2
free-will-of-choice 2 points ago +2 / -0

How do you know you really have free will of choice?

HAVE implies "to own; possess"...the thought of being able to own or possess binds ones free will of choice. A jew tempts gentiles into a have vs have not conflict thereby luring free will of choice into bondage.

Aren't you usually presented with a limited number of options

That which is presented to you is optional; that which presents you is primary. Balance implies primary; choice implies secondary...the presented choices of another implies optional. Either optional side presented tempts choice into imbalance against the other side.

As for limitation: Infinite nature represents the limit within which finite being is free to respond. A being cannot ever exhaust nature...only oneself or each other.

In other words...as long as one is free to choose; one can increase ones limit.

and those options are usually already engineered?

Engine implies being within (en) generation (gine)...nature implies the primary generator; being the secondary response to it. Optional social engineering tricks a being to respond to one another aka give consent to any suggestion, while ignoring natural engineering.

Natural engineering is about discerning self as within (en) generation (gine).

What you perceive as free will might just be trained behavior

a) What's trained behavior is leaving out OF CHOICE when talking about free will, which puts one a liberty of a chosen one.

b) Being able to perceive implies a division of all perceivable into each ones perception aka in-between (choice) a division (balance). It's the suggestions by another which are optional to one.

c) Train/trahere - "to pull, draw" positions ones choice in-between a push/pull balance aka life being pushed from inception and pulled towards death simultaneously.

A jew pushes optional choices to pull gentiles towards death, while distracting from the natural push aka the animation of life aka the inspiration of life aka breathing life into being.

to some degree at least.

a) Some/sum implies putting together...doing that binds free will of choice. Each chosen one summons the free will of choice of each gentile into a consensus aka together into bondage.

b) A degree (a position in a hierarchy) implies ones choice under a chosen one aka an inversion of each beings free will of choice.

Nature divides each being from one another...a jew suggests hierarchy to first rank each divided gentile, and then rank each divided jew above unified gentiles. This is how each jew can manipulate the degree of division among unified gentiles.

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

vilification of knowledge

Knowledge moves through each being...willingly holding onto information establishes a villain (bondsman aka man bound) and an en-e-my (within me).

Knowledge cannot be held onto...a jew shapes understanding to tempt gentiles a) into a hierarchy aka student standing under teacher and b) to hold onto suggested information.

entertainment

Consent permits suggested information to enter and tame ones mind. Perceivable inspiration inspires while animating resistance to the temptation of wanting to hold onto.

arts

Artificial implies the inversion of natural...and it requires a being to ignore the motion of nature by holding onto the artifice.

Without

Being implies inner (perception) within outer (perceivable). A jew suggests without to invert within...within the minds of gentiles.

urge to seek

Nature implies the urging origin inspiring being to resist the temptation of seeking outcome. A jew inverts this by suggesting for example "two more weeks" to tempt gentiles to seek alternatives for urgent outcomes. It's seeking alternatives to avoid outcome, which keeps outcome within being. If one tries to avoid that which one fears, then one carries fear within one.

A jew adapts to real origin, while shaping fake outcomes to misdirect gentiles.

desire to create

a) Desire implies the want for outcome tempting ones choice to ignore the need to adapt to origin. The issue with holding onto desire..."I can't get no satisfaction; cause I try and I try and I try".

b) Coming into being implies a natural transformation (transfer of form within action)...a jew suggests creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) to invert everything into nothing.

There cannot be creation inside of energy; motion; cause; sound; light; all; whole; God...YET...each power; matter; effect; instrument; ray; one; partial; Christ can be tricked to ignore transformation for creation.

mass...sacrifice

To amass together sacrifices each divided (divined) partial within. A jew amasses gentiles through for example tikkun olam (repairing the world by bringing together)...it's joining together with others which represents self sacrifice.

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

Amorites

Aka amos (borne by god) + rite (formal act)...God implies action; any form borne within implies reaction.

Arameans

Aka aram/rum (to be high)...action bringing reaction into being implies a lessening (inception towards death); coming into being implies a heightening (life).

Phoenicians

Aka phonics (sound)...sound acts; instrument reacts. Instrument implies mind structured within, hence being of sound mind.

