) the "out of question" rhetoric tempts one to ignore being within the quest for answers willingly.
better not to hate at all, and instead to love
a) love implies vs hate aka want vs not want aka agreement vs disagreement aka consent vs denial etc. The versus in-between represents reason/logic.
b) ones love fuels the hate of others and vice versa, while both sides are being tricked to fuel the ongoing conflicts of reason, which depletes the resistance of everyone within.
You should be hating worthless forever-wars...
Hate implies versus love...a conflict of reason. This conflict oriented perspective through the lens of reasoning represents the foundation for all theaters of war suggested by others.
The few keep theses "worthless forever-wars" going by suggesting the consenting many what to reason (love vs hate) over...choosing either side keeps the conflicts going.
I'm in the service...the commander
a) ones consent to "service" the suggested "commands" of others tempts one into a conflict of reason (wanting vs not wanting suggested) among all those consenting.
b) ones consent to want or not want suggested, gives those suggesting the power of ones consent to rebrand both sides of every conflict of reason into for example...good vs bad; true vs false; love vs hate; russia vs ukraine; allies vs axis; us vs them; red vs blue; white vs black; cops vs robbers; citizen of vs ordained into military; christianity vs islam; left-wing vs right-wing; pro-life vs pro-choice etc.
c) choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law represents the foundation for the chain of command wielded by the suggesting few over the consenting many, yet it's ones own consent keeping one within it.
i immediately just ignored...
Ones consent to suggested (fiction) implies ones choice to ignore perceivable (reality). Ignorance is what allows the parasitic few to ruthlessly exploit the consenting many as the host for their suggestions.
Why they do this propaganda
Life is being moved from inception towards death, hence representing temporary resistance (living) within ongoing velocity (process of dying)...others suggest progressivism (towards outcome) to tempt one to ignore resisting.
In short...following suggested orders represents the inversion of being resistance (life) within natural order (inception towards death).
Should i be hating russia or ukraine?
Want vs not want; love vs hate; russia vs ukraine...whatever side one chooses keeps one within conflict, hence militant (combating others) within a war (conflict of reason).
The few utilize suggested labels; revisionism of suggested labels and deliberate contradiction of suggested labels to keep the consenting many within the conflicts of reason. This represents division (reason) through suggestion (-isms; definitions; labels; idols etc.).
Reason tempts the many to spend their limited resistance against one another, which in return allows the few to exploit lack of resistance as pleased.
Choice exists at the center of balance (need/want) aka in-between need (perceivable inspiration) and want (suggested information)...one needs to resist want. Others utilize suggested information to tempt one into imbalance (want vs not want). This imbalance is being sold to the many as reason/logic.
"Let these be guidestones to an age of reason"... https://img.gvid.tv/i/4Z7mrPe7.jpg
finds the center of the maze
a) CENTER (perceiving partial) SURROUNDING (perceivable whole) MAZE (ignoring perceivable for suggested)
b) finding the center implies growing discernment of self by resisting the temptation of suggested edifices (labyrinth) by others.
never let anyone fool you
Where does "never" exist?
What if consenting to suggested fiction, while trying to discern if it's real or not, tempts one to diminish self within reality?
- Auschwitz aka AU (Latin aurum; gold) SCHWITZ (sweating)
- Birkenau aka BIRK'EN, verb (from birch) - "to beat with a burch or rod" AU (Latin aurum; gold)
from within
Surrounding (inception towards death) communicates itself through center (life). Living springs off from within process of dying.
inability to live on
IN (being within) ABLE (being enabled by) -ITY (a suffix) aka SUB (from under) FIGERE (to fasten).
will come to a crossroad of problems
a) problems (life) within solution (inception towards death).
b) road (inception towards death) cross (need/want) aka ones choice within balance.
c) being free "will" of choice within cross (need/want) road (inception towards death), while being tempted by what others suggest "will come"...
understand the spiritual
Spirit (Latin spiro; to breathe) implies ones resistance within incoming (perceivable), not ones submission to "stand under" (suggested)...
our belief that if you're not spiritually connected
a) believing (want) or disbelieving (not want) connects one through choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law to others, while ignoring that nature sets each one within apart from one another.
b) breathing (spirit) implies force of velocity coming in, then meeting force of resistance when being pushed out, hence representing ones struggle for apartheid (living) within wholeness (process of dying) aka center resisting surrounding.
c) reason (belief vs disbelief) contradicts implication (if/then)...if one resists want to reason, then need of adapting to implication grows ones resistance.
reality of how to
"how" represents ones struggle of self discernment, while being (life) within reality (inception towards death)...suggested "to" (towards outcome) tempts one to ignore being within, and therefore a response to perceivable origin.
will not make it
a) if will represents want, then need (inception towards death) makes want (life), hence ones struggle to need to resist wanted temptations.
Consider if FREE (implies within dominance) WILL (aka want implies need) OF (implies out of, hence within) CHOICE (implies within balance)?
b) what does "not wanting" reality imply for being within needed reality? Could it represent ignorance aka IN (opposite of) GNARUS (awareness)?
when Columbus came
Aka Cristóbal Colon (sephardic) aka cohen (hebrew kohen)...
actual jewish people
Are labels like "jew" actual (perceivable reality) or conjecture (suggested fiction)? Does "wind" represent an actual label upon the motion underneath? Does nature label itself or do those within nature label their surrounding, while fighting each other (within conflicts of reason) over the suggested meaning of those labels, brands; idols?
pissed about this
Taking offense by others under the same label (jew), while ignoring ones willing consent to uphold the suggested label by others...
