Certain specific acts of Social Engineering take a basic premise and create two stances in opposition. These stances are designed to create a specific step in a broader, preplanned Hegelian dialectic. This "Dialectic" is intended to progress the world towards "Utopia" (as designed by the Cabal).

The basic premise can be stated as follows:

• A basic respect for people means accepting people for who they are, for the choices that they make for their own life. This is the idea that was explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence; to wit "Pursuit of Happiness" is espoused as an unalienable Right. Respecting this fundamental Right means that people are respected as people even if their life decisions aren't what we think they "should be doing." We don't have to like their choices, but we do need to still respect them as people. The premise simply stated is: as long as people are not directly infringing on someone else's unalienable Rights, they can do whatever they want with their life. It's their life.

Most people agree with this basic premise. The "unalienable Rights" from the DoI is one of the most quoted statements in any conversation about government or social issues from "both sides." (I suggest the "two sides" idea is itself both a contrivance and completely illusory, but that's a different discussion.)

Despite the general agreement, from this premise Social Engineers create two stances:

1. A specific avenue from the basic premise is pushed on society as an ideology through propaganda. Examples of these types of specific avenues are Women's Suffrage, Women's Liberation, Black Lives Matter, Abortion, etc.

2. Opposition to these ideologies is guided to focus on the problems that people might have with them, specifically focusing on stances that can be seen as a contradiction of the basic premise itself. Examples of such stances are "Woman shouldn't be allowed to do ________," or "Black women shouldn't be having children without a husband," etc.

What is not allowed to be a part of the conversation on either side is the basic premise; that people have the right to choose their own path in life. The first part assumes it is "obvious," even though it never is, because people in opposition can feel the propaganda push, which mutes the premise itself. The second part purposefully ignores the premise because they can feel the propaganda push. This gives them "an enemy" to focus on, so they focus on the specifics of that push.

So one side pushes the ideology. The other side protests the specifics of the ideology. No one talks about the basic premise; the common ground. Division is created, the Hegelian dialectic moves forward along the prescribed path.

In all such cases of Social Engineering of this type (there are other types) it is a "minority oppression" that really does exist that is focused on. The fact that the same people that create the oppression in the first place are also the people who push the "solution" to it is never a part of the conversation. Because of propaganda which brings certain parts into focus on both sides, no one can ever see past the "enemy they can see."

This idea that we are living in a society wherein women are soldiers, firefighters, police officers, boxers and MMA FIGHTERS and participating in any other arena that should be MEN ONLY

If a woman wants to be a protector, or fight, or whatever, why should she not be allowed to do so? It's her life. In addition, there is a long standing tradition, thousands of years old, all over the world, of specific groups of women filling that role, even elite fighting forces such as the Amazons, who were a group of Scythian elite women fighters from nearly 3000 years ago and are still legendary today. (These Scythian women are themselves a deep dive, but far outside of the scope of this response.)

It is generally agreed that we should respect the desires of the individual. By suggesting they should not be allowed to do things, you are playing the "opposition" role. By ignoring the basic premise, the dialectic moves forward along the Cabal's preplanned solution.

The real solution then, is for those that agree with the premise in the larger scope, to admit the premise, and that the premise itself has validity in the specific stance being espoused. From this point of agreement it is possible to show the propaganda that is pushing the ideology. Once it is understood that it is propaganda that is guiding thoughts on both sides, then, and only then, can the real enemy be seen.

Certain specific acts of Social Engineering take a basic premise and create two stances in opposition. These stances are designed to create a specific step in a broader, preplanned Hegelian dialectic. This "Dialectic" is intended to progress the world towards "Utopia" (as designed by the Cabal).

The basic premise can be stated as follows:

• A basic respect for people means accepting people for who they are, for the choices that they make for their own life. This is the idea that was explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence; to wit "Pursuit of Happiness" is espoused as an unalienable Right. Respecting this fundamental Right means that people are respected as people even if their life decisions aren't what we think they "should be doing." We don't have to like their choices, but we do need to still respect them as people. The premise simply stated is: as long as people are not directly infringing on someone else's unalienable Rights, they can do whatever they want with their life. It's their life.

