microwave pulse
Macro-line (inception towards death) pulses/pushes micro-waves (life).
turned to ash
a) Few stoke so that many are consumed by flames.
b) Heat directs from/to aka from inception towards death...few stoke many to tempt a turn within direction aka life progressing with the process of dying instead of resisting it.
c) ASH from AS - "to burn; glow" implies life within motion (moved by) tempted with emotion (moving from); hence "turning to ash".
Sleight of hand: https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/glennfrey/theheatison.html
an aberration for anyone to claim
a) ABERRA'TION, noun (Latin aberratio) - "deviation from a strait line"...one (life) cannot deviate from a strait/straight line (inception towards death), yet ones mind can be turned aside, when consenting to reason over the suggestions of another.
b) Consent by many implies claim; suggestion by few implies tempting denial of perceivable for claiming suggested.
- Anything denied by many...few gain.
- Anything one (life) claims...all (inception towards death) takes.
If one hangs on strings attached; then one cannot erect or hold up; only being drawn by...ones consent to the suggestion of another attaches a mystical string.
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2136925/jewish/The-Kabalah-of-String-Theory.htm
Deep State...who get high
a) Aren't many deeper than few high above them?
b) Form (life) or flow (inception towards death)...which one implies deep state?
egomaniacs
EGO (one's self)...what if ones choice selects chosen ones suggestions? As in...if a chosen one is selected; then how could one be egoistic?
As for mania aka mad..."I find it hard to tell you (suggested information), 'cause I find it hard to take (perceivable inspiration)...when people run in circles (reasoning over suggested information)...it's a very, very mad world".
to preserve humanity
PRE (before) SERVO (to keep) contradicts human aka hue (color) of man (species; similitude)...a species can only exist within a spectrum aka within momentum of ongoing motion, which a) exists before matter and b) cannot be kept by matter.
As for too many vs too few...there cannot be too many or too few partials within a whole. Furthermore...ongoing whole generates temporary partials no matter what, hence ongoing.
Matter (life) cannot stop motion (inception towards death)...only trick each other to ignore motion by holding onto matter.
tricked into believing
Aka suggesting to consent...is suggesting a trick if it requires ones consent to deceive?
based on a lie
a) Lies are based on truth; hence "untruth".
b) Truth implies ones choice to hold onto; while lie implies another ones suggestion to let go of what one holds onto.
c) Base for both holding onto and letting go implies "motion". Within motion (inception towards death) one (life) wants to hold onto, while needing to let go of.
chabad
Aka Chokhmah, Binah, Da'at (wisdom; understanding; knowledge)...knowledge implies perceivable; understanding implies suggested; wisdom implies wise (ones perception) within dominance (all perceivable)...which can be tempted by understanding to ignore knowledge.
neo
Suggested neo/new tempts one to ignore perceivable NOW.
nazi
Aka nation; native; natural; natus; nasci; gnasci...artificial (suggested) tempts one to ignore natural (perceivable).
are you fully
Full implies "containing all that can be received"; which implies ones possessiveness (to receive; to take into possession) over suggested information, contained within ones consenting mind/memory; hence "contain-ment".
Meanwhile in reality...perceivable inspiration flows (inception towards death) through each form (life) and cannot be held onto aka taken possession of aka contained within memory.
Ones denial of perceivable for suggested implies "emptiness", and ones possessiveness of suggested implies "fulfillment".
celibate
CELIBATE, noun - "a single life" aka being (bate) sole (celi) implies as one (partial) within oneness (whole).
Celibacy implies each ones status quo of being, which few corrupt by tempting many to "marry" aka to willingly consent to be united in wedlock aka binding together as the inversion of being set apart from one another.
like a shaker
a) "Christ's Second Appearing" implies anointed ones (christ) coming into light (appear) by division (Latin seco; to divide) of whole (oneness) into partials (ones).
The trick...suggesting one that "christ" is another, hence tempting one to count/enumerate/reckon together other ones as second; third; fourth etc.
b) "known as Shaking Quakers" implies shaking (inception towards death) + quaking (life) aka motion generating emotions.
Shaking implies setting apart; quacking implies convulsing together....hence one needing to "shake your booty" aka letting go of what one holds onto.