Hebrew

He (male) > she (female) > off-spring implies respiration...brewing implies fermentation. Nature generating being implies a process of respiration; a jew tempting gentiles together represents fermentation.

compromised the entire

Only within entire can partial be com (together) promittere (to send forth). The entirety of nature sets each partial being within apart from one another...thereby allowing respiration aka animation generating room to breathe for being. A jew utilizes fermentation to invert the entire process by compromising gentiles into a consensus of order followers.

How many libraries have they burned

Knowledge (perceivable inspiration) written into a book (suggestible information) initiates the burning by the friction of holding onto something, while ignoring that everything moves.

All perceivable inspiration is being made available to each ones perception...unless willingly ignored for suggested information. For example...holding onto words tempts one to ignore sound. The latter offers each instrument an infinity of inspiration to draw from, while the former confines the instrument with information orchestrated by another aka being played for a fool.

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

jews rewriting history

Nature delineates (inline); artifice is written (outline)...a jew writes outlines to tempt gentiles into ignoring being (life) within a line (inception towards death). Holding onto outlines implies storing stories.

creating fake realities

RE (to respond) AL(all) aka all action generating each reaction. A jew suggests creationism aka creatio ex nihilo (out of nothing) to tempt gentiles with created nothing from transforming (reaction) everything (action).

Ones consent to anything created by another turns real into fake.

cannibalizing other jews

Each jew (singular) suggests jews (plural) to tempt gentiles (plural) to ignore singularity. Plurality implies the cannibalization of each singular within aka mutual destruction.

Joining others (plural) sacrifices oneself (singular) hence cannibal/canis - "dog" implying a dog eat dog world.

https://genius.com/Dog-eat-dog-isms-lyrics

the past is no different from the present

Presence implies differentiation of essence from one another...a jew suggests past > present > future to tempt gentiles by choosing a side to attack their presence at center.

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

I will object to his use of the word "elastic" though.

a) EL (all) ASTIC (unsteady, unstable, taking no fixed position)...if all moves, then each one within remains unstable.

b) Will (choice) implies an OB (towards) JECT (to throw) aka motion > balance > choice.

c) Each beings will implies the ASTIC within EL of natural L(and) A(ir) W(ater).

It's ones consent to suggested "words" which makes ones mind rigid...

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

Curious about the connection between ancient texts and modern mysteries?

Few shape ancient texts and modern mysteries to tempt curiosity among many into a consensus; thereby establishing a connection.

some interpretations suggest

a) Few shape suggestions to some/sum many into a consensus, while distracting from inter (in-between) pret (to traffic) aka of nature trafficking (inception towards death) being (life) in-between.

b) Nature implies everything generating each thing...artifice implies each thing (perception) ignoring everything (perceivable) for something (suggested).

a surprising link to religious narratives

Re (to respond) ligo (to bind)...what's surprising is that this link isn't seen by many, who are willingly blinded by narratives suggested by few.

ufo disclosure

How many disclosures does it take to become an IFO?

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

The Public Has Never Heard...

A person (singular) joining a public (plural) has a harder time hearing anything among so many others. What if nature privatizes each beings sense, while few publicize noise to make many insensitive to one another?

UFO

What if nature objectifying (life) during flight (inception towards death) implies indifference (difference)...not identification (sameness)?

Birds in flight are called a flock (sameness), but each bird has to wield wings apart from one another (difference)...who suggests labels to flock differences together into an identity?

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

kickstarter...project guideline...generally allowed vs generally not allowed

Aka kickstarting the circular conflict in-between allowance vs disallowance to distract project (life) from guideline (inception towards death).

mature content

Content aka continere (to hold together) corrupts maturity.

What's supported

What doesn't nature support?

non-consensual act

Nature acting upon being does not require consent...nature forces being to adapt.

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

What are numbers?

A number implies energy internally dividing power from one another aka singularity (cause) generating each single unit (effect).

Numbers imply suggested pluralism tempting each consenting unit to ignore singularity; while counting together divided power.

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

A lot of, if not all of the religious figures never existed

A figure implies form shaped within flow...it's holding onto any figure which distracts from the process of shaping and religion represents holding onto aka re (to respond) ligo (to bind).

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

economic decline

Eco (to give) or nomy (to take)...putting both together generates decline; adapting to given while resisting the temptation of taking generates increase.

