I just read another post or meme that used the word heterosexual to describe normal, straight men. This is a co-opted word that used to be a “scientific” term for one who engaged in a lot of normal sex with many different partners. It was coined for use in todays language back in the 60s or 70s when the paradigms were created, heterosexual vs homosexual. Gradually, faggots stopped being the dregs of society and started to become homosexuals.
Because your parents allowed the shift in language, you are no longer allowed to call these demons by their original name. Their derogatory name which marks them in the minds of others as being contrary to the norm. This was all made possible by replacing the word NORMAL with HETEROSEXUAL.
Gays are spiritually sick, the pathogen being a demon. Because it's presumptive to call a person without this affliction "spiritually healthy", I'd recommend borrowing from the medical world. We should call unafflicted people "gay-negative" or something to that effect.
I agree. Simply saying “I’m not a faggot” if it comes up in a casual, nonprofessional situation is sufficient. Unfortunately this shit has gotten so bad that simply stating what you are not can get you fired. In these situations, it’s effective to just say that you are normal, you identify as normal, your fucking pronouns are normal if you have to play that game. Just say that you are normal, which classifies everyone outside of that as abnormal. The term will lodge itself into peoples brains and they will automatically distinguish that you are not a faggot because deep down they know that faggots are not normal. This is the same mechanism to which people only need to be offered one letter to form a complete word in their mind. N. It’s also the same mechanism that causes people to think of blacks when they hear the word “monkey”.
[ - ] MelGibson [op] 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 14:51:38 ago (+1/-0)
I don’t think using words that normies can’t associate with is the answer. I’m pretty sure 4 out of 5 people could not tell you what the -phile suffix even means.
Maybe go with something that has shock value that immediately puts repulsive imagery in someone’s head. Something like “shitdicks”. Normal men can be called “cleandicks”.
Well calibrate your language to your audience. Alot of college educated midwits will know what you mean and will unconsciously associate -phile with pedo. Also Analist is self-explanatory and has an intellectual tone. But is also disgusting graphic.
They lust. What they do isn't love. You can love a man, but you wouldn't want to destroy their rectum with an erect penis. I love my son and I loved my father. It comes from the heart, not the loins.
[ - ] Kozel 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 15:00:14 ago (+1/-0)
Dick mutilation is a specturum, everyone who had their dick mutilated is a scardick. Some scardicks have a bigger scar than others but they have all paid with their soul not only their body.
It's the same with "immigration". Always say "the replacement" or something similar. The trick they use is to create connotations. Most people are indoctrinated into thinking "immigration" is associated with belonging to the positive side and opposing it is belonging to the negative side. The replacement completely reverses the connotations - only a moron would be positive about their own replacement.
This concept is much easier to explain with Norwegian words: Innvandring = immigration + Fiendtlig = hostile/animosity towards. = Innvandringfiendtlig = hostile to immigration.
The media, academics and politicians memed the word "innvandringsfiendtlig" into existence before I was born. They did this without mentioning anything about begin hostile towards Norwegians or friendly towards Norwegians or immigration.
This gave Norwegians no choice because they had no language to combat they idea of immigration in a positive sense, while at the same time begin painted as a negative if disagreeing with immigration. I made up the word "Norskfiendtlig"(hostile towards Norwegians) and not once have anyone ask me for a definition or reacted negatively to the term. I use it in everyday conversations as if it's a term that has always existed. It's almost as if people have been waiting for a word/term to describe what they feel and are observing. Language is weird.
I'm going to force them to make a choice - are you innvandringsfiendtlig or Norskfiendtlig?
dude, my bro... that whole faggot thing traces it's roots back to rallying the brainless for several political movements "alone we are weak and easy to break like a single branch (snap) but together we are strong like many branches together, together we are a faggot" at some point in time there were a bunch of limp wrists and lisps associated with one of these groups and people started sarcastically just referring to all limp wristed lispy people as faggots. The "together we are strong" theme is in a lot of political doctrine, there is even something reminiscent of it in the fascist manifesto.
I propose we find an older word to describe them. Something that's in a dictionary but will confuse them. debauchee?
[ - ] MelGibson [op] 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 14:24:57 ago (+1/-0)
I didn’t know this thanks for the info. I always knew that a faggot originally was a pile of bundle of sticks but didn’t know the origin or how it was co-opted. I only went with faggot because the word had a lot of power when I was a kid. I will frequently use sodomite too. I’ve never heard of debauchee but it has a nice ring to it.
The word faggot has been used in English since the late 16th century as an abusive term for women, particularly old women,[8] and reference to homosexuality may derive from this,[7][9] as female terms are often used with reference to homosexual or effeminate men (cf. nancy, sissy, queen). The application of the term to old women is possibly a shortening of the term "faggot-gatherer," applied in the 19th century to people, especially older widows, who made a meager living by gathering and selling firewood.[9] It may also derive from the sense of "something awkward to be carried" (compare the use of the word baggage as a pejorative term for old people in general).[7]
An alternative possibility is that the word is connected with the practice of fagging in British public schools, in which younger boys performed (potentially sexual) duties for older boys, although the word faggot was never used in this context, only fag. There is a reference to the word faggot being used in 17th-century Britain to refer to a "man hired into military service simply to fill out the ranks at muster," but there is no known connection with the word's modern usage.[7]
There are a couple of other suggestions such as, you burn wooden faggots so gay men are similarly named because they were burnt on a stake.
