trust in anything Science
SCI'ENCE, noun [Latin scientia, from scio, to know.] aka KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists"...inspires adaptation from each one perceiving it.
Suggested scientism tempts one to trust those suggesting it...
worldview
Consider WORLD (whole perceivable) VIEW (each perceiving partial). The few invert this by suggesting a worldview based on mass consensus.
because
What if "being" implies effect (living) within cause (process of dying)?
cannot
What can nothing? How could nothing? Where could nothing? Who could nothing? Why would nothing?
math
a) Addition (inception) Subtraction (death) Multiplication (intercourse for offspring) Division (being partial within whole)...mathematics based on perceivable oneness.
b) the inversion thereof represents suggested MATH, noun - "a moving; aftermath" based on adding, subtracting; multiplying and dividing from 0 (nothing).
c) suggested math is based on problems, perceivable math implies being the temporary problem (living) struggling to sustain self within ongoing solution (process of dying)
picture
Aka the suggestion of a captured moment, tempting those who consent to ignore the perceivable momentum of ongoing motion aka the perceivable moment aka "now".
nature isn't fucked up, you are.
Consider if being implies temporary chaos (life) within ongoing natural order (inception towards death). Also; having free will of choice implies ones choice to fuck up.
you lack free will
a) the few suggest "free will" to tempt each one of the many to ignore perceivable "free will of choice", when consenting to their suggestion. Keep an eye out for those talking about free will without mentioning the implied "of choice"...
b) FREE (implies within dominance) WILL (aka want implies within need) OF (implies out of) CHOICE (implies within balance)...all of these can be discerned by oneself.
FEDERAL (Heb; to pledge, that which is deposited with another) RE (response to) SERVE (to bestow the labor of body and mind in the employment of another)
Ones consent to the suggestion of another represents ones pledge to deposit ones consent for bestowing ones labor of body and mind into the employment of those suggesting.
own
Partial (living) cannot own (possess) anything within whole (process of dying), only react to everything offered by free will of choice or ignore it. Any suggested claim represents ones ignorance of being reaction (living) within enacting (process of dying).
In short...one is tempted to want to hold onto; while one needs to struggle with letting go. Others exploit this by tempting one to want to hold onto (to own; possess; claim etc.)
a) DEMOS (together) KRATOS (strength)
b) nature sets itself apart, hence from whole (process of dying) into each partial (living).
c) if the process of dying is stronger than those living within, then ones strength is based on resisting the temptation of being put back together.
d) what if to be represents ones struggle for apartheid (living) within wholeness (process of dying), while others tempt one to come "together" aka e pluribus unum (out of many, one) aka tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together" aka equality (same) through diversity (difference) aka united states; united nations; european union, universal pictures, universal basic income; uniformity etc.?
e) consider diaspora aka DIA (diametrical aka surrounding through center) SPORE (sporadic aka separated from one another)...
They can say anything.
Does perceivable nature ever utter a word? Are those within nature able to shape suggestible words out of perceivable sound? Could one be tempted to ignore perceivable sound for suggested words? Could those suggesting words "say anything" to describe everything perceivable if one consent to suggested (fiction) over perceivable (reality)?
Does spell-craft imply crafting the spelling of others by suggesting them letters and words to communicate with each other? How could a suggestible letter be shaped without using perceivable symmetry? How could a suggestible word be shaped without using perceivable sound?
What if saying anything represents a temptation to ignore everything unsaid? What if consent to anything said represents suicidal consent to genocidal suggestions? Does ignoring reality (perceivable) for fiction (suggested) destroy oneself, while corrupting ones surrounding?
media propaganda
a) to mediate implies from center; to propagate implies through motion.
b) what if each one represents the center (life) of motion (inception towards death)?
c) what if perceivable propagation (process of dying) mediates perceiving (living)?
d) what if suggested "media propaganda" tempts the mediated (perceiving) to ignore propagation (perceivable)?
e) if choice represents the center of a balance based system, then what does it imply to choose to consent to the suggested choices of others? Balancing as choice or following choices...is there a difference?
We know very little
a) KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists"
b) what if everyone (perceiving) knows everything (perceivable), hence having the opportunity to grow comprehension through adaptation?
c) what if ignoring everything (perceivable) for nothing (suggested) tempts one to comprehend only a "little" throughout ones willing ignorance?
d) what if suggested "we" (plural) tempts perceivable "one" (singular) to ignore self (partial within whole)?
WE the people; WE are the world; WE will rock you; WE are off to see the wizard; WE don't live here no more; WE are all made of stars; WE ain't got nothing yet; WE can work it out; WE better talk this over; WE are not gonna take it; WE belong together; WE built this city; WE told you so; WE love because he first loved us etc.
Why do the few keep suggesting "WE" in the name of (e nomine) the many? Reconsider..."hey fellow white people..." in regard to that.
Info, stats, and news reports on deaths are on both sides
Your consent (belief or disbelief) to suggested information; statistics and news reports shapes both sides of the conflict of reason (belief vs disbelief), which the few then rebranded into vaxxed vs unvaxxed.
