both
Only during loss (inception towards death) can there be growth (life)...a jew suggests "America + Russia" as growth and "Trump + Yeltsin" as loss to tempt gentiles to view both in conflict with one another.
Choosing sides within a conflict tempts each gentile off-center, hence preventing growth during loss.
will not save
Nature sets will free...a jew suggests gentiles to "save" whatever they desire by free "will" of choice, which in return binds free will of choice to a chosen ones suggestion.
Nature implies an ongoing solution for each temporary potential coming into being within...there cannot be any save-states within motion.
how come it's not the same
Same motion differentiates shapes of matter.
sequence + mirror
a) Sequence/sequi - "to follow"...if differently shaped matter (life) follows the same motion (inception towards death); then differences are becoming equalized.
b) Mirror/mirer - "to look"...looking/locking at something tempts one to ignore that its being moved within everything. Looking tempts the "eye of the beholder".
Few suggest sequences to tempt many to mirror suggested, while ignoring perceivable.
What's the deal with how come it's not the same
Perceivable generating perception implies the differentiation of sameness...consenting to suggested aka "making a deal" tempts one to ignore that.
Would the effects be similar if you had it in the Fibonacci shape instead.
Mass consent to suggested shapes by few aka symbolism affects many artificially, while distracting each from being effect within cause of nature.
fibonacci
Aka fib-o-nacci...a fib (lie) of a nazi (ashkenazi)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/fib
- Norm/gnōmōn - "carpenter's square"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/norm
Few suggest norms as "square" to tempt many into logic as "compass", hence circling the square. That's geometry aka geomancy... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomancy
because talking does nothing
Nature doesn't talk; it moves sound, which causes being.
no one will ever act
One implies a reaction within all action...no implies suggested nihil-ism (nihilo; nothing) by another one, which tempts one to de-nial all.
Free WILL implies...of choice.
It’s literally that simple.
Literal implies "according to letter"; accord implies "towards heart"...not agreeing or disagreeing with suggested letters within mind.
no progress
Coming into being implies during a progress. To be implies being (life) progressed (inception towards death)...no/nothing/nihilo implies ones de-nial of being progressed.
a lot less people than before
Con (together) spire (to breathe) implies few collectivizing many into a "lot of people". Dissolving conspiracy requires separation from one another, hence lessening the impact of collectivization, and thereby gaining more room to breathe for oneself.
Users don't care about progress.
Caring/carrying during progression implies self abuse aka a repression of expression.
They care about being accepted
What if pluralism (they) tempts singular (one) to seek acceptance or denial from others?
feel alone
Feeling implies emotion/emotio - "to move from"; which only works all(in)one. Together implies "towards getting", which distracts life from being moved towards death.
Shouting into the void.
Being implies rise (life) during fall (inception towards death), hence fall/full...not an empty void.
It's holding onto one another's suggestions which makes one feel devoid of perceivable.
What do you have to show for it?
Show/skeu - "to behold"...if a being holds onto (consent) what another is showing (suggested); then ones sight (perception) distorts.
It's not about accumulation and having possession, but about resisting the temptation of beholding...only then can one see all given.
to focus your energy on things that show progress.
Like this... https://forward.com/
this place is literally an echo chamber
Echo aka "sound repeated by reflection" implies resonance...literal aka "according to letter" implies dissonance.
The chamber represents ones mind/memory, and moving sound cannot be held onto.
Don't push it anymore. If they don't want to listen - that's their problem.
They are listening to what others are suggesting, hence drawn into progression aka into solution (inception towards death) of problem (life).
Pushing those who are willingly being pulled only helps those who use temptation to pull others in.
The issue...being (life) moved (inception towards death) inspires resistance, while pushing and pulling suggested information tempts one to ignore resisting.