His wife is Jewish. And he's a "Christian".
Real life meme potential right there...put your hands on his shoulder and say: "if only you knew how bad things really are".
the jews are controlled by the same
a) "the" implies ones consent to suggested THE-ism by others; hence willing submission to be controlled through the suggestions of others.
b) why does "the jews" offend those who utilize "chosen ones" as a label? Is there a difference between suggested plural and perceivable singular?
c) take any two things you believe to be the "same" and notice that for you to be able to discern between them, each one of them has to exist at a "different" position.
One can only perceive moving differences (hence being ONE)...others suggest sameness to tempt one to ignore that.
the sanhedrin which directs
a) velocity (inception towards death) directs resistance (life)
b) sanhedrin aka SYN (together) HEDRA (seat) implies each partial one choosing to take a seat. Coming together contradicts being apart, therefore...the whole SYN (inception towards death) directs each partial HEDRA (life).
Consider being a temporary seat (partial) within ongoing togetherness (whole)?
international jewry
If nation represents "a people", then inter-national implies within (internal) a people (nation), hence dia (diametric) spora (sporadic). A diameter implies through the center of a circle (kike) outwards towards surrounding, while sporadic implies scattered; apart from one another, hence each chosen one for self.
Consider if there's an outer jew (you) suggesting temptations, and an inner jew (you) consenting to the suggested? What if those who consent as the inner jew are shirking response-ability by blaming the outer jew? Can one blame others (surrounding) without ignoring self (center)?
what does "never again" mean for an event that didn't happen?
a) "never again" aka NOTHING (suggested fiction) EVERYTHING (perceivable reality) AGAIN (frequent repetition by choice)...hence suggested within perceivable again and again and again until others resist consenting.
b) "an event that didn't happen" represents your denial of their suggestion, hence your consent to not want suggested, while ignoring the need to adapt to perceivable.
never lie about that event again?
a) consider if you consent to believe in suggested "truth", which only then allows them to suggest "lies"?
b) EVENT', noun [Latin eventus, evenio; e and venio, to come.] - "that which comes"...while one reasons with others if the suggested event was or will be again, one ignores that which perceptibly is.
get one freebie event
Those who consent to a suggested event, do so by "free" will of choice, hence submitting to the chosen ones suggestion aka giving others a "freebie", while ignoring to "be free" (will of choice).
feeding the dead to the living
a) living (temporary partials) implies within the process of dying (ongoing whole).
b) the process of dying generates living reactions within itself.
lex fori
LEX (law) FORI (market) aka choice (suggestion) to choice (consent) contract law...it's where the happy merchant sells temptations.
they care about closing the Constitution
- CONSTITUTE, verb - "to set; to fix; to enact; to establish; to form or compose; to give formal existence to; to make a thing what it is"
To be implies within constitution...center cannot close surrounding (suggested "black hole" distracts from that). Anyway...the suggested constitution tempts one to ignore that perceivable (whole) constitutes perceiving (partial).
From a different perspective...the United States constitution suggests the separation of powers. That represents a deliberate contradiction, since "united" (Latin unitas ,unus; one) implies already separate ones (partials within whole).
The few inverted UNIT (perceivable apartheid) into UNITY (suggested togetherness), hence the whole narrative about nation of immigrants aka melting pot aka miscegenation aka replacement migration aka e pluribus unum (out of many; one) aka tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) aka abrahamism (father of multitude) aka equality (sameness) through diversity (differences) aka where we go one we go all (WWG1WGA) etc.
In short...it's the many who ignore what constitutes them, which in return gives the few the power to wield the "constitution" around as a foundation for behavioral indoctrination.
we should stop letting others create our reality for us and we start creating reality for ourselves?
a) reality represents motion, so there's no stopping it by those within.
b) start (inception) and stop (death) implies ongoing motion for those temporarily living within, yet the suggested meaning of start (out of nothing) and stop (into nothing) tempts one to ignore ongoing motion, and ignorance represents ones lack of self discernment about being moved.
c) both creationism (out of nothing) and collectivism (we) are being suggested by others to tempt one (partial within whole) to ignore transmutation (whole transmuting into partial).
d) reality was before those within came to be, fiction represents ones choice to ignore reality (perceivable inspiration) for fiction (suggested information).
e) others don't create reality, they suggest layers of fiction (suggestion information), which ones consent upholds (within mind/memory) over reality (perceivable inspiration).
is your point
a) a point implies the end of a sentence, which tempts one to ignore ones "life sentence", hence still being alive and kicking.
b) suggesting points represents progressivism, which tempts others to want suggested outcomes, while ignoring the need to adapt to perceivable origin.
Example... "my point is that cake is delicious", which tempts you to want or not want to eat the cake as to see my point; its deliciousness. Suggested appetite (want or not want) tempts one to ignore perceivable hunger (need).
Sleight of hand: "the cake is a lie"...
knowing this changes everything and nothing at the same time
Everything perceivable becomes clearer for one resisting suggested, while simultaneously nothing changes for those consenting to the suggested.
Last Panel: "For the good?"
Aka mount zion aka temple (temporary) mount (elevation) aka israel...SARA (he fought) EL (god)