I think faggot collector as an effeminate person seems like a likely origin.
Good point. Normal vs Abnormal? Jews will put that on the bell curve. I can think of Biblical descriptions Man laying with Man is an abomination Ditto Woman laying with Woman --abomination. They are damned. Trannys? Damned.
Before the suggested word comes the perceivable sound. All languages represent the suggested spell-craft of the few; who by consent of the many gain the power to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) any suggested meaning.
The above represents the foundation exploited for all further levels of deception build upon it. At your level of noticing revisionism is suggested meaning...look into Latin to Pig-Latin (English) and how all the natural connotations were stripped out of it. English is not only filled to the brim with rhetorical deceptions; pushed through the world wide web as the one world language; numerical encoded for communication underneath, but also utilized as legalese to hide maritime admiralty law (piracy) underneath the peasant laws.
heterosexual vs homosexual
a) every "versus" conflict represents a rebranding of want vs not want (suggested information); while ignoring need (perceivable inspiration).
b) the want vs not want conflict represents division by suggestion and is called "reason".
c) it doesn't matter which side one chooses within any conflict of reason; since only the few making the suggestions from outside the conflict have the power to define; redefine and contradict whatever the many are reasoning about.
d) reasoning cannot be won; it only grinds both sides of ignorance against each other; hence depleting themselves; while a 3rd party parasitically leeches upon them.
a lot of normal sex with many different partners
SEX, noun [Latin seco, to divide.] - "The distinction between male and female". What you talk about represents the temptation of lust (want) while ignoring the sustenance of self by intercourse with another (need).
Because your parents allowed the shift in language you are no longer allowed to call these demons by their original name.
Before that they gave us a name; which allowed the parasitic few to incorporate the living man; who ignores himself for a life wasted "in the name of" a suggested brand. Nature doesn't brand anything; it moves everything; which communicates perceivable inspiration for adaptation to everyone within.
Nature doesn't require names; it designates units (unitas; the state of being one; oneness) and all represents one in energy. Sleight of hand: "all for one and one for all"
being contrary to the norm
The perceivable natural order represents being the temporary living "resisting" within the ongoing process of dying. The suggested "norm" tempts others to follow orders towards suggested outcomes; hence towards death; while ignoring to resist for the sustenance of life.
Sleight of hand: Cheers (where everybody knows your name)...
Norm: "Hi everyone"
The many:"Norm; Norm; Norm..."
Aka suggestion for domestication of behavior. It's cattle farming.
I did read this and wanted to upvote parts of it. You mght be verging on obscure at times.
You seem to be suggesting that there’s no use in simplifying conflicts to a binary choice and you ignore that the norm exists because it ihas been historically the most successful pattern compared to outliers.
Upvote (want) versus downvote (not want)...a conflict of reason. What about need? is there a conflict between need (perceivable) and want (suggested) or is there choice within a balance?
You might be verging on obscure at times.
What if obscuring perceivable (inspiration) represents the choice of ignoring it for suggested (information)? I try to adapt to whatever inspires me; hence expressing comprehension of perceivable on the fly. I resist the temptation to suggest information towards others; or even to write for validation by others.
If others respond I can then adapt to their state of comprehension, but it has to be their choice adapting to perceivable inspiration; not me using suggestion to tempt others into wanting to understand (stand under) suggested information.
In short...light (perception) is offered to each one within for enlightenment (need) or ignorance (want). Consenting to suggested information; obscures ones comprehension of perceivable inspiration.
You seem to be suggesting that there’s no use in simplifying conflicts to a binary choice
a) the conflict (want vs not want reasoning) is caused by consent to want or not want any suggested information. Want (suggested information) ignores need (perceivable inspiration).
b) I can write that I use need over want; inspiration over information and implication (if/then) over reason (want vs not want); but each one reading it has to choose for themselves to utilize it as inspiration (need) or information (want). If you read information; while reasoning about how to handle it (want vs not want; true vs false; believing vs not believing; good vs bad etc.); then you made a choice before...want (suggested) over need (perceivable). In this way you put yourself into a conflict by consenting to what others suggest you reason about, and in return this ignorance of perceivable will tempt others to exploit you with endless more suggestions.
c) BI'NARY, adjective [Latin binus, two and two.]. You represent ONE (perceiving) within ALL (perceivable). The suggested "two" implies ONE choosing to count other ONEs and then suggest it to mean "two". Take any "two" things and allow yourself to notice that for you to be able to perceive them; each ONE of them has to exist within a different position. You are perceiving different ONEs; differentiated by the same ALL. This self-differentiation represents the transmutation of ingredient ONE out of base ALL.