A goyim consenting to what you are pushing or to what a jew is pulling out of his ass...implies a non-resisting goyim. It doesn't matter what you push or what a jew uses to pull, because suggested information (formed within action) cannot inspire resistance like perceivable inspiration (breathing within action)...hence conspiracy (breathing together).
those that will listen
That ain't free will of choice, but bondage to the modulation of sound, hence listening to the artificial words others shape within natural sound.
Words cannot set one free...only sound does. Words are shaped by putting letters together; sound sets instruments (minds structured within) apart from one another.
As a moderator...
...one artificially tempts natural "free" will of choice to submit to moderation aka keeping within due measure.
you should monitor such behavior
Looking at a monitor implies being monitored, hence not a moderator, but choice bound by consent.
Stop being...
What does it matter what is written afterwards, when the foundation denies the progression (inception towards death) of being (life)?
trying to make the deaf hear sounds
That's what suggested words tempt one to do...definitions shape DEAF PHONETICIANS aka those deaf to phonics (sound).
Share your message
What if the messiah died and the MESS(ianic)AGE ended? If sharing is carrying, then doesn't carrying imply burdening self with sin?
Show undeniable facts.
Does one have the free will of choice to confirm or deny F(ictious)ACTS? What if doing either tempts one to ignore reality aka ones reaction to all action?
don't spend ALL your
ALL cannot be yours or mine...only ones within all have the free will of choice to claim what's yours or mine, which in return denies all given freely to each one.
Most people don't like the idea of God
God implies internal differentiation of being...suggested collectivism (most people); nihilism (don't); egalitarianism (like), and idealism (idea) denies the separation of all perceivable into each ones perception.
- Bilderberg aka to build (bilder) high (berg/bhergh)
- Depopulate aka to divide (de) people (popul) action (ation)
Action divides into reactions, which is how each person comes into being as a reaction within an enacting nature.
Few tempt many together by suggesting each person (singular) to join a people (plural). One joins others by consenting to hold onto suggested, which implies staking a claim, hence few building (bilder) high (berg) stakes when tempting many together.
As ever, a diverse group...has been invited.
Aka singular differences grouped into a plural...by inviting consent with suggestion.
transatlantic
Aka transfer of atlantic/atlas - "to bear; lift; support". Nature giving each being free will of choice implies a relief of burden...ones consent claiming a suggestion implies burdening self with artifice.
authoritative axis
- Axis; noun - "imaginary motionless straight line around which a body rotates"
Holding onto suggested information a) rotates ones mind aka circular logic b) ignores actual perception for imaginary suggestion and c) ignores perceivable inspiration moving straight through ones perception, when holding onto "motionless" suggested information.
Ones consent gives authority of that axis to anyone making a suggestion.
proliferation
Aka Proles (offspring) + ferre/bher (to bear; carry), hence pro-life movement...
I do not consent to any wars.
"I do not" implies ones consent to a war between everything vs nothing aka the suggestions of another tempting one to deny all perceivable.
by taking advantage of the differences caused by the agentur of the illuminati
The agent of light differentiates rays from one another...that implies the status quo of coming into being within the visible spectrum of light.
It taking that which advances; by holding onto suggested, while ignoring perceivable, which foments conflicts of reason aka war within the minds of those who hold onto a side, while ignoring sight.
between...the war must be conducted
Aka each beings free will of choice, binding itself by conduct to a suggested side, which tempts choice off-center, hence from in-between towards a side.
mutually destroy each other
Aka any conflict of reason...willingly joined by either agreeing or disagreeing with any suggestion.
a) Bindi - "to bind" aka binding free will of choice by consenting to suggested information by another, which one rec-ords within memory, hence the red dot record sign.
b) First eye implies all perceivable; second eye implies each ones perception; third eye implies one another's suggestions.
c) Pineal aka penal - "punishment" aka punishing mind by inflicting the penalty of suggested information as a burden to carry within.
If one carries information in mind, then ones eyes can't see inspiration. For example...having a mind filled with suggested words prevents one from perceiving sound, since one mentally attaches words to physical shapes within sound.