GDP (gross domestic product)

a) Only nature produces being, hence the opposite of product being process. Fixing any product with a price contradicts process.

b) Domestic vs foreign tempts one to ignore dominating nature setting each native being free from any other foreigner.

c) Gross (large) and net (to bind) refers to few binding many together.

number still goes up

Number aka the designation of a unit/unus - "one" cannot be more than one. Singularity doesn't become plurality. It's counting numbers together which tempts one to ignore natural singularity for artificial plurality.

A process cannot stand still...it's potential (perception) ignoring process (perceivable) by taking into possession (suggested), which puts ones mind to rest.

will probably never work

Only within work (energy) can will (power) come into being.

live off of welfare

Living implies will (life) fare (inception towards death)...

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

a) Suicide implies sui (self) cide (to kill; deprive of life)...mixing differences deprives life of particularity.

b) Scheme/skhēma/segh - "to hold"...joining any religion by free will of choice implies holding onto bondage hence re (to respond) ligo (to bind).

c) Fair implies purification (analysis); blame implies contamination (synthesis)...holding onto implies synthesis; letting go implies analysis.

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

How much of our reality is fake?

Taking a measurement (much) into possession (our) contradicts reality aka re (to respond) al (all) aka ones response (potential) to all (procession).

Fake requires ones responding choice to hold onto something (suggested) while ignoring that everything (perceivable) moves.

there's this band that supposedly has existed...

Look into The Beatles while ignoring the actors playing them for the designer... (((Theodor W. Adorno)))

Could it be some kind of an experiment?

Watching anything implies expression (ex) pressing forward (peri) mind (ment) aka the expression of others pressing forward ones mind, while the watcher represses self.

Sleight of hand through Madonna: "Express yourself; don't repress yourself...and I'm not sorry...it's human nature".

I know there are a lot of fake things out there

To "know" implies the process of analysis (setting apart)...broadcasting a "lot" implies a synthesis (putting together).

Nature implies analysis; artifice implies synthesis.

retroactivity

Nature implies action; being implies reaction. Few suggest "retro" to tempt many to mentally hold onto, while ignoring physical action. Anything physically sold as retro tempts one to justify mentally retrogressing.

As for the use of retroactivity to rewrite the past...only within an ongoing line (inception towards death) can one (life) write. It's past and future which represent the fiction corrupting ones real presence.

A presence (life) cannot perceive past (inception) or future (death) while being transferred in-between...yet others can present a past to hold onto and a future to hope or fear for.

the internet is actually much, much emptier than it seems.

So is the world within which there can be only one...cause > effect implies singularity. Only within the same cause can each different effect come into being.

What if they are trying to do the same with reality itself?

Reality implies singularity...plurality (they) implies fiction. THEY aren't trying...ONE fails the trial to discern self when viewing another one (singular) as they (plural).

how many facts and events you have actually witnessed yourself in real life?

a) Fact implies F(icticious)ACT...

b) To be a witness implies sacrificing self as a martyr for others... https://www.etymonline.com/word/witness

The opposite of witness implies participant (being) within whole (nature).

Or have witnessed it. Or participated in it.

Aka fiction (witness) or reality (participant)...free will of choice.

which have never existed before their introduction

Coming into being implies each ones introduction into all...never aka "nothing-everything" represents a suggested fiction tempting one to de-nial/nihilo (nothing) reality.

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

it confirms a major aspect

Nature implies major; being implies aspect...confirm (forming together) implies putting aspects together, while ignoring that major divides each minor aspect from one another.

only a handle which has no agreed definition

Nature giving being free will of choice implies the manual handle given...agreeing to definitions implies abusing the manual handle to hold something within possession.

Most of the human race--perhaps 80%--are NPCs

If each being represents one unit within the singularity of nature...then holding onto one another (mentally or physically) singles out few among many.

Viewing reality as plurality makes one a non player character within singularity. In other words...joining others shirks ones response-ability.

One big aspect

Only within major (cause) can aspect (effect) come into being...drawing comparisons among aspects (big or small) distracts from major.

Nature doesn't make big or small, but allows each being to grow during loss. The only aspect ratio implies one within all.

they are already psychotic

Psych implies nature animating being; -otic implies being holding onto plural (they) while ignoring natures singularity.

detachment from reality

Re (to respond) al (all) implies detachment...fake requires one to ignore real by attaching to it.

