So great are the lies and deceit that we have been born into that entire paradigms will be crushed. Religion, history, diet, health, medicine and perhaps even where, who and what we are.
Q said the deeper you go the more unreal it all becomes. The truth would put 99% in the hospital. Even after the Great Awakening 4-6% will be lost.... Of course these posts could be a play on words. They could have multiple meanings. They could be disinformation. WhQ knows?
Are you ready?
Suggested words represent a play within perceivable sound...
Nature doesn't inform...it inspires temporary form (life) through ongoing flow (inception towards death).
What if being implies center (perceiving) of surrounding (perceivable)?
Latin RELIGIO - "to bind anew" representing binding oneself by consent to the suggestions of others, whilr willingly ignoring perceivable.
He brew his story...jew fell for it.
Suggested diet (want vs not want) tempts one to ignore perceivable hunger (need).
Regeneration (living) within generator (process of dying)...suggested "healthcare" tempts one to ignore taking care of health.
a) partial (who) within whole (where) of EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "internal or inherent power" (what).
b) suggested "we" (plural) tempts perceiving one (partial) to ignore perceivable oneness (whole).
c) self discernment cannot be gained by consenting to suggested information by others, it has to be grown (comprehension) as perceiving (partial) within perceivable (whole).
d) other partials represent the inspiration (moving differences) to sustain oneself (need) or the temptation (want) to lose oneself within whole...
a) if nature talks, then what would one hear?
b) who suggested those within nature to talk about perceivable nature?
c) a BODY represents the frame of animation...what does NO represent?
d) "this" implies that someone talked like "this"...
a) what if one represents odds (life) within even (inception towards death)? What if odds needs to resist even to sustain self?
b) what came first...suggested words or perceivable sound? Branding something implies that there was something to brand before branding it.
c) if you can't describe with words, would that which you can't describe cease to exist?
d) what if the few suggest labels (words) for a system that doesn't label (sound) to trick the many to consent to the label (suggested fiction) over the system (perceivable reality)?
e) words imply letters...can one shape a letter (symbol) without using symmetry to shape? What if suggested symbolism over perceivable symmetry represents idolatry? And what if suggested words over perceivable sound represents spell-craft? And what if just like letters shaped into words can be "bind" within books, so can those who consent to suggested be bind anew aka RELIGION (Latin religio; to bind anew)?
MES'SAGE, noun [Latin missus, mitto, to send.]...perceivable nature sends those within (life) on a journey (inception towards death) to grow comprehension of perceivable. One represents the choice to clear (comprehension) or obfuscate (ignorance) ones mind/memory.
What if consenting to suggested information tempts one to fill up ones mind/memory with fictitious garbage, which in return corrupts ones comprehension of perceivable inspiration?
Nature offers everything (perceivable) to everyone (perceiving)...what if one obfuscates self by ignoring it for the suggestions of others?
PHILO (love, want) vs MISO (hate; not want) over suggested SOPHISM tempts one to ignore the need to adapt to perceivable. Nature doesn't require those within to love or hate...it demands adaptation through free will of choice.
Everything perceivable "was" before anyone within can shape a suggestion about what it "is". Those who consent to suggested "is" are being tempted to ignore perceivable "was".
Now compare this to the few suggesting what "is", while the many are lacking to comprehend what "was"? Does that describe the world you live in?
Yet, you already were convinced that "This is Bill Clinton's"...hence giving your consent for suggested Bill Clinton to have.
a) what if destroying (by resisting the temptation to mentally hold onto) every individual word would allow one to comprehend more about the whole of perceivable sound?
b) what if I sledgehammer at the justification (word based definitions) for mass ignorance aka the spell-craft of the few who trick the many to willingly use their suggested tools of miscommunication (words over sound)?
c) what if every suggested word based definition one consents to layers more ignorance upon ones conscious mind/memory? How many definitions; redefinitions and contradictions of words do you store within your memory?
d) why do the definitions of words change so that the few have to keep printing dictionaries? Totally unrelated to that...why are the many keep getting less and less sure about the words they used to define the world around them?
What if only ones consent to want or not want suggested puts one into an argument (want versus not want) among consenting opponents? What if these arguments are suggested by the few as "reasoning"?
Sleight of hand from the Georgia Guidstones: "let this be guide stones to an age of reason"...
What if resisting suggested (want or not want) for perceivable (need) keeps choice within balance (need/want)?
a) "take that" implies a suggestion... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_That
b) "for" aka forward implies perceivable (inception towards death) for those perceiving it from within (life).
c) being (life) moved forwards (inception towards death) implies the need to resist while being tempted to want to ignore.
d) perceivable sound communicates implication (if/then), suggested words tempt one into the conflicts of reason.