Like looking up in the sky and seeing the sun, yet the label SUN isn't up there...it's only within ones mind.
Shiva btw from Hebrew shibhah - "seven" aka all perceivable and each ones perception S(plit)EVEN.
God gave us free will...
...of choice, which suggested pluralism (us) tempts one to ignore by choosing to join others, hence binding together what God sets free.
You take the good with the bad
God gives...each one within wielding free will of choice needs to resist the wanted temptation to take from one another.
Life is eternal
a) Only during eternal loss (dying) can there be temporal growth (living).
b) God WAS before one can suggest to another what IS.
I'm leaning toward a gnostic view
Gnostic/nosis - "knowledge" implies ones perception within all perceivable...it's leaning towards suggested which tempts one to ignore that, while distorting ones view.
individuals, are fractal aspects of the One
In (within) divi (divide) dual (two)...a fractal within whole implies the division of oneness into ones...suggested dual-ism tempts one to ignore that.
why would he allow
Allow implies "all lowering", hence all giving (inception) and taking (death) each lowered ones being (life)....not a would vs wouldn't conflict, but the enabling of each lowered (dying) ones rise (living).
completely fucked
God was complete before separating into each partial being internally...partials "fucking" with one another ignores the holiness/wholeness of God.
The word fuck stems from German fugge (joint)...specifically a masonry-joint.
make us powerless to change it
God implies change; each one within change implies alternation of potential (power) by choice. It's fucking with one another by joining consent together with suggestion, which tempts one to ignore perceivable change.
Its making less and less sense.
Being implies growth (life) within loss (inception towards death)...the more growth holds onto anything; the quicker the loss/less perceived.
Only resisting the temptation of loss fertilizes growth.
Maybe this world really is all about torturing us and breaking us just for fun
Holding together implies conTORTion...that's the origin of torture. The opposite of contortion implies straightening (inception towards death) apart (life).
It must be really fun to manipulate things so that well meaning people kill themselves and each other behind some stupid shit you made up?
Manipulation requires ones consent to stupid shit suggested by another...God separates each one from one another. It's each ones free will of choice to resist the temptation of consenting to stupid shit others made up.
God separates all perceivable into each ones perception....anything suggested by one another implies "stupid shit". FAFO.
I'm starting to lose hope.
a) God implies loss; being within implies growth...hence the struggle to sustain self.
b) God implies origin of being...hope (and fear) implies being choosing to ignore perceivable origin for suggested outcome.
There seems to be no way to win and no point in trying.
a) There can be (life) only one way (inception towards death)...no/nothing/nihilo represents the suggested nihil-ism by others tempting one to consent to de-nial of perceivable for suggested.
b) Winning vs losing implies a conflict of reason aka circular thinking (logic)...God moves straight through each being.
c) God utilizes inception to sentence life towards point of death...others suggest "points" to tempt towards the end of ones life sentence. So making rhetorical points or trying to get to the point corrupts ones life sentence/sentience.
d) God implies trial for being....others suggest trying to tempt being towards outcome, and thereby away from origin.
Trial (inception towards death) + error (life)...hence error/errare/err - "to wander". That's why gentiles succumb to the wandering jew, while die trying...
implication and reason can be used at once.
a) Hence "once and for all" aka all forwarding each once/ones within.
b) Can be used implies being enabled to re-use by free will of choice, yet implication re-uses motion, while reason re-uses matter...the former implies ones lifeline, while the latter represents the ouroboros eating its own tail, while moving in circles.
It's few who suggest many to ignore linear thinking for "the circle of life; the wheel of fortune; the band of hope; the leap of faith"... https://genius.com/Elton-john-circle-of-life-lyrics
To believe...
...represents the prerequisite for entering any conflict of reason. Being implies within implication aka within (im) fold (plica) of action (tion).
If nature; then being....only then can being enter reason by believing one another's suggestions, which by artificial intrigue tempts one to ignore nature. It's ones free will of choice tho...
implication and reason somehow "contradict"
Can you show any reason without conflict/contra aka without one side turned against another?