Nature dissociates each beings mind from one another to allow analysis of one another...few suggest consciousness to collectivize the minds of many by synthesis.

their idea of reality

"Their" implies suggested pluralism; "Idea" implies suggested idealism...neither of which are real aka ones perception responding to all perceivable.

most of what they believe

"Most" implies ones belief in suggested pluralism.

comes from sources

Source implies singularity...so does effect. There can be only one source...all for one and one for all.

What are other sources than energy?

A main cue of "authority" is to make statements

Making statements (suggesting) neglects the main cue (perceiving).

speaking with authority

Sound authorizes instrument...words spoken with authority of sound distract instrument from sound.

Sound/sanus (entire; whole; all) authorizes in-stru-ment (mind structured within)...few articulate natural sound into words to trick many into giving up authority.

AI speaking with authority

Using artificial (suggestion) implies giving up natural authority (perception).

authorities

Authority implies singularity...suggested plurality tempts one to consent aka to give up authority.

"AI" cannot be inherently trusted

Trust implies artifice (synthesis); thrust implies natural (analysis).

anything AI spits out is "reality".

AI spits out fiction to distract from re (to respond) al (all)...yet; only within reality can fiction be shaped.

the lunatic rantings of everyone that owns a keyboard.

Which is what AI regurgitates through filters to resell again and again, while keeping users stuck within a feedback loop.

The feedback mechanism

It's ones consent to any suggested -ism, which replaces the natural (perception) within the mechanical (suggestion).

Feed (life) back (inception towards death) isn't a loop...it implies linear progression.

psychosis with no natural governor

Psych implies nature; -osis implies a native choosing another native as artificial governor, while denying (no) nature.

a fundamentally different way.

The foundation of mind implies differentiation (life) of way (inception towards death).

stop believing

Stop aka the cessation of motion represents an artificial belief system, mentally held onto, while ignoring that a being cannot stop nature moving.

The few that can wake up have to begin making decisions under that reality.

What about the other few? The few chosen ones tempting the deciding choice of many into perpetual slumber by shaping fiction?

decisions

Again...decision by ones free will of choice implies singularity. Plurality implies ones free will of choice to shirk onto others what was given to each one.

Choice cannot be shared...only shirked.

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sorry you don't understand (flat and stationary is certain)

You vs me + do vs don't + standing under vs standing over implies a continues circle under the label "flat and stationary"...a contradiction.

It's holding onto any contradiction which fills one with sorrow (sorry)...

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

Stationary is absence of motion and everything is always in some form of motion.

a) The ION in stat-ion-ary implies action aka motion...stat/sta - "to stand" implies a reaction aka choice balancing within motion.

b) If the word "everything" puts together a unitary (thing) and an aggregate of units (every); then what if that's an inversion of singularity (motion) dividing each unit (matter) within?

c) What if absence implies the sense of matter abstaining from motion by ignorance? And what if words like "stationary" + "everything" are designed to shape absence by tempting ignorance?

The ground we stand on ages, the sky above swirls and flows like the sea

a) We cannot stand...only a singular can wield the free will of choice to balance within motion. Standing together as a plural (we) makes finding balance within motion harder, because it confines free will of choice.

b) Flow cannot be "like" anything else...flow implies sameness differentiating form from one another. It's ignoring flow which allows form to shape likeness with one another.

If sea represents flow, then why can a sea find balance? A calm sea implies a formed choice within the balance of flowing motion. A sea reacts to being enacted upon...as does form within flow.

What if Natural L(and) A(ir) W(ater) implies flowing nature forming land; air, and water?

But no curve means no planet means no orbit

Both NO (nothing/nihilo aka nihilism and denial) + MEANING (to measure aka to hold onto a measure within mind) prevents potential (form) within procession (flow) to shape curves; planets; orbits etc. by free will of choice.

Flow doesn't form NO or MEANING...form shapes those by ignoring flow.

Orbiting was the motion I was talking about which I am certain doesn't happen

Nature moves being (choice) from > to (balance), which allows each being the free will of choice to shape ascertained happenstance like "orbiting motion".