Another sleight of hand: "Shake, shake, shake, Señora, shake your body line...work, work, work, Señora, work your body line" aka senor (motion) + senora (momentum) for body (life) within line (inception towards death).
argument still holds
An arguing mind implies ones consent holding onto a suggestion by another, while ignoring that perceivable moves. Ignorance implies a fictitious "still-stand" within self, which others exploit by tempting one into a fictitious stand-off against others called reasoning aka arguing.
gay...pedophile...argument
While many argue pedophile vs gay; few gain the opportunity to exploit what many ignore while arguing against each other...like children for example.
what do you want gay dudes to do?
Needing to resist wanted temptation. Sodomy implies want vs not want; while ignoring need.
Pretend to be straight
Pretend (Latin proetendo; to stretch forward) tempts one to ignore being (life) within straight (inception towards death); hence needing to resist the wanted temptation to stretch forward.
sexless marriage
Sex (Latin seco; to divide) implies setting apart, while marriage (Latin maritatu; to wed; entering into a wedlock) implies putting together...latter contradicts former.
Needing to set apart implies ones choice to resist; while wanting to put together implies ones choice falling for the temptation to ignore resisting.
Example...intercourse for off-spring implies a setting apart, for which one needs to resist wanted temptation. The less one resists; the more one tempts self to try something else....entrance sodomy; prostitution; abortion; sex-changes etc.
Let...
LET, verb - "to suffer; to permit"....only nature (inception towards death) permits suffering (life). Resistance diminishes suffering; temptation diminishes resistance. Life needs to resist wanted temptation, while suffering within the process of dying.
There are two types of people.
a) Here and there implies center within circumference aka partial within whole aka perception within perceivable aka one within oneness.
Try this...say "here" while pointing at "there"; then go over "there" and notice you'll be "here".
b) There cannot be a "two" of energy, since all implies one in energy. Only within energy (whole) can one add; subtract; divide and multiply potential (partials) from one another.
In other words...only within sameness (motion) can differences (matter) be shaped.
c) Type implies Latin typus (figure, image, form; kind) and Greek typos (impression)...being implies formed expression (life) within impressing flow (inception towards death).
Holding onto form tempts one to ignore flow...this is called idolatry aka type-casting. Me writing this down implies type-writing and spell-casting etc.
Each form is different from one another, while others suggest counting aka Latin computare (to reckon together one by one). Notice also that a computer utilize a binary (Latin binarius; consisting of two) called "0/1"...so where's the 2 in 0 and 1? It's ones (1) consent to the suggested offer (0) by another one (1); which binds 1 + 1 together into 2 aka dualism.
d) People implies each consenting singular (person) within a suggested pluralism (people)...that's a combination of consent and suggestion. Before that...person implies per sonos (by sound) aka a setting apart of sound and each one by sound.
These are the ones meaning to combine.
a) Suggested the-ism combines ones consent with a suggested authority by another.
b) Meaning (having in mind) implies suggested information by another, held consensual within ones mind/memory, while ignoring that perceivable inspiration cannot be held onto.
Few utilize consent of many to combine suggested information within memory, as to establish indigestion of matter within the procession of motion.
The platonists(perceptionists) and the Aristotelians(conceptualists)
a) -ist implies ones consent to a suggested -ism by another aka a combination.
b) Combining one consent with suggested perception-ism contradicts that all perceivable sets itself apart into each ones perception.
c) Perceivable reveals; suggested conceals....if one consents to it.
d) Plato aka plat (to spread) implies from whole (perceivable) into partials (perception)...not from partial (suggestion) to partial (consent), while ignoring whole.
Motion spreads matter; matter is tempted to hold onto each other; which spreads dis-ease. Example...a mother holding onto a child implies smothering aka suffocation...so does holding onto any suggested information within self.
e) Aristo aka Greek aristos (ar; to fit together) tempts one to ignore being apart from one another, while partial within whole.
Plato (to spread apart) + Aristotle (to fit together) contradict each other to manipulate the ones who choose to hold onto a side. This is called talmudic reasoning (contradiction of both sides within reason) utilizing allegorical deceit.
Underneath that operates nature aka spreading apart (inception) and fitting together (death) aka the momentum (inception towards death) of motion for matter (life) within. In nature there's no conflict between plato (to spread apart aka inception) and aristotle (to fit together aka death)...only ones life (choice) in-between (balance).
In short...to conceal (suggestion) what nature reveals (perception) aka the "great work" of the enlightened few among the profane many.
f) Concept implies con (together; with) capere (to take)...an inversion of incept (inception) aka being (life) within that which gives and takes (inception towards death).