I assume they're accurate...
a) ASSU'ME, verb - "to take or take upon one. If differs from receive, in not implying an offer to give."...your assumptions contradict your consent to receive suggested information.
b) to take upon self implies as free will of choice; while consenting to the suggestions of others represents ignoring ones free will of choice for the suggested choices by others.
Only those who suggest can define, redefine and contradict the meaning thereof at will and they utilizes ones consent to the suggested as the power to do so. Ones assumptions afterwards have no power of the suggested, yet corrupt oneself more and more, while reasoning with others.
c) AC'CURATE, adjective -"free from failure"...being free will of choice implies within (life) fall (inception towards death). Failing grows choice.
it depends if the stats can be trusted
Consenting to suggested statistics places one in dependence to the one suggesting, hence becoming a trustee of the one suggesting. The statistics represent the distraction from that, hence tempting one to put ones trust in them, while ignoring to be a trustee of the ones suggesting them.
come to the conclusion
a) introduction (inception) inclusion (life) conclusion (death)
b) the few suggest that reasoning (want vs not want; belief vs disbelief; true vs false; agreement vs disagreement etc.) can be concluded, but it will always result in even more conflicts of reason...because nature keeps moving.
a) WILD, adjective - "roving; wandering; not tamed or domesticated" aka free will of choice. Consenting to the suggested choices of others tames and domesticates ones free will of choice.
b) WILD (life) RIDE (inception towards death)...the few suggest "wildlife" to distract from that. Add suggested animal (Latin anima; animation) and the animated ride is implied for the wild life within.
c) suggested ALWAYS - "continually; without variation" tempts one to ignore ALL (partials) within WAY (whole), hence being susceptible of change (variable).
d) consider if everyone (partial) has a different view of everything (whole)...unless ignored for consent to the same suggestions by others...norm; mainstream; consensus; society; commune-ism; e pluribus unum (out of many, one), uniformity etc.
Thank you for inspiring me to write.
don't the jews magically control the bodies of Christians through Goblin Magic?
If the few suggest abrahamism and the many consent to believe or disbelieve it, then the few gain control over what the many consented to.
pouring together "jew" crimes and "socialist party" crimes
a) what if both judaism and socialism are suggested by the few, while the many consented to believe/disbelief in "jew" and "social"? Does nature brand anything a "jew" and does nature bring together (social) or does it set everyone within apart from one another?
b) how could partials (living) within whole (process of dying) commit a crime against natural law (land air water)?
c) CRIME, noun [Latin , Gr. , to separate, to judge, to decree, to condemn.]...what if nature setting itself apart represents separation from whole into partial; judged minds; a decree (division) of oneness (perceivable) into designated units (perceiving) and a condemnation to a "life" sentence?
neonazi
What if the few suggest both NEO (new) and nazism? What if "neo" from the matrix and "new" world order are suggested by a group of ashke-nazis? Wouldn't the "merchants" utilize "new" to tempt the consumers to discard old? Didn't the ashke-nazi ADL recently suggest that not all nazis are bad when commenting upon the Ukraine narrative? Doesn't the ashke-nazi rothschild (bauer) hold the deed to (apartheid) israel?
the most effective lie would happen to be...
...suggesting those within constant change that "truth" can be defined; claimed and held onto without it being changed, hence automatically becoming a "lie".
The foundation for that...suggesting perceiving effect (living) to ignore perceivable cause (process of dying) for whatever is suggested.
Suggesting a lie, allows one to contradict it at will to suggest a truth....if others consent to want (truth) or not want (lie) the suggested.
Nature doesn't suggest anything...it divides everything perceivable (whole) into each perceiving one (partial), which in return communicates whole to each partial within as moving differences (inspiration).
research rejected
a) RE (respond) SEARCH (searching for) + RE (respond) JECT (throw away)
b) if another suggests one to search for, does one have the free will of choice to "throw away" the suggested?
c) was consent to suggested given before one can throw it away or could resisting the suggestion be seen as throwing away consent?
professor...study
a) PROFITERI (lay claim to, declare openly) + STUDY (strive after)
b) if one professes claims and others resist striving after; then wouldn't one lose the power to hold onto the title "professor"?
c) if the natural order (inception towards death) openly declares itself by moving everything within, then what if life needs to strive to resist it?
trans woman
a) WO (mb) MAN and FE (minine) MALE implies a transmutation of ingredient (female) out of base (male).
b) flow (male) generates momentum (female), which transmutes form (life) within flow (inception toward death).
You mean like NASA aka SAtAN? But what about the missing "t"...minus 9,8,7,5,4,3,2,1...
Almost forgot...Take the F from UFC and use it as "I" + "L" and you'll get LUCI. Still a stretch?
- Biggest soybean exporter in the world...Brazil.
