a) perceivable inspiration represents reality; suggested information represents fiction.
b) consenting to anything suggested shapes fiction within ones real mind/memory.
c) ones consent represents the fuel for the suggested fiction of others.
d) before ones consent, suggested information (fiction) represents only the temptation to ignore perceivable inspiration (reality)....after consent, those suggesting gain the power to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the suggested information at will, hence being able to shape fiction within the mind/memory of all those who consent to ignore reality.
a) a quest implies want for suggested outcome, which tempts one to ignore the need to adapt to perceivable origin.
b) yes vs no represents a conflict of reason, shaped by wanting or not wanting suggested information, while ignoring the need to adapt to perceivable inspiration.
now
Aka the perceivable ever-changing moment aka the momentum of ongoing flow for the temporary form within aka the enacting balance for each ones reacting free will of choice.
go on
Suggested progressivism; tempting towards outcome, instead of being the resistance within the process of dying.
your last word...
...can only be spoken within everlasting sound.
be gone
Where could energy go? If being implies as the inherent/internal power of energy, then changing to different positions as partials, still implies within the same whole.
It's about letting the consciousness roam free within inspiration, instead of shackling it to information upheld, hence ones choice to resist the want to hold onto for the need need to let go.
Nature supplies; those within deny...unless resisted.
If "racism" means the hatred of other races; then what -ism represents the love for ones own race?
You are
From your perspective: "I am whatever you say I am, because if I wasn't, then why would I say I am"
From my perspective: The way (process of dying) I am (living).
not
Tell me about the origin of no; not, nothing; nothingness...where did you got it from? Did you perceive it or was it suggested to you? Do you notice the contradiction of addressing something as "you are" while suggesting that something to represent "nothing"?
serious
Are you SERIOUS; adjective - "arranged in sequence, continuous" or do you represent temporary (living) within ongoing (process of dying)? I do feel like a clown asking this tho...then again..."clowns to the left of me; jokers to the right...and here I am stuck in the middle with jews".
inferiority complex
a) Infer implies IN (being within) FERO (produced by), while the -ITY represents a suggested quality you consented to. Resist the temptation of suggested and NATURE, noun - "born, produced" becomes noticeable as the perceivable producer of everything within.
b) COMPLEX, noun - "composed of two or more parts"...what if you represent one (partial) within oneness (whole), while other ones suggest dualism to tempt one to count other ones as the composite "two"?
Try this...show me "two" things that are the same, and I will ask you how you can discern between each "one" of them without them existing at a different place? Could others suggest one sameness to distract one from perceivable differences; like equality (sameness) through diversity (differences)?
c) is there really a conflict between infer (within produced) and super (beyond) or does being one (partial) within oneness (whole) imply "as above so below"?
d) why do you consent to suggested "inferiority complex" to psychological judge others, from a jew like Alfred Adler... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Adler who allegedly was mentally and physically in bed with Sigismund Schlomo Freud; the "founder" of psychoanalysis, a sodomite jew.
Do you think top and bottom among sodomites represents superiority and inferiority, while two dudes are building their complex?
in any case
Nature implies the perceivable uncovering of whole towards partial...suggested CASE, noun - "a covering" tempts one to ignore that.
Seems unnecessarily convoluted dude.
To those who choose suggested information over perceivable inspiration. If one adapts to perceivable inspiration then one would simply utilize anything that inspires to express ones growth of comprehension.
On the other hand; if one consents to suggested, then one is tempted to reason over it, like necessary vs unnecessary; simple vs complex; do vs don't; caring vs ignoring; constructive vs destructive; lightly vs heavily (a list of your chosen examples).
Try resisting reason (want vs not want; true vs false; belief vs disbelief etc.) by utilizing implication (if/then)...no conflict.
Is the purpose of that to strike a certain wizened tone, or something?
It's for the sustenance of self...not for entertaining others. If others choose to adapt to whatever inspires them, then I can notice that and adapt, which allows resonance (implication) instead of dissonance (reason).
constructive criticism
An -ism implies ignoring to construct self (living) within deconstruction (process of dying), by consenting to follow the suggested -ism of another into a conflict of reason. I need to resist the temptation of consenting to suggested criticism.
As for perceivable CRITIC, noun [Greek, a discerner, to judge, to separate, to distinguish.]...nature separates itself from whole (process of dying) into distinguished partials (living), which implies perceivable to represent that which "just is" (justice), which allows those perceiving within, to discern self (need) or judge others (want).