1of1...rare one
Aka partial (one) out of whole (oneness)...uncommon; as in apart from one another, not together.
meditating on white Light...closing one's eyes and meditating on Light...
a) Where did the "white" go?
b) Middle (mediate) of pure light (white) implies visible spectrum. How could one see pure light (white) or the absence of light (black), while being within the visible spectrum?
What if oneself implies impure ray of light (discernment) tempted by absence of light (ignorance)?
without purpose
Pur'pose implies before position, hence being within light as a ray; radius within circumference, hence having sight aka partial perception within perceivable whole.
Nothing is simple
a) What is nothing? Is nothing simple (sine plica; without folding) or complex (folded together)?
b) What if few suggest nihil-ism (Latin nihilo; nothing) to tempt ones consent to de-nial everything perceivable for it?
c) What if everything perceivable unfolds into each ones perception; while suggestions tempt ones consent to fold self by binding to another?
d) FOLD, noun - "a flock of sheep. Hence in a scriptural sense, the church, the flock of the shepherd of israel"
e) FOLD, verb (Hebrew; to fall)...what if fall (inception towards death) inspires rise (life)?
alerting authorites
a) AU'THOR, noun (Latin auctor; augeo) - " to increase, or cause to enlarge"...cause increases (inception) and decreases (death) effects (life).
b) ALERT', adjective -"active in vigilance", hence action (inception towards death) awakening reactions (life).
Ones consent authorizes another; while putting ones reactions to sleep.
boing supplier spirit...whistle-blower
Aka being supplied with breath...yet wasted on blowing a whistle aka whisper aka will-o'-the-wisp...
If free will of choice operates under an owner; then it would contradict itself.
sides must combine
a) What if sides (inception/death) set apart being (life)?
b) Who benefits from combining others...few or many?
just a teacher who was picked at random
CHRIST(a)...must be a coincidence with the explosion of christ... https://img.gvid.tv/i/JDiGzgZi.jpg
pharisees was the most corrupt
- PHAR'ISEE, noun (Hebrew; to separate)... https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/pharisee
- CORRUPT, verb (to break, separate or dissolve)... https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/corrupt
The issue...nature breaks itself from whole (perceivable) into partials (perception), while partials utilize suggestion to bind each other together, which they call for example RELGION (Latin religio; to bind anew).
Lawful (inception towards death) generates corruption (life)...hence ones struggle to sustain self.
whether spiritually or politically I am not sure.
Spiritual implies ones adaptation to origin; while political implies ones pursuit of outcome.
Muslims believe...
One who submits (muslim) consents (believe) to the suggestion of another, while ignoring to adapt to perceivable.
Matt Walsh is...Ben Shapiro is...Andrew Klavan is...
Everything was before anyone within can suggest what is...a suggestion requires ones consent to pass.
ALL (allah) was before one can suggest what is...all doesn't brand anyone Matt Walsh; Ben Shapiro; Andrew Klavan or anything else...one does be free will of choice.
mysterious reason
Reasoning over suggested conceals implication of perceivable...if one consents to it. Reason implies imbalance; implication implies balance....being implies choice. Others suggest reason to imbalance ones choice.
justify banning bible?
If one consents to suggested writing in the name of justice, then one permits another to authorize or ban what's written.
ALL (allah) implies that which JUST IS (justice)...each one within needs to adapt to that, while being tempted with wanting to ignore perceivable for each others suggestions.
ALL gives each one a free will of choice....all perceivable (need) or another ones suggestion (want). Choosing want over need establishes want vs not want aka a conflict of reason among many over the suggestions by few.
self-hating ideology?
Ideology implies suggested idealism (ideo) by another and ones consent to reason (logy) over it against others, hence love vs hate.
Consenting to another ones suggestion ignores sustenance of oneself within perceivable....many doing that benefits few.
In other words...suggested ideology tempts one to deny/ignore self for conflicts (love vs hate) against others.
How can protestants debate this?
a) PROTEST', verb (Latin protestor; pro and testor, to affirm it)
b) To protest implies ones consent to the suggestion by another; which then establishes a debate among all those consenting aka a conflict of reason.
to be...of freedom democracy and Christianity
a) Being implies free (will of choice) within dom (inance of balance) aka temporary free (life) during ongoing domination (inception towards death).
b) Democracy aka demos (people) and kratos (strength) implies the strength of an aggregated people aka suggesting few being permitted to wield consenting many.
c) Christ implies "anointed one" aka each off-spring coming to be from father through mother aka consecrated by oil/eal/fire/heat aka inflammability of kin.
why isn't there a debate
Is vs isn't implies debate aka de (divided) bate (batter) aka a conflict of reason within the mind/memory of each one consenting to anything suggested by another.