Most people agree with this basic premise. The "unalienable Rights" from the DoI is one of the most quoted statements in any conversation about government or social issues from "both sides." (I suggest the "two sides" idea is itself both a contrivance and completely illusory, but that's a different discussion.)

Despite the general agreement, from this premise Social Engineers create two stances:

1. A specific avenue from the basic premise is pushed on society as an ideology through propaganda. Examples of these types of specific avenues are Women's Suffrage, Women's Liberation, Black Lives Matter, Abortion, etc.

2. Opposition to these ideologies is guided to focus on the problems that people might have with them, specifically focusing on stances that can be seen as a contradiction of the basic premise itself. Examples of such stances are "Woman shouldn't be allowed to do ________," or "Black women shouldn't be having children without a husband," etc.

What is not allowed to be a part of the conversation on either side is the basic premise; that people have the right to choose their own path in life. The first part assumes it is "obvious," even though it never is, because people in opposition can feel the propaganda push, which mutes the premise itself. The second part purposefully ignores the premise because they can feel the propaganda push. This gives them "an enemy" to focus on, so they focus on the specifics of that push.

So one side pushes the ideology. The other side protests the specifics of the ideology. No one talks about the basic premise; the common ground. Division is created, the Hegelian dialectic moves forward along the prescribed path.

In all such cases of Social Engineering of this type (there are other types) it is a "minority oppression" that really does exist that is focused on. The fact that the same people that create the oppression in the first place are also the people who push the "solution" to it is never a part of the conversation. Because of propaganda which brings certain parts into focus on both sides, no one can ever see past the "enemy they can see."

This idea that we are living in a society wherein women are soldiers, firefighters, police officers, boxers and MMA FIGHTERS and participating in any other arena that should be MEN ONLY

If a woman wants to be a protector, or fight, or whatever, why she should not be allowed to do so? It's her life. In addition, there is a long standing tradition, thousands of years old, all over the world, of specific groups of women filling that role, even elite fighting forces such as the Amazons, who were a group of Scythian elite women fighters from nearly 3000 years ago and are still legendary today. (These Scythian women are themselves a deep dive, but far outside of the scope of this response.)

It is generally agreed that we should respect the desires of the individual. By suggesting they should not be allowed to do things, you are playing the "opposition" role. By ignoring the basic premise, the dialectic moves forward along the Cabal's preplanned solution.

The real solution then, is for those that agree with the premise in the larger scope, to admit the premise, and that the premise itself has validity in the specific stance being espoused. From this point of agreement it is possible to show the propaganda that is pushing the ideology. Once it is understood that it is propaganda that is guiding thoughts on both sides, then, and only then, can the real enemy be seen.

Certain specific acts of Social Engineering take a basic premise and create two stances in opposition. These stances are designed to create a specific step in a broader, preplanned Hegelian dialectic. This "Dialectic" is intended to progress the world towards "Utopia" (as designed by the Cabal).

The basic premise can be stated as follows:

• A basic respect for people means accepting people for who they are, for the choices that they make for their own life. This is the idea that was explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence; to wit "Pursuit of Happiness" is espoused as an unalienable Right. Respecting this fundamental Right means that people are respected as people even if their life decisions aren't what we think they "should be doing." We don't have to like their choices, but we do need to still respect them as people. The premise simply stated is: as long as people are not directly infringing on someone else's unalienable Rights, they can do whatever they want with their life. It's their life.

Most people agree with this basic premise. The "unalienable Rights" from the DoI is one of the most quoted statements in any conversation about government or social issues from "both sides." (I suggest the "two sides" idea is itself both a contrivance and completely illusory, but that's a different discussion.)