Sleight of hand for those with eyes to see...."everyone's a critic".
I would say to quit with the hyphens and parentheses
This is mostly for me, to allow me to string together interconnected topics while on-the-fly adapting to whatever inspires. Furthermore; as resistance (living) within velocity (process of dying)...adaptation represents frequency of choice, which is exactly what I'm utilizing, hence instead of copy and pasting; I write everything on the fly, which allows me to draw more and more inspiration. The hyphens and parentheses help me to keep the momentum going, which allow me (partial) to comprehend more and more of perceivable (whole).
As for QUIT, verb - "to depart from"...partial (living) within whole (process of dying) can only depart (away from) others, not from partial response-ability (choice) within whole (balance).
It feels gas lighty
How could I communicate that suggested "insane person" represents the inversion of perceivable "in sanus" (within sound) and "per sonos" (by sound) without others viewing it as questioning their sanity (gaslighting)?
How would you try to break the fiction (suggested information) upon the ignored reality (perceivable inspiration) if the many are willingly ignoring the latter for the former?
How would you communicate that suggested information (words) represents the inversion of perceivable inspiration (sound)...while using words to communicate?
I'm one of the few working on all of that...it's frustrating...it's fun.
Otherwise, nice work Anon! Keep it up!
Thank you for inspiring me. Try using me as a tool by throwing any kind of topic at me to get a different perspective about it. What I do is pointing out the contradictions and revision within suggested, and then try putting it into perspective of the perceivable natural order as I comprehend it. The way I think is in foundations, hence thinking within the perceivable whole; while considering the suggested partials within, while trying to explain all the layers I comprehend in-between.
the few can only claim meaning
The few comprehend further that a partial (living) within a whole (process of dying) cannot own anything, only utilize everything temporarily. The few suggest claims to tempt the many to want to possess aka to want to hold onto aka to claim as their own. Meanwhile; the more the living cling to the process of dying, the faster they die, hence loosing their hold.
The few utilize meaning (suggested information) to distract the many from predefined meaning (perceivable inspiration)...the former tempts one to want to hold onto; while the latter implies the need to adapt by resisting wanted temptations.
give credence
Aka giving creed aka giving belief; faith; submission; agreement; consent by free will of choice to the suggested information by others.
the few domesticate the many to behave
a) "free" will of choice within the "dom" inance of balance aka free-dom, can only be domesticated if the "free" willingly ignores the "dom" for the suggested choices of others. Slavery represents ones choice to submit to the choice of another, while ignoring the dominance of balance.
b) choice can only exist at the center of balance, hence in-between need/want...others can tempt choice to choose want over need, which tempts one into want vs not want conflicts aka imbalance through ignorance of balance.
c) being implies as partial within what the whole has, hence drawing from the whole to grow self, while struggling with the temptation to want to hold onto it.
Example; being (living) on a treadmill (process of dying)...the more one adapts, the stronger ones resistance becomes, while simultaneously the temporary one is being drained by the ongoing whole, hence struggling with the temptation to give up struggling.
Unlike the treadmill... the living cannot increase or decrease the process of dying, nor can one step off.
I get it; but that is the fucking issue...the few domesticate the many to behave according to norm, hence to use words suggested to them by the few for communication, while ignoring that suggested words versus suggested words doesn't represent communication, but miscommunication, hence a "conflict" of reason.
What was written on the Georgia Guide-stones? https://pic8.co/sh/htSzPr.jpg
So you're the definition guy.
Those who adapt to perceivable sound represent PHONETICIANS (from phonics; sound), while those who ignore sound for suggested definitions (words) represent DEAF PHONETICIANS.
Nobody talks like this
a) perceivable nature doesn't utter words; it communicates sound.
b) the few suggest words to tempt the many to ignore sound, which represents spell-craft.
c) when the many talk, they lack to comprehend using the tools (words), shaped (idolatry); reshaped (revisionism) and contradicted (talmudic reasoning) by the suggestions of the few.
In the words of TD...the few can only claim meaning if the many give credence to suggested words as a layer upon perceivable sound.
- PROS'TATE, adjective [Greek to set before.] - "a gland situated just before the neck of the bladder" + cancer, from TU'MOR, noun [Latin from tumeo, to swell.]
a) consider what one puts into self before a swelling reaction results?
b) consider if swelling can be internally generated?
c) consider if cancer isn't the problem as suggested, but a solution that sets apart an accumulation (swelling) by isolating it from the rest of the body? Consider further that suggested cancer treatment attacks the insulation with poison (chemo) or heat (radiation)?
jerking prevents
Ones seed generation aka the fruit of ones loins need to be planted into the soil of the natural opposite (male into female) for the perpetuation of self.