Consider this...Water vs wine implies a fictitious debate tempting one to ignore reality...thirst. There's no debate with thirst...just ones ignorance thereof when debating others.
I will not stop spreading god's words
a) ALL moves sound; ones within shape words to tempt others ones to ignore sound.
b) Suggested nihilism (Latin nihilo; nothing) tempts one to ignore that everything moves, hence tempting one to believe in cessation of motion (stop).
ALL cannot be stopped by anyone within...other ones tempt one with suggested words like "not + stop" to ignore all.
c) I implies ones claim over self, which brands other ones as "YOU" (phonetic jew)...one cannot claim anything within ALL without ignoring that ongoing ALL supplies temporal ones with everything.
Potential cannot be held onto; it needs to be expressed (life) during impression (inception towards death).
Sleight of hand: "express yourself; don't repress yourself...and I'm not sorry; it's human nature".
until all
ALL implies beginning (inception) until end (death) for each one (life) within...others suggest the rhetoric "until all" to invert ones perception.
The world is a strange place.
a) STRANGE, adjective - "foreign; not domestic; belonging to others"
b) World implies domicile for each native placed within, who are foreign to one another.
b) Suggested "belonging" (to appertain; to hold) tempts one to ignore perceivable be-long...being short (life) within long (inception towards death).
Sleight of hand: "Hey shortie...it's your birthday"
d) Ones consent to suggested the-ism tempts one to feel native to a foreign place.
e) World "was" perceivable before anyone placed within can suggest what it "is".
impossible to get more energy out of
a) What if energy implies foundation (whole) for inherent potential (partials)?
b) What if wanting to "get out" prevents one from discerning self to be within need?
c) MORE than all perceivable offered to each ones perception?
hydrogen
What if HYDRO (temporal) GEN (ongoing)? Trying to split temporal further sure makes getting more seem impossible, but what if ongoing can't be depleted by anything temporal within?
What generates (gen) water (hydro)? Why is gas called "aeriform fluid"? What if caloric (matter of heat) can only be temporal?
what you put into the process
Which process precedes inception? Into what is life born?
splitting the water
a) Water finding level implies partial balancing within whole...why split a partial further?
b) Why are few suggesting...AT'OM, noun (Latin atomus; from not, and to cut) - "a particle of matter so minute as to admit of no division"?
Doesn't particle imply a division within whole?
Top Oncologist
a) -ist (bottom) implies ones consent to suggested -ism (top)
b) Onko (tumor; mass) Logic (reasoning against another over suggested)
Many are reasoning against each other about what few are suggesting aka few are amassing many within conflicts of reason...that's a tumor.
twist words
TWIST, verb - "to unite by winding one thread, strand or other flexible substance round another; to form by convolution"...what if suggested words twist perceivable sound? What if consenting to a suggestion implies a convolution aka a binding anew of that which nature set apart?
I live in the balkans...
- BALK, noun - "any thing left untouched"
- BALK, verb - "to disappoint; to frustrate; to leave untouched; to miss or omit; to turn aside"
What do we call crimes like this?
a) CRIME; noun - "to decree; to separate"...bringing together (e pluribus unum; out of many one aka united states) contradicts crime.
b) Being implies apart from one another...others suggest pluralism (we) to tempt one to ignore self.
c) Only apart within all can one call outwards.
breaking the law
It's what natural law does aka breaking itself into L(and) A(ir) W(ater) aka separation by decree.
Treason
a) Treason under natural law implies betrayal aka being-trans-all aka being (life) within all (inception towards death)...a transaction.
b) Treason under the laws of men implies a breach of trust aka breaking apart the bond between ones consent and another ones suggestion by natural law.
Consenting to a suggestion implies holding onto; which moving nature breaks apart.
Trust generates treason.
Does Ed Snowden always tweet without capitalization and punctuation?
Resisting capitalization and punctuation sustains edward aka ead (prosperity) + weard (guardian). Why? Because punctuation implies point (end of sentence); while capital implies property generating life sentences.
If whole is shit, then ones sight within...