- Biggest international soybean exporter/food processing/grain trading /fertilizer company...Bunge Limited
- Biggest stakeholder in Bunge Limited...Edmond de Rothschild (over 93%)
Using soyjacks to mock the jews that shape everyone else into soyjacks doesn't really drive the punch...
a) LI'BRA, noun - "balance" + LI'BER; adj. - "free"
b) free will of choice within the dominance of balance (free-dom) aka free (living) within dom (process of dying)
c) balance represents the momentum of motion; choice represents the center of balance, hence each one perceiving the ever changing moment (um) of perceivable motion.
d) choice requires a "moment" to be able to adapt to balance, hence life operating in-between input (inception) and output (death), which represents choice operating in-between need (perceivable) and want (suggested).
e) ones mind/memory represents the tool required for choice to operate within a moment (um), hence a memory that can handle perceivable inspiration (like a ram) and suggested information (like a hard-drive)...the former needs to be adapted to, while the latter tempts one to want to hold onto it.
f) knowledge represents perceivable inspiration, ones perceiving free will of choice represents ones conscious opportunity to draw inspiration for the growth of comprehension from it, hence shaping temporary growth (life) out of ongoing loss (inception towards death).
g) knowledge (perceivable inspiration) is always available to everyone within aka a constant flow of input. Suggested information tempts one ignore the constant flow of inspiration by filling up ones conscious memory, which in return forces one to constantly "filter" which suggested information one allows in.
A mind/memory adapting to perceivable inspiration does not need to accumulate information, it can utilize the ongoing flow of inspiration to adapt on the fly to whatever inspires. One cannot run out of inspiration; one can only feel filled with information, while lacking access to inspiration.
Filled with fiction (suggested information) yet starving within reality (perceivable inspiration)...
Why would they need to prove something that everyone already believes?
a) to believe implies ones consent to the suggestions of another. How does mass consensus (the many consenting to believe the suggestions of the few) prove reality?
b) what if believing represents ones choice to want or not want the suggestions by others, while ignoring the need to adapt to perceivable?
It's like saying....They don't need to.
a) does saying (to utter in words) represent a need or a want?
b) what comes first...suggested words or perceivable sound?
a) how can a theory (speculation) be proven while continue to represent a theory?
b) if life is being moved from inception towards death; hence being within constant change, then how could those within change prove anything without change changing it?
c) does motion require those within to prove aka to establish as real, or does the reality of motion force everything within to adapt to being moved by it?
I don't know if there is a virus or if there is not a virus.
a) if KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists", then can one perceive that which "is not" aka that which is nothingness?
b) if everything represents perceivable, then what if nothing represents suggested?
- VI'RUS, noun [Latin See Virulent.] - "poison"
- VIR'ULENT, adjective [Latin virus, poison, See Venom.] - "extremely active in doing injury"
- VEN'OM, noun [Latin venenum, venor, to hunt, to drive or chase; venio, to come. See Venus] - "poison; matter fatal or injurious to life"
- VE'NUS, noun [Latin ventus, venenum; Eng. venom to poison, to fret or irritate].
Suggested "virus" represents the poison; choice (suggestion) towards choice (consent) represents the vector to inject it, reasoning (is vs isn't, yes vs no; true vs false) represents the consequences (conflict; imbalance) of being poisoned, and suggested THE'ORY, noun [Latin theoria; Gr. to see or contemplate.] represents the justification for one to keep ignoring perceivable (reality) for suggested (fiction).
that does not mean what they sponsor is
- SPONSOR, noun - "a surety; one who binds himself to answer for another, and is responsible for his default"
Consenting to a suggested sponsor represents submission of response-ability (free will of choice) onto others. In regard to UFC...willing submission of every participant before any fight has even started.
UFC aka UCF aka l-UC-i-F-er aka UCF + lier (liar)
a) RELIGION, noun (Latin religo, to bind anew) represents ones consent to the suggestion (scientism) of anther, hence binding oneself by consent to those suggesting.
b) suggested scientism tempts one to ignore perceivable SCI'ENCE, noun [Latin scientia, from scio, to know.] aka KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists".
c) suggested "become" tempts one to ignore that one already "came to be"...otherwise one wouldn't be.
a) to believe or disbelieve represents ones consent to the suggestions by another.
b) those who suggest gain possession over those who consent, while those who consent are tricked to believe that they can claim the suggested, which will always be taken from them.
a) foundation (inception towards death) demands those within (life) to care for self or perish...
b) consenting to the suggestions of others tempts one to view them as the foundation, which gives others the power to conceal the foundation by piling more suggestions upon it.
a) the few suggested words (fiction) to tempt the many to ignore perceivable sound (reality).
Suggested "insane person" tempts one to ignore perceivable "in sanus" (being within sound) and "per sonos" (being by sound).
b) consenting to want or not want suggested, while ignoring the need to adapt to perceivable, tempts one into a want versus not want conflict called "reasoning". The few utilize suggestion (-isms) to divide the consenting many to reason against each other over the suggested, which gives the few not only control over both sides of every conflict, but also the mass consent required to be able to define (idolatry), redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the suggested at will, while the many can only reasoning against each other about what it means.
Living implies within the process of dying aka temporary growth within ongoing loss aka form within flow aka material within immaterial.
E'THER, noun [Latin oether; Gr. to burn, to shine.]...living within the process of dying represents a burned offering (holocaust) and a light-bearer.
Sleight of hand: "this little light of mine...I'm gonna let it shine"