Meanwhile...how could if/then be in contradistinction to one another?
The natural way is "inspiration AS WELL AS reasoning against one another". One can do "imply" and "reasoning".
a) Nature WAS perceivable before one can suggest what IS.
b) Only nature does...implication allows one to redo self; while reason tempts one to redo another in.
c) Well implies each ones will...as implies "as it where" aka as all was before each ones will comes into being.
The issue is using "as well as" to draw comparisons between implication and reason, while ignoring that reason draws together, while implication sets apart.
The "one" u/free-will-of-choice is the one binding
One cannot bind others, hence only wielding ones free will of choice to bind self to others, when consenting to a suggestion. Circular logic represents the bond within self, while reasoning implies bondage to one another.
Both sides of any conflict of reason are holding onto VERSUS. Pro-life vs pro-choice are bound to one another, which in return permits suggested abortion to continue. Without consent of either side...abortion couldn't continue.
Furthermore...life implies choice and vice versa, so the branding pro-life vs pro-choice represents deliberate mockery of ignorance. Like which side do you choose while being alive...life or choice?
Children perish on industrial scale within nature because the arbiter of reason refuse to discontinue the artificial battle against each other. Any so called war represents few setting the stage for many to mutually destroy each other within conflicts of reason about "nothing", while ignoring everything else.
Notice that simply increasing or decreasing the price of Pokemon cards is enough temptation for many to reason against each other mentally and physically...
Repetition tempts people...
...to make the same mis-takes aka taking a miss. Choosing is about adaptation to change, not about taking (and thereby missing) sides.
If one applies change to truth, then it becomes a lie and vice versa. Each side tempts one to mis-take it, while ignoring change given.
Free will of choice repeats choosing
Is it repetition if one adapts on the fly to perceivable inspiration or is it repetition to hold onto suggested information, while reasoning from two sides about it, while switching once in a while?
If being implies difference (perception) during sameness (perceivable), then ignoring that for the likeness of suggestion becomes quickly repetitive...
Does being different, while responding alike influences ones perception of repetition?
admit
Suggested admission to one another contradicts being ad (to) mittere (send)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/admit
I can describe how coming into being implies ones admission, yet that doesn't change your perception, while viewing admission vs denial in conflict with one another.
This means that you analyzed the word "analysis" repeatedly
Meaning implies synthesis aka ones consent holding onto the suggested meaning by another. Mean/mena - "to signify" implies suggested symbolism aka sign language.
How could one discern this without using analysis? What if self discernment implies an analysis of oneself within all; instead of a synthesis with one another? Especially a conflicting synthesis like reason...
You KEEP doing an ACTION
Choice implies re-action, hence responding by choice to balance enacted upon one. Only within balance can there be choice, and only within motion can there be balance (momentum) for choice (matter)...neither of which can be kept.
Free will of choice implies each ones response-ability.
You are not keeping the thing that is broken apart.
Whole gives partial being by breaking apart aka energy (internal/inherent power). Let's go with the christian apple of sin allegory...keeping hold of the apple (of knowledge) makes it spoil faster, hence not just the physical worm habitat within ones hand, but also the perceivable knowledge moving through ones mind, which thereby spoils ones being faster.
Why is it called "forbidden knowledge"? Because perceivable knowledge is given freely, while bidding implies asking to receive from one another. The snake represents the forked tongue of suggested words uttered within perceivable sound.
You are keeping the action, not the thing.
Action cannot be kept...keeping implies things reacting to one another, while ignoring everything acting.
The action is "breaking apart". The thing is broken but the action is kept.
Breaking implies an ongoing process...putting together implies the waste of temporary potential during an ongoing process. The issue...holding onto wastes potential exponentially within a moving process.
If one could keep self as "me; myself or I"; then one wouldn't die? Do you see a contradiction in that? If one cannot keep self, since living implies dying, then why would one think one could keep anything else?
