a) pissing in the faces of the Russian goyim like usual.
b) JOSEF (hebrew yasap) - "to add, increase, or repeat" STALIN - "steel"...buckle up, war is back on the menu.
Nature doesn't brand anything, it moves everything, which those within perceive as inspiration for adaptation, as to sustain themselves.
The few suggest affixed brands to tempt the many to ignore ongoing origin. For example...suggested "insane person" tempts one to ignore perceivable "in sanus" (within sound) and "per sonos" (by sound), hence being within; by, out of and in response to perceivable sound.
In short...suggested words as an overlay upon perceivable sound represents "spell-craft".
not...don't
Aka "nothing" and "doing nothing"...how could one thing (perceiving partial) within everything (perceivable whole) perceive "nothing"?
How does perceivable nature communicate "nothing" to you? What if nothing was suggested to you as the inversion of perceivable everything, hence tempting you to ignore perceivable (reality) for suggested (fiction)?
Would the few have the chutzpah to suggest the many "nothing"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI
Why would I call out choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law (aka religion) and then consent to suggested Gnosticism? Every suggested -ism implies binding oneself to another by consent, hence shirking response-ability (choice) onto others.
Edit: GNOS'TIC, noun [Latin gnosticus; Gr. to know.] + KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists"....suggested Gnosticism tempts one to ignore that.
As we have free will, we can separate ourselves from the origin.
a) free will of choice represents the separated "reaction" within the "enacting" origin separating itself from whole (perceivable) into each partial (perceiving).
b) FREE implies within dominance, WILL (want) implies within need; OF implies out of, hence in response to, and CHOICE implies within balance.
c) all separation of origin (whole into partial) implies a self differentiation of origin, which is why those within perceive moving differences as perceivable inspiration for adaption.
Religion is how we reunite.
a) RELIGION; noun (Latin religio) - "to bind anew" represents choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law....the inversion of perceivable (enacting) to choice (reaction) natural law.
"in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti" implies the contract law of those suggesting "in nomine (in the name of)" and those consenting (by faith) to the suggested (patris et filii et spiritus sancti).
Meanwhile within perceivable...Padri (whole) Filii (partial) Spiritus (Latin spiro; to breathe aka adaptation of partial within whole).
b) nature sets itself apart aka from whole (process of dying) into each partial (living), which implies each ones struggle to sustain self as apartheid (living) within wholeness (dying).
c) the parasitic few suggest the inversion of apartheid, hence together as e pluribus unum (out of many, one) or tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) or united states; united nations; european union; uniformity or equality (sameness) through diversity (differences).
d) RE (respond to) UNITE (Latin unitas; unity; unus, one) implies as reacting one (perceiving) within enacting oneness (perceivable). The many ignore this because the few suggest them "dualism", hence counting perceivable differences (one among other ones) as suggested sameness (two).
Test this...look at anything you believe represents "two" and notice that you perceive each "one" of them separately. That's how communication between perceivable whole and perceiving partials work...differentiation in motion.
If the religion does not stay within the origin, how can it serve its purpose?
a) if origin implies "complete, whole, everything", then how could anything partial be able to not stay within it?
The trick being played on the many....suggested creationism (implies out of nothing) over perceivable transmutation (implies out of everything). As temporary from (life) within ongoing flow (inception towards death), transmutation implies flow to form (inception); form within flow (life) and form to flow (death) aka ingredient out of base transmutation...alchemy.
b) consider that if religion (to bind anew) represents your consent to believe; submit; have faith in, the suggestions of others, then that those others are suggesting the purposes aka the few suggesting "progressivism" to direct the consenting many towards outcomes, as to tempt them to ignore being the resistance (living) within the progressing origin (process of dying)?
If you have a problem thinking like this, then consider if your consent to what others are suggesting you to think interferes with your discernment within perceivable.
Try need over want; inspiration (perceivable) over information (suggested) and implication (if/then) over reason (want vs not want; true vs false; belief vs disbelief; good vs bad etc.)...these can help clear ones mind, but it's a choice only oneself can make.
first deputy permanent representative
What comes after the "first" permanent...the second remaining; the third durable; the fourth lasting; the fifth without any change?
reality that is hidden behind the constant barrage of lies, as long as truth remains.