Despite the general agreement, from this premise Social Engineers create two stances:

1. A specific avenue from the basic premise is pushed on society as an ideology through propaganda. Examples of these types of specific avenues are Women's Suffrage, Women's Liberation, Black Lives Matter, Abortion, etc.

2. Opposition to these ideologies is guided to focus on the problems that people might have with them, specifically focusing on stances that can be seen as a contradiction of the basic premise itself. Examples of such stances are "Woman shouldn't be allowed to do ________," or "Black women shouldn't be having children without a husband," etc.

What is not allowed to be a part of the conversation on either side is the basic premise; that people have the right to choose their own path in life. The first part assumes it is "obvious," even though it never is, because people in opposition can feel the propaganda push, which mutes the premise itself. The second part purposefully ignores the premise because they can feel the propaganda push. This gives them "an enemy" to focus on, so they focus on the specifics of that push.

So one side pushes the ideology. The other side protests the specifics of the ideology. No one talks about the basic premise; the common ground. Division is created, the Hegelian dialectic moves forward along the prescribed path.

In all such cases of Social Engineering of this type (there are other types) it is a "minority oppression" that really does exist that is focused on. The fact that the same people that create the oppression in the first place are also the people who push the "solution" to it is never a part of the conversation. Because of propaganda which brings certain parts into focus on both sides, no one can ever see past the "enemy they can see."

This idea that we are living in a society wherein women are soldiers, firefighters, police officers, boxers and MMA FIGHTERS and participating in any other arena that should be MEN ONLY

If a woman wants to be a protector, or fight, or whatever, why she should not be allowed to do so? It's her life. In addition, there is a long standing tradition, thousands of years old, all over the world, of specific groups of women filling that role, even elite fighting forces such as the Amazons, who were a group of Scythian elite women fighters from nearly 3000 years ago and are still legendary today. (These Scythian women are themselves a deep dive, but far outside of the scope of this response.)

It is generally agreed that we should respect the desires of the individual. By suggesting they should not be allowed to do things, you are playing the "opposition" role. By ignoring the basic premise, the dialectic moves forward along the Cabal's preplanned solution.

The real solution then, is for those that agree with the premise in the larger scope, to admit the premise and that it can apply to the specific stance being espoused. From this point of agreement it is possible to show the propaganda that is pushing the ideology. Once it is understood that it is propaganda that is guiding thoughts on both sides, then, and only then, can the real enemy be seen.

Certain specific acts of Social Engineering take a basic premise and create two stances in opposition. These stances are designed to create a specific step in a broader, preplanned Hegelian dialectic. This "Dialectic" is intended to progress the world towards "Utopia" (as designed by the Cabal).

The basic premise can be stated as follows:

• A basic respect for people means accepting people for who they are, for the choices that they make for their own life. This is the idea that was explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence; to wit "Pursuit of Happiness" is espoused as an unalienable Right. Respecting this fundamental Right means that people are respected as people even if their life decisions aren't what we think they "should be doing." We don't have to like their choices, but we do need to still respect them as people. The premise simply stated is: as long as people are not directly infringing on someone else's unalienable Rights, they can do whatever they want with their life. It's their life.

Most people agree with this basic premise. The "unalienable Rights" from the DoI is one of the most quoted statements in any conversation about government or social issues from "both sides." (I suggest the "two sides" idea is itself both a contrivance and completely illusory, but that's a different discussion.)

Despite the general agreement, from this premise Social Engineers create two stances:

1. A specific avenue from the basic premise is pushed on society as an ideology through propaganda. Examples of these types of specific avenues are Women's Suffrage, Women's Liberation, Black Lives Matter, Abortion, etc.

2. Opposition to these ideologies is guided to focus on the problems that people might have with them, specifically focusing on stances that can be seen as a contradiction of the basic premise itself. Examples of such stances are "Woman shouldn't be allowed to do ________," or "Black women shouldn't be having children without a husband," etc.