Notice that intercourse for OFF-SPRING implies a letting go, not a holding onto...if the perpetuation of self through another is based on letting go, then why reason about holding onto any side within self destructive conflicts?
The thing is ONLY being broken apart
Being implies within...only within all can one come into being as partial within whole.
Why put "nothing" in between "nothing" and "everything"?
To tempt other to utilize denial, hence putting a hold onto free will of choice. Everything sets each thing free...suggested nihil-ism tempts one de-nial of everything for nothing.
I should breathe" is TRUE. IF i don't breathe THEN i get goned
You put should vs shouldn't and true vs false before implication (if/then), then you put do vs don't in-between IF and THEN.
I'M USING IF/THEN!!
You used reasoning before and during implication.
This IMPLIES that Reason and Implication DON'T conflict.
Reason implies an artificial conflict contained within an implicating nature ignored. It's ones mind/memory reasoning which contains the suggested information by others, while ignoring perceivable inspiration moving through.
It does. It will resolve the conflict.
Which conflict has reason ever resolved? What if reason implies a mutual conflict among will aka a ring tempting choice contestants to destroy each other, while being declared winners or losers from outside the ring (logic)?
For example...if killing is good or bad, and reasoning can resolve that conflict, then why the continuance of killing on mass scale?
Or simpler...will boxing against each other ever dissolve the conflict of boxing?
Because reason is natural.
a) What does a being reason with nature about? What could a partial being in conflict with whole about? How could effect be in conflict with cause?
b) If reason is natural; then what is artificial? What's the opposite of reason?
c) Because implies causing (inception towards death) being (life)...what's there to reason about?
Nature forces one to reason.
The force of nature implies a separation of action into reaction aka of ongoing temptation into temporary resistance. The path (inception towards death) of least resistance (life) implies ones choice to ignore resisting, with ignorance implying the wanted temptation ones choice needs to resist.
If nature forces one, then why does one reason against other ones?
Nature forces one to breathe
Hence forcing being into (in) breathing (spir) of action (ation)...force inspires adaptation, while tempting stagnation. It's on ones free will of choice to balance.
If inhale; then exhale, hence implying a passing through...not holding onto a side, while fighting the other within a conflict of reason.
Few suggest Star Wars where the "force" binds everything in the universe together...in reality everything forces each thing apart from one another to establish free will of choice. A simple inversion of reality with fiction, and many keep reasoning against each other over fiction, while ignoring reality.
You are questioning me.
You perceive what others suggest as questions or answers, while ignoring the implication of all perceivable giving each one perception by separation from one another.
I try to shape questions not to gain answers, but to steer any attempt to answer into a contradiction held onto by the one answering.
Free-will-of-choice adapts to perceivable ION instead of suggested QUEST aka need over want. If one reacts by choice, then nature acts balance upon one...any quest tempts away from choice, hence into imbalance.
Sending me on a quest
It's taking possession over oneself as "me", which tempts one to ignore being send as potential (life) within procession (inception towards death).
AGAINST NATURE
For vs against implies artificial reasoning, which tempts one to ignore that nature forwards (inception towards death) a gain (life). If forwarded, then gaining momentum.
care
Noted. I grew up among the vulgate, so there's a potty mouth issue going on.
It is natural for one to reason.
Do the living reason with the process of dying? If there's a conflict between living and dying, then how could it be resolved? What if the process of dying implies the foundation for the potential of living?
What comes first...nature generating one, or reasoning against one another?
Reasoning grows oneself.
What if many reasoning against each other view winning vs losing as growth, while ignoring that many in comparison to few seem to continue to lose civilizations; nations; cultures; races; languages; religions; lebensraum; wealth; homogeneity; trust; liberties; hope and so on over and over again?
If one reasons, then against one another. If one implicates, then while being forwarded as growth (life) during loss (inception towards death).
Another aspect to this...reason tempts both sides to fail, while failure inspires growth, yet only outside of reason, not within the confines thereof for the next round of failure.