The inversion of perceivable transmutation (out of all) represents suggested creationism (out of nothing); which leads me back to binary aka 0 (nothing) 1 (everything). There's no such thing as a 0 state within nature; but a 1 can be tempted by suggestion to respond like it does. Question being temporary form (life) within ongoing flow (inception towards death) and then try to apply a binary to it without running into self contradiction...
you ignore that the norm exists because it has been historically the most successful pattern compared to outliers.
a) SUCCESS', noun [Latin succedo] - "the favorable or prosperous termination of any thing attempted". Apply this to your status quo of temporary living within the ongoing process of dying. What does "prosperous termination" of life imply? Have a sleight of hand from the parasitic few...Terminator: "I'll be back".
b) what if life isn't outcome (success) oriented; hence being processed towards death, but the temporary response (choice) to an ongoing origin (balance) for the sustenance of the living, while dying?
c)where are you; the perceiving ONE within the perceivable ALL, in the suggested his-story by others?
d) what if each one represents the accumulation of all that was; the representation of all that is, and the potential expression (need) or repression (want) for all that will be? How easy would it be to tempt the many to ignore this potential for the suggested his-story narratives by the few? And of course the consent of the many to the suggestions of the few represents the source of power (ignored potential) which the parasitic few can extract; exploit; shape; direct and use against the many at their will.
e) the pattern proposed for imitation represents perceivable inspiration through a self differentiating system; which simply moves everything inside; which the perceiving senses of those within perceive as inspiration for adaptation. The more one adapts to perceivable inspiration; the more one comprehends; the more resistance (life) increases within velocity (inception towards death), and the more ones potential (growth) within all potentiality (loss) sustains and expresses itself.
Question...impression (perception) to compression (comprehension) for expression (growth) or regression (loss)?
the norm
What if the living within the process of dying represent temporary chaos within the ongoing natural order? What if the status quo represents resisting the natural order by resisting the temptation to ignore response-ability (choice within balance)...a temptation suggested by others; tempting one to ignore the sustenance of self by adaptation to all?
historically the most successful
Describe to me the success of the many over the few within any historical context?
C’mon guy. Come back to Earth. Have a care for the attention span of others. Your schizoid tendencies cause you to be incomprehensible to others without investing a great deal of time and energy. If you restrain your elaborations a lttle and limit your length, it would be easier to interact. Do like 20% of that. Just my friendly advice which you can take or leave.
I remember someone similar from voat. Maybe you are him?
I remember someone similar from voat. Maybe you are him?
The goat that didn't vote...Blood-is-Nature.
Have a care for the attention span of others.
How could others grow if they seldom perceive expressed growth within others? Is living within the process of dying a matter of attending or a demand for responding?
to be incomprehensible to others
What if comprehension cannot be shared by suggesting others information? What if comprehension (compressed within) can only be grown by adaptation to perceivable inspiration (impressed into)? What if what I'm doing represents the expression (growth) of compressed (comprehension) impressions (perceivable inspiration)? How could I share this; when it implies my own effort; struggle; resistance to temptation; free will of choice?
In short...what if shaping perceivable out of comprehended is on oneself and not from others?
without investing a great deal of time and energy
What could I write to inspire others to question the origin of time and energy? Does time represent the suggested states of past; present and future or does it represent the perceivable ever changing moment(um) of motion aka tick; tick; tick...? As for energy...what isn't energy?
restrain your elaborations a little and limit your length
a) does one need to restrain ones expression of all or is one tempted by other ones to want to do so?
b) what is the implication of suggesting "limit your length" to the temporary living within the ongoing process of dying?
it would be easier to interact
a) what if the issue is your want to interact with me; while ignoring to be the reaction to INTER (internal; within) ACT (action, enacted)?
b) as the living within the process of dying; what represents "easier"...resisting being moved towards death; or being tempted towards death by the ongoing motion?
Just my friendly advice
AD (to approach; to come near; to; at) VICE (defect; fault; blemish; temptation). Well; with friends like these...
Bloodisnature! That was it. I am assuming you are him. We chatted a few times.
I think it’s worth it to exchange information with others about what theyve perceived and how they process that information. To a point. I can never fully understand everything going on in your head. And there are only so many hours in a day. So there is such a thing as too much information.
What if comprehension cannot be shared by suggesting others information? What if comprehension (compressed within) can only be grown by adaptation to perceivable inspiration (impressed into)? What if what I'm doing represent.......
You lost me.
what if the issue is your want to interact with me; while ignoring to be the reaction to INTER (internal; within) ACT (action, enacted)?
I want to interact with you, but it’s difficult.
AD (to approach; to come near; to; at) VICE (defect; fault; blemish; temptation). Well; with friends like these...
Advice is from videre— to see— and not from vitium —a blemish— like “vice”. If you look too closely for hidden meanings, you can see