What is not allowed to be a part of the conversation on either side is the basic premise; that people have the right to choose their own path in life. The first part assumes it is "obvious," even though it never is, because people in opposition can feel the propaganda push, which mutes the premise itself. The second part purposefully ignores the premise because they can feel the propaganda push. This gives them "an enemy" to focus on, so they focus on the specifics of that push.

So one side pushes the ideology. The other side protests the specifics of the ideology. No one talks about the basic premise; the common ground. Division is created, the Hegelian dialectic moves forward along the prescribed path.

In all such cases of Social Engineering of this type (there are other types) it is a "minority oppression" that really does exist that is focused on. The fact that the same people that create the oppression in the first place are also the people who push the "solution" to it is never a part of the conversation. Because of propaganda which brings certain parts into focus on both sides, no one can ever see past the "enemy they can see."

This idea that we are living in a society wherein women are soldiers, firefighters, police officers, boxers and MMA FIGHTERS and participating in any other arena that should be MEN ONLY

If a woman wants to be a protector, or fight, or whatever, why she should not be allowed to do so? It's her life. In addition, there is a long standing tradition, thousands of years old, all over the world, of specific groups of women filling that role, even elite fighting forces such as the Amazons, who were a group of Scythian elite women fighters from nearly 3000 years ago and are still legendary today. (These Scythian women are themselves a deep dive, but far outside of the scope of this response.)

It is generally agreed that we should respect the desires of the individual. By suggesting they should not be allowed to do things, you are playing the "opposition" role. By ignoring the basic premise, the dialectic moves forward along the Cabal's preplanned solution.

The real solution then, is for people to admit the premise. From this point of agreement it is possible to show the propaganda that is pushing the ideology. Once it is understood that it is propaganda that is guiding thoughts on both sides, then, and only then, can the real enemy be seen.

Certain specific acts of Social Engineering take a basic premise and create two stances in opposition. These stances are designed to create a specific step in a broader, preplanned Hegelian dialectic. This "Dialectic" is intended to progress the world towards "Utopia" (as designed by the Cabal).

The basic premise can be stated as follows:

• A basic respect for people means accepting people for who they are, for the choices that they make for their own life. This is the idea that was explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence; to wit "Pursuit of Happiness" is espoused as an unalienable Right. Respecting this fundamental Right means that people are respected as people even if their life decisions aren't what we think they "should be doing." We don't have to like their choices, but we do need to still respect them as people. The premise simply stated is: as long as people are not directly infringing on someone else's unalienable Rights, they can do whatever they want with their life. It's their life.

Most people agree with this basic premise. The "unalienable Rights" from the DoI is one of the most quoted statements in any conversation about government or social issues from "both sides." (I suggest the "two sides" idea is itself both a contrivance and completely illusory, but that's a different discussion.)

Despite the general agreement, from this premise Social Engineers create two stances:

1. A specific avenue from the basic premise is pushed on society as an ideology through propaganda. Examples of these types of specific avenues are Women's Suffrage, Women's Liberation, Black Lives Matter, Abortion, etc.

2. Opposition to these ideologies is guided to focus on the problems that people might have with them, specifically focusing on stances that can be seen as a contradiction of the basic premise itself. Examples of such stances are "Woman shouldn't be allowed to do ________," or "Black women shouldn't be having children without a husband," etc.

What is not allowed to be a part of the conversation on either side is the basic premise; that people have the right to choose their own path in life. The first part assumes it is "obvious," even though it never is, because people in opposition can feel the propaganda push, which mutes the premise itself. The second part purposefully ignores the premise because they can feel the propaganda push. This gives them "an enemy" to focus on, so they focus on the specifics of that push.

So one side pushes the ideology. The other side protests the specifics of the ideology. No one talks about the basic premise; the common ground. Division is created, the Hegelian dialectic moves forward along the prescribed path.

In all such cases of Social Engineering of this type (there are other types) it is a "minority oppression" that really does exist that is focused on. The fact that the same people that create the oppression in the first place are also the people who push the "solution" to it is never a part of the conversation. Because of propaganda which brings certain parts into focus on both sides, no one can ever see past the "enemy they can see."