It is artifical and anti-nature to use word analysis
a) Nature WAS before one came into being. Others suggest what IS to tempt ones natural perception to consent to artificial suggestion. It's consent holding onto suggested, which establishes artifice within nature.
b) Nature doesn't oppose artifice...beings within nature oppose each other over artifice by ignoring nature.
Putting anti before nature implies putting artificial before natural.
c) Holding onto synthesis (letters held together as words) establishes paralysis..analysis (letting go of what one holds onto by breaking it apart) allows revitalization, hence freeing oneself from self imposed burdens.
Example: suggested "insane person" tempts one to ignore perceivable in sanus (within sound) + per sonos (by sound)...those who ignore this will paralyze each other within a conflict of reason about being an insane person or not, while those who analyze it are allowed by sound to revitalize in-stru-ment, hence clearing up ones mind by letting the sound move through.
free-will-of-choice IS at(TEMPT)ing to bind
How could free-will-of-choice dispel bondage like religion/religio - "to bind anew" without repeatedly choosing to resist the temptation of what others put together?
If being implies resistance (life) during velocity (inception towards death), then can one adapt to change without repeating?
keeps breaking
Which one...keep holding onto or breaking apart? Another contradiction out in the open for those with eyes to see. Why do I get the flack for describing that to others?
reason is not in conflict with implication
a) Then why put NOTHING in-between reason and implication? What does nothing imply? If nothing, then...?
b) Hold your breath and reason about the true vs false of breathing? Will reasoning resolve the conflict before implication (if wanting to hold onto, then needing to let go) force one to adapt?
Does natural force give a flying fuck about the true or false reasoning of those forced (inception towards death) into being (life)?
You believe this statement is "CORRECT"
If you show a contradiction; then I would rip apart what I said...since I'm not holding onto it. Implication allows one to adapt on the fly to inspiration; instead of reasoning against one another about the correctness vs incorrectness of believed information suggested by one another.
This implies that u/free-will-of-choice is the one with circular reasoning
A circle represents a potential (matter) within an implied process (motion)...using implication to define (is circular) contradicts motion.
not me
Why put nothing (not) before something (me) one holds onto?
If you did not, then why are you saying it?
I utilize sound to take apart what others are saying...others judge that from within a did vs didn't conflict of reason. Taking apart what others are saying makes it harder for others to hold onto any side within the confines of circular logic.
Then again...ignorance is bliss, and the path of least resistance implies the temptation to ignore resisting.
What does free-will-of-choice ignore? How is resisting admission and denial to remain free based on ignorance?
Is it TRUE? Or is it a guess?
Neither a true vs false conflict of reason, nor guessing an outcome; but simply adaption to perceivable origin.
To know implies ones perception within all perceivable...guessing what suggested means tempts one to ignore that, while establishing conflicts of reason against others.
How about this...if the process of dying is true, then would living within be false, since living implies the opposite of dying?
What if living (growth) within the process of dying (loss) implicate each other, while reason (true vs false) corrupts ones self discernment with whatever another pulls out of his ass?
you have asked questions yourself
Not for answers from others...but to dismantle the contradiction of both questions and answers within the natural solution of any problems.
destroys itself
Only during destruction (inception towards death) can one build (life)...it's holding onto words build by others which tempts one to ignore self destruction.
Give up
Only nature gives (inception) and takes (death) aka anode/anahodos (up the way) + cathode/katahodos (down the way) aka living within process of dying aka as above/so below.
in between things, VS
Versus turns things against one another, thereby contradicting each things in-between stance within everything.
Inception and death aren't "things", but the momentum of motion for each matter within. While alive, one cannot perceive ones inception or ones death, hence being temporarily in-between an ongoing separation.
doesn't
Aka does nothing...ones artificial denial of everything natural doing each thing within.
One can only turn (versus/verto) within motion...does nothing contradicts that, hence ones mind turning in circles (logic), while eating itself (ouroboros).