In other words...jerking to prevent tempts one to ignore spreading to sustain.
Self sacrifice of potential self perpetuation, hence consenting to porn representing suicidal consent to genocidal suggestion.
The less one masturbates, the more one comprehends about being resistance (living) within temptation (process of dying)...
Servant of the dönmeh jews tells servant of the zionist jews..."insert war mongering suggestion here"...all in the name of Turkey; the US; Ankara; Washington and eight European countries.
terror attacks
a) terrorism also represents a suggestion
b) consenting to suggested instigates the conflict of reason, hence an attack.
Albert Bourla is a Greek-American...
"Bourla was born and raised in Thessaloniki, Greece.His parents, who were Sephardi Jews, were among the 2,000 of 50,000 Jews in Thessaloniki to survive the Holocaust." ~wiki
Something; something..."people who spread misinformation"
"liberal" has been...twisted
Ones free will of choice (Latin liber; free) willingly consenting to the suggestions (liberalism) by others represents the "twist" from free (choice) to being bound (to the choices of others).
Suggested "insane" tempts one to ignore perceivable "In sanus" aka being within sound....as a person aka "per sonos" (by sound).
In-between perceivable left and right exist ones perceiving free will of choice...consenting to suggested leftism or rightism tempts one to ignore that.
liberals believe...
To believe implies choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law aka RELIGION, noun (Latin religio) - "to bind anew"...which contradicts LIB'ERAL, adjective (Latin liberalis, liber, free).
One ignores to be free (will of choice) when binding oneself to the suggestions of others, hence believing them.
Furthermore...liberal represents the perceivable status quo of being free will of choice, while liberalism represents the suggested inversion thereof, hence tempting one to consent by liberal choice to suggested -ism by the liberal choice of another.
More from April Gallop... https://files.catbox.moe/bko8kx.mp4 (she starts at 6:30)
Most will perish from lack of knowledge
a) everyone (living) perishes within everything (process of dying).
b) KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists"...everything (perceivable) is offered to everyone (perceiving)...ignoring perceivable inspiration (need) for suggested information (want) represents each ones free will of choice.
c) whole (perceivable) offers everything to each partial (perceiving)...this allows partial to grow self discernment and comprehension within and about whole...unless willingly ignored.
We must
a) others suggest "we" (plural) to tempt "one" (singular) to ignore self, which when consented to, gives the few the power to suggest "in the name of" (e nomine) the many and anything suggested to them.
b) MUST, noun [Latin mustum; Heb. to ferment] + FER'MENT, noun [Latin fermentum, from fervo, to boil.] - "a gentle boiling; or the internal motion of the constituent parts of a fluid"
It represents each ones free will of choice to consent to be boiled alive through consenting to the suggestions of others.
petition against Madonna
"I'm not your bitch, don't hang your shit on me"
trafficking...social experiments...on children.
"And I'm not sorry...it's human nature"
I see no solution to our problems
a) living within the process of dying implies as temporary problem within ongoing solution.
b) nature sets itself apart...from whole (process of dying) into each partial (living)...others tempt one to ignore this for suggested "we" (plural) over perceivable "one" (single).
c) seeing implies sensing "everything" perceivable, others suggest "nothing" to tempt on to ignore this.
basic...values
The process of dying represents "value", living within represents "evaluation"...others suggest values to tempt one to ignore evaluating perceivable value.
Tom: "Let me tell you what others are doing to us"
Me looking at Tom: "Is it more damaging than what you're doing to yourself?"
is it valid to call the erev rav
E pluribus unum (out of many; one); tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together); united states; united nations, european union; equality (same) through diversity (different), multiculturalism; collectivism; mass migration; miscegenation; mongrelization; the melting pot etc...all suggested tools to destroy the many by mixing them together (erev rav; mixed mutilate), which allows the few to stay apart within the mixed many.
Why the mixing? As the suggested inversion of perceivable...nature sets itself apart, from whole (process of dying) into each partial (living). For the living to sustain self within the process of dying implies ones struggle to stay apart within the whole, which the few invert by suggesting the partial (living) to come together (dying).
If you forget about your worries and your strife and look for bare necessitates...I mean old mother nature's recipes...then the bare necessitates of life will come to you.