This idea that we are living in a society wherein women are soldiers, firefighters, police officers, boxers and MMA FIGHTERS and participating in any other arena that should be MEN ONLY

If a woman wants to be a protector, or fight, or whatever, why she should not be allowed to do so? It's her life. In addition, there is a long standing tradition, thousands of years old, all over the world, of specific groups of women filling that role, even elite fighting forces such as the Amazons, who were a group of Scythian elite women fighters from nearly 3000 years ago and are still legendary today. (These Scythian women are themselves a deep dive, but far outside of the scope of this response.)

It is generally agreed that we should respect the desires of the individual. By suggesting they should not be allowed to do things, you are playing the "opposition" role. By ignoring the basic premise, the dialectic moves forward along the Cabal's preplanned solution.

Certain specific acts of Social Engineering take a basic premise and create two stances in opposition. These stances are designed to create a specific step in a broader, preplanned Hegelian dialectic. This "Dialectic" is intended to progress the world towards "Utopia" (as designed by the Cabal).

The basic premise can be stated as follows:

• A basic respect for people means accepting people for who they are, for the choices that they make for their own life. This is the idea that was explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence; to wit "Pursuit of Happiness" is espoused as an unalienable Right. Respecting this fundamental Right means that people are respected as people even if their life decisions aren't what we think they "should be doing." We don't have to like their choices, but we do need to still respect them as people. The premise simply stated is: as long as people are not directly infringing on someone else's unalienable Rights, they can do whatever they want with their life. It's their life.

Most people agree with this basic premise. The "unalienable Rights" from the DoI is one of the most quoted statements in any conversation about government or social issues from "both sides." (I suggest the "two sides" idea is itself both a contrivance and completely illusory, but that's a different discussion.)

Despite the general agreement, from this premise Social Engineers create two stances:

1. A specific avenue from the basic premise is pushed on society as an ideology through propaganda. Examples of these types of specific avenues are Women's Suffrage, Women's Liberation, Black Lives Matter, Abortion, etc.

2. Opposition to these ideologies is guided to focus on the problems that people might have with them, specifically focusing on a problems that can be seen as a contradiction of the basic premise itself. Examples of such stances are "Woman shouldn't be allowed to do ________," or "Black women shouldn't be having children without a husband," etc.

What is not allowed to be a part of the conversation on either side is the basic premise; that people have the right to choose their own path in life. The first part assumes it is "obvious," even though it never is, because people in opposition can feel the propaganda push, which mutes the premise itself. The second part purposefully ignores the premise because they can feel the propaganda push. This gives them "an enemy" to focus on, so they focus on the specifics of that push.

So one side pushes the ideology. The other side protests the specifics of the ideology. No one talks about the basic premise; the common ground. Division is created, the Hegelian dialectic moves forward along the prescribed path.

In all such cases of Social Engineering of this type (there are other types) it is a "minority oppression" that really does exist that is focused on. The fact that the same people that create the oppression in the first place are also the people who push the "solution" to it is never a part of the conversation. Because of propaganda which brings certain parts into focus on both sides, no one can ever see past the "enemy they can see."

This idea that we are living in a society wherein women are soldiers, firefighters, police officers, boxers and MMA FIGHTERS and participating in any other arena that should be MEN ONLY

If a woman wants to be a protector, or fight, or whatever, why she should not be allowed to do so? It's her life. In addition, there is a long standing tradition, thousands of years old, all over the world, of specific groups of women filling that role, even elite fighting forces such as the Amazons, who were a group of Scythian elite women fighters from nearly 3000 years ago and are still legendary today. (These Scythian women are themselves a deep dive, but far outside of the scope of this response.)

It is generally agreed that we should respect the desires of the individual. By suggesting they should not be allowed to do things, you are playing the "opposition" role. By ignoring the basic premise, the dialectic moves forward along the Cabal's preplanned solution.