You have chosen side
Choosing (life) a side (inception/death) ignores ones sight, hence the separation of all perceivable into each ones perception...a moving transfer; not a keeping hold of any side.
admit
Admit/admittere (to send), hence life being send from inception towards death...not a conflict of reason (admit vs deny) among beings.
Admit it. Admit it!!
Aka frequency of repetition to tempt free will of choice to bind itself by consenting to a suggestion. Without consenting to either side (admit or deny)...one remains free from one another.
Is that so?
a) Questioning tempts others onto a "quest" towards suggested outcomes, while ignoring perceivable origin.
Nature doesn't answer questions...it offers the ongoing solution (inception towards death) for each temporary problem (life).
b) One needs to resist the wanted temptation to ignore what WAS perceivable for what IS suggested; otherwise another gains ones permission to shape what IS to obfuscate what WAS.
That implies that both you and i
Free will of choice implies "alone" aka all (in) one, hence each ones choice at the center of all balance, while struggling to resist the temptation of each other to bind self.
You and I tempt ONE to ignore self for others, hence i am (je suis; jesus) and you (phonetic jew).
among the "few" who "shape artificial"
Few are selected by many coming together, which in return permits each chosen one to remain apart... https://www.amazon.com/People-Apart-Europe-1789-1939-History/dp/0198219806
Chosen one implies the inversion of ones choice...viewing self as part of few implies an artificial distortion of being one within all aka partial within whole.
Okay so that is clearly not reality
Real implies ones response (re) to all (al) perceivable...consenting to suggested distorts ones clarity.
your assertion that true and false are "conflicts of reason" and therefore are "bad" things,
Assert/adserere - "to join together"...contradicts being apart from one another, hence being enable to wield FREE will of choice.
Implication (if/then) doesn't join together like reason, but separates if (action; motion; flow) and then (reaction; matter; form) from one another.
you believe that "muh reason conflictzzzz" is TRUE
Utilizing implication within a moving system allows one to notice contradictions shaped by holding onto something (mentally or physically).
If reason; then versus/verto - "to turn" which contradicts being (life) straightened (inception towards death).
you are doing the very same
a) Being implies difference (life) during sameness (inception towards death). Few equalize differences by tempting many to react alike one another.
b) Only nature does...each being within re-does self, while being (life) done (inception towards death).
For example...few suggest actors under directors to distract many from reacting to being (life) directed (inception towards death).
conflict you claim you avoid
Only those within a conflict lay a claim to a side...free will of choice operates in-between (life) sides (inception/death)...neither of which can be held onto, hence others shaping conflicts of reason by tempting choice with artificial sides like yes vs no, true vs false; he vs she; me vs you; us vs them; belief vs disbelief; pro vs contra; agree vs disagree; left vs right; up vs down; front vs back; football vs soccer; liberal vs conservative; poor vs rich; mcdonalds vs burger king; beauty vs ugly; britney spears vs christina aguilera; trump vs biden; ukraine vs russia; jews vs gentiles; black vs white; red vs blue; smacks vs frosties; vanilla vs chocolate; coffee vs tea; nationalism vs internationalism; communism vs capitalism; christianity vs islam; orthodox vs catholic; wahabi vs sunni; individual vs collective; bourgeois vs proletariat; winning vs losing etc.
Each of those conflicts of reason represents a rebranding of want vs not wanting suggested, while ignoring perceivable need.
true and false implies conflict of reason
a) AND implies the temptation to choose a side within a conflict of reason (true vs false).
b) True vs false implies want vs not want, while ignoring need aka needing to resist wanted temptation.
c) Nature neither supplies true nor false information...is supplies inspiration by change.
Being implies within (in) spirit (spir) of action (ation)...reasoning tempts one to ignore that.
that statement is true
Stance (state) of mind (ment) implies within motion, hence being enabled to respond to input...true or false implies holding onto what others tempted (suggestion) one to put (consent) into mind.