You trying to ascertain what does or doesn't happen a) ignores the free will of choice given by linear motion, and b) confines your free will of choice within a circular motion aka reason (does vs doesn't).

Your reasoning against others (does vs doesn't), and your circular logic (does or doesn't) implies orbiting a certainty.

It doesn't matter if you choose round or flat, because choosing either side turns both sides against each other aka into orbital motion. Orbital because whatever you choose to hold onto within yourself (logic) turns into conflict outside yourself (reason).

Even if you manage to convince another to switch from round to flat...the conflict aka versus/verto - "to turn" continues the orbital motion.

things on it are always moving

Always implies WAY(s) OF ALL motion for each thing within. It's the addition of the "S" which tricks one to ignore singularity for plurality.

A thing cannot be "always"...only within all way can each thing come into being. The suggested word "always" shapes a plurality within the mind of each thing consenting to it.

Earth

Earth/erda/er - "ground; land"...only WITHIN nature can there be L(and) A(ir) W(ater).

sometimes just a little and very slowly.

That implies to behold aka a being holding onto measurements by summoning time. One needs to resist the want to hold onto...otherwise one perishes.

If everything moves, then motion cannot be some/sum - "quantity or amount"...motion implies singularity; some-times implies plurality.

If there's sometime; then where's the other time?

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

Round Table

Notice round (circular) table (square) aka a circle encompassing a square. If one encircles a square; then corners have to be cut...

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't have resources to develop a theory

The developing of a theory corrupts resource aka ones response (re) to rise (source)...DON'T represents such a theory aka a mental scheme corrupting a beings thought within the natural process.

The source of "don't" is based on not responding to source...

Flat and stationary is certain

What if certainty ignores process? What if being implies stationary potential (life) within moving procession (inception towards death). Notice that process implies a flat line, while potential implies any shape...

Are you certain that stationary (motionless) can exist outside of motion?

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

AIs Compete for Control

For implies nature forwarding being...AI implies artifice shaped to distract being from forwarding nature. It's few who shape artifice to distract many from nature and into competition and control of each other.

  • Who goes into competition (war) with one another...few or many?
  • Who controls (just following orders) one another...few or many?
1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

Love implies versus hate...few set up leaders to mislead many into a circular conflict against each other. It doesn't matter if the leader is beloved or hated; cause it's the followers who fight each other nonetheless.

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

a) Only within singularity (cause) can each single unit (effect) come into being...after which plurality can be shaped by putting units together.

b) Sur (beyond) round (circular) implies tempting a being (be) at a distance (yond) aka from center into circumference aka into surrounding.

It's few who suggest SUR-realism to ROUND up many into mental (logic) and physical (reason) circles. Another example... DOLBY SURROUND to dull (dol) being (by) beyond (sur) center and into circumference (round).

c) Sound implies linear distribution of each instrument (mind structured within)...only within a line can a circle be shaped.

d) Counting others together (plural) corrupts ones self discernment (singular) while permitting another to hold one accountable.

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

All cults strive for

All forwards each one within...a jew suggests something to strive for to cultivate the reaction of gentiles.

An after death army of aetheric corpses

If all forwards (inception towards death) each one within (life); then following cultivated strife establishes an army of the living dead aka incorporated essence.

to learn truth to be protected

Pro (forwards) tect (to cover)...it's holding onto suggested truth or lies which covers ones perception of being forwarded.

subjugating their minds to certain aberrations of truth

Consenting to any suggestion aka holding onto...subjugates first mind; then body to "certainty" aka the aberration of holding onto truth or lies, while ignoring that everything moves.

Being moved from inception towards death implies the natural way...circular logic (mind) turning into a conflict of reason (body) represents the artificial aberration thereof.

2
free-will-of-choice 2 points ago +2 / -0

This has NOTHING to do with AI...This is the modern version of the great book burning.

Accumulating information from the world wide web into centralized AI represents the book burning. AI is used to funnel flames of burned information.

For example...the google of billions of search results became the google of a couple of pages of results vetted for search, which is now becoming the google of ask AI for different shapes of the one answer you're allowed to search for.

The burning itself was never about books, but about information held within mind/memory. Books are used as physical manifestations for mental inflammation.

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

Measuring THINGS (plural) thru ONE'S (singular) perception

Try to explain this contradiction.

view more: Next ›