If one resists suggested "truth" and "lies"; then one could comprehend the implication of constant (process of dying) and remaining (living)...does that sound like a "hidden" reality or like a revealing process...unless ignored?
he's not part of the problem; he's part of the solution
-
PROB'LEM, noun [Latin problema; Gr. to throw forward] aka the process of dying as the ongoing problem, throwing forward the temporary living, who are struggling to sustain self within.
-
SOLU'TION, noun [Latin solutio, from solvo, dissolve.] aka SOLU (living being dissolved) -TION (through action aka through the process of dying).
Part of the solution implies partial ingredient (living) within whole solution (process of dying). Suggesting others progressivism (towards outcomes) tempts them to increase their problems within origin (being moved towards death), which if successful reduces CLIMATE, verb - "to dwell; to reside in a particular region" CHANGE, verb "to turn or pass from one state to another", hence tempting others with suggested progressivism to consent to be turned from temporary living into the ongoing process of dying.
In his own words..."Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent".
violates...perfect...
a) PER'FECT, adjective (Latin perfectus, perficio, to complete)...if the complete whole (process of dying) breaks itself apart (living), then do partials within whole represent a violation or an opportunity for temporary growth (life) within ongoing loss (inception towards death)?
b) complete implies nothing outside it, so how could anything within complete represent a violation thereof?
shall inherit all things
Like the parasitic few inherited everything the ignorant many willingly consented them to have?
deviate so far from scripture as to be totally useless for that stated goal
a) to believe in a creator implies one to be the created, hence out of origin.
b) wanting outcome (goals) tempts one to ignore the need to adapt to origin.
c) doesn't suggested outcome tempt one to ignore perceivable origin..."You shall have no other gods before Me.” ?
gender-neutral
Generation (process of dying) represents the neutral foundation for the generated struggles (living) within.
imagery is not interchangeable
IM'AGE, noun [Latin imago.] - "a representation or similitude formed of a material substance" aka living (inter) within the process of dying (change).
England
Aka ENGLA LAND aka land of the angles...if two lines meet at a point, then that implies a meeting within motion. As for the two lines...
- inception towards death (process of dying)
- need/want (adaptation by living).
And the point? The living ones perspective (perceiving) within the process of dying (perceivable). Both lines coexisting implies a cross... https://pic8.co/sh/xR1I92.jpg (the other side of the cross reads "CEMS aka Church of England's Men Society")
"When goyim was in zion world... Let my people go!"
Guess that is how it is even to this day, bunch of people shouting at each other.
Whatever the suggested topic, ones consent to want or not want it, puts one into the want vs not want conflict of reason. Those reasoning are spending their resistance against each other instead of for the sustenance of self.
On the flip-side...oneself can always resist the temptation to consent to anything suggested, which allows one to comment upon everything perceivable from a non-conflicting stance. Then again...others will then reason about one refusing to choose a side within their conflicts.
I learned a lot about defining words though. After that, people started yelling at me...
Tell them about revisionism in language and they agree, yet dare to apply reverse-engineering upon language and they disagree with you straying from the "norm" of communication. Once again...only resisting temptation keeps one in balance.
a) virtue implies ones choice to evaluate perceivable or suggested as virtuous, hence a reaction.
b) the root of both virility and virtue; VIR- implies "man", hence the masculine action (flow) generating feminine balance (momentum) for "trans"-muted reactions (form) within, hence form representing male and fe(minine)male or man and wo(mb)man, hence coexistence of feminine form (life) within masculine flow (inception towards death).
Which begs the question.
a) a question represents ones want for outcomes, which others exploit by suggested answers. Consenting to such an answer allows them to direct ones wants through temptation.
b) to beg (asking for charity) tempts one to ignore that all given (process of dying) demands resistance (living) from those within, hence life representing response-ability (free will of choice)...not a charity.
c) if one resists the temptation of suggested answers, then one can question perceivable solution (inspiration), which in return grows ones resistance to want to ask questions, which others will exploit with suggested answers.
How many spells are we still under?
a) you represent the choice to count what others suggest you to count. Perceivable doesn't require those perceiving it to count anything. What one perceives represents moving differences, which implies each "one" of them, which implies "oneself" can only count other "ones".
b) the main spell...suggested spelling (words) over perceivable sound. The later represents ongoing inspiration, the former represents temporary information, used as labels upon ongoing inspiration...motion doesn't require labels to be perceivable, yet those within motion can be tempted with suggested labels to ignore being moved.
Go outside and exercise resisting suggested labels such as tree, wind, earth etc. The more you do, the more you will comprehend about the perceivable motion and the behavior of things being moved and the less will the suggested label stick within your memory.
c) another spell that combines counting and spell-craft (word over sound) represents the suggested "we" (plural) over the perceivable "one" (singular). This is how the few control the many by suggesting each one of them to consent to a suggested group, which then allows the few to direct the entire group (chain of command; order follower; NPC; ideological movements etc.).
d) ones want to understand the suggested information by another represents ones consent to "stand under" another. One isn't under a spell, one willingly consents to utilize suggested words to spell, while willingly ignoring perceivable sound.
One can only exist in-between need (perceivable) and want (suggested), hence as choice within balance.
How much of what we perceive to be true is actually founded upon lies dating back hundreds if not thousands of years?
a) ones consent to want (true) or not want (lies) suggested information, tempts one to ignore the need to adapt to perceivable inspiration, and inspiration implies moving differences, hence constant change...not true or false states.
Try to find any "truth" that others cannot contradict...is there any "truth" that cannot be changed through motion? If you struggle to find any, consider to allow yourself to question if the only thing that cannot change are the rules of change itself (natural law). One needs to discern self (life) as being within motion (inception towards death), to be able to further discern the natural order of motion and the rules of behavior for those within.
Others cannot suggest nature to you without you being tempted to ignore discerning for self.
b) who suggested you to count? Who suggested you to use calendars? Who suggested you dates? Who suggested you exponentially increasing numbers which make your head spin? How does one who exist "now" (within the momentum of motion) perceive centuries and millennia?
On the other hand...does the perceivable "now" offer one the ongoing consequences of what was chosen before as inspiration for adaptation, and would using implication (if/then) help one to discern choices of reaction to sustain self within the moment (um) of now?
c) if you consent to believe in the suggested word "reality", then you put the suggested word "reality" over perceivable reality, while allowing others to define, redefine and contradict the suggested overlay without you realizing it. Fiction represents ones consent to ignore perceivable reality for the suggestions by others.
It's on oneself to discern this. Others cannot penetrate what oneself willingly ignores.
the most important one of all...
a) ...represents "one" self and ones free will of choice to evaluate anything as most or least.
b) import aka IN (being within) PORTO (shelter for vessels within flow) aka being a temporary formed vessel (life) within the shelter (momentum) of ongoing flow (inception towards death).
In short...import (inception) and export (death) of product (life).
The auditors of truth.
a) what truth have the many ever audited that the few aren't continue to redefine and contradict at will?
b) if the many represent the auditors, then why do the few control the debt?
c) AUDIT (Latin audire, from root au-, to perceive)...does one perceive lies or are lies being suggested towards ones consent? If one consents to suggested; then does that imply ignoring perceivable (need) for suggested truth (want) or lies (not want)?
The investigators
a) why do you think the many keep "investing" while only the few keep gaining?
b) the few suggest investment aka IN (being within) VESTIRE (to cloth; cover) MENT (mind; memory), because the consent of the many covers their minds within suggested (information), while ignoring perceivable (inspiration).
The masons of free (will of choice) invest suggested information into the consenting minds/memories of others, hence generating compounded interest, while banking the vessel within flow in-between artificial barriers. Consent of the many is required, hence a Bank & Trust.
the reminders
Hold your son; then remember his birth...while you remember that which was, you're ignoring the son that is. Others suggest reminders (his-story; appointments; nostalgia etc.) to tempt one to remember, while exploiting ones ignorance of that which is...the "now" aka the momentum of motion (balance) for ones free will of choice.
if truth is light than we are carriers of the torch.
Comprehension of perceivable represents "light", ignorance thereof represents "dark"...oneself represents the combustible substance (life) within the combusting essence (inception towards death). Carrying the torch represents sustaining self, which includes passing the torch aka sustaining self by perpetuation (offspring) through another (intercourse).
Those who conspire must be placed inside a stack of tires and retired with fire.
Revenge implies against others, while ignoring to sustain self. Those who ignore to sustain self are being conspired against by others who mercilessly exploit ignorance of perceivable with suggestions.
If one kills all the liars, then the ignorance of others towards the truth will tempt one to sell truth with lies. Ignorance (want) can only be resisted (need), which implies ones free will of choice. Very few comprehend this.
I posted the ACTUAL data
a) he's tricking you to spend effort against others instead of for discernment of self.
b) notice that "actual" implies action, while your choice to respond to him represents "reaction".
c) he suggested you to substantiate claims, which tempts one to ignore being substance (living) within essence (process of dying) aka material within immaterial. Any claim of possession the material makes, ignores that the immaterial cannot be claimed, only reacted to.
d) DA'TA, noun - "things given, or admitted"...everything (process of dying) gives to everyone (living), hence everyone only being able to react (perceiving) to everything already given (perceivable)... If one suggests "data"; one admits to ignore that, and consent of admission implies permission for suggestion to enter, hence allowing the vampire in.
The shit that is going on here is way bigger than medical malpractice or covering up the data proving it, but it's being utilized to tempt you to willingly invest yourself into these suggested narratives, which are all controlled by those suggesting them, not by those consenting to reason (prove vs disprove) about them.
SCIENTIA INGENIUM VIRTUS
- SCIENTIA aka SCIENCE (Latin scio; to know); from KNOWL'EDGE - "perception of that which exists"
- INGENIUM - "innate natural quality"
- VIRTUS - "virility; male strength".
Suggested male strength (process of dying) tempts one to ignore female resistance (living). Suggested value (quality) tempts one to ignore being evaluation (perceiving) within value (perceivable), suggested innate (life) tempts one to ignore perceivable extrinsic (inception towards death) and suggestion (artificial) tempts one to ignore perception (natural).
the fifth element
a) what comes before air, wind, water and fire?
b) EL'EMENT, noun [Latin elementus.] - "an ingredient; a constituent part"...out of what can an ingredient be transmuted or a part be formed?
dressed the same way....it's that universities weirdness
University equals uniformity...if "one" ignores that nature designates each U'NIT, noun [Latin unus, unitas, unity.] - "one" apart from "one" another.
particular university
Aka one part (living) of the whole oneness (process of dying) or to use a sleight of hand from Terry Pratchett..."the unseen university".
They gave him the costume to wear.
What's the "cost" of choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law?
how controllers depict history...how history actually is
If one consents to his-story; then that implies one is still controlled by him...
A questionable suggestion...
repulsed by insects
a) IN (being within) SECT (Latin seco; to divide)
b) RE (response to) PULSE (Latin pello, to drive)
Aka being partial (living) divided within whole (process of dying), hence responding (life) to being driven (inception towards death).
There is a concerted effort by very wealthy individuals...
...like Rothschild...whose lesser known name is....
Farmers in many countries are white...
BAUER (German, farmer)
Japanese...against...Government
Internationalists: "such convenience; much opportunity"
Japanese researchers...
...should consider researching Nihon and Nippon...
Imagination...Earth
Imagine EARth represents hearsay....
Any suggested fiction can only be shaped within all perceivable reality...ones consent to the former tempts one to ignore the latter.
Edit: ZOMBIE aka SOME BE...while most ignore what it means to be. iZOMBIE aka EYES ON BE...not on what others suggest on to be.
EX (expression of) ACT (action) implies being reaction (living) within enacting (process of dying).