You believe that you are correct
To believe implies choosing to hold onto a suggestion by another, while ignoring that nature moves, and therefore cannot be held onto.
Using implication (if/then) over reason (correct vs incorrect) allows one to notice for example...in (within) cor (heart) rect/reg (to move in a straight line), hence life being moved from inception towards death.
Reasoning conflicts are circular" IMPLIES THAT YOU ARE ALREADY THINKING IN CIRCLES
Implication derives from motion...a circle implies a shape within motion. Holding onto shapes tempts one to ignore being (life) moved (inception towards death).
Holding onto implies by ones free will of choice...letting go implies nature forcing adaptation from being. Try holding your breath for a while until nature forces you to let go.
word analysises
Words imply a synthesis between suggested word and consenting letter aka ones choice LETTING a chosen one shape words by suggestion. This represents spell-craft.
Being implies apart from one another aka analysis (life) during thesis (inception towards death).
rebut and defend
a) Using implication (if/then) prevents ones free will of choice from entering a conflict of reason (vs).
b) Only withing balance (inception/death) can there be (life) choice...conflict implies imbalance for choice; no matter which sides ones chooses.
c) Confirm vs rebut and attack vs defend tempt both sides to consent to versus/verto - "to turn", hence turning against one another.
you choose to tinker with words like a child first knowing abt language.
Only within sound can words be shaped. Few trick many with definitions to become DEAF PHONETICIANS aka deaf to phonics (sound).
Nature doesn't shape words...it moves instruments apart from one another within sound. Instruments implies "minds structured within" and sound/sanus implies "entire; whole; all"
Sound allows knowledge...words tempt understanding aka standing-under those who suggest the meaning of words.
you believe things to be true that make it so that you never face the fact that your beliefs are not correct.
a) Belief vs disbelief aka true vs false aka me vs you aka fact vs fiction aka correct vs incorrect...choosing either side binds ones free will of choice.
b) No/not/nothing is based on creatio ex nihilo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio_ex_nihilo and represents suggested nihil-ism (nihilo; nothing) tempting ones de-nial of perceivable for suggested.
Nothing isn't in conflict with everything...it's each things free will of choice to deny everything perceivable when consenting to suggested "nothing"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI
Yes, a scam.
Yes vs no cheats oneself out of balance.
Your worldview is not
a) Mine vs yours tempts one to ignore that potential (life) during procession (inception towards death) cannot take into possession without destroying each other.
b) Nature WAS perceivable before each being within can suggest what it IS.
c) Not (nothing) implies the inversion of nature (everything).
intellectual growth
Only during loss (inception towards death) can there be growth (life)...intellect/intelligo - "to understand" implies standing under one another, which suppresses growth.
Sleight of hand by Madonna: "express yourself; don't repress yourself...and I'm not sorry...it's human nature"
constant denial
CON implies "together"...DE implies "divided; apart".
Freewill of choice: "My word analyses are true because they are true"
a) Free + will have to separated from one another; otherwise one couldn't be free from one another.
b) MY and TRUE tempt free will of choice to claim for self (my) while holding onto a side (true)...both of which bind free will of choice to others (you + false).
c) Analyzing the synthesis of words allows one to perceive the thesis of moving sound.
I can't give you anything though
All (perceivable) was given to each one (perception)...giving and taking each others suggestions tempts one to ignore that.
Only nature gives (inception) and takes (death) from being (life).
I criticize you
Critic/krinein - "to separate"...https://www.etymonline.com/word/critic hence every ONE being a critic to ONE another.
If one chooses to claim self as "me; myself or I", then every other one becomes a YOU (phonetic jew).
Will implies choice...chance tempts will to sacrifice choice. Chance implies gambling towards outcome; choice implies response-ability within origin.
Chance implies a jew tempting gentiles to choose gambling...gentiles willingly consent to do so by taking artificial chances. Nature cannot be taken since it moves, while motion gives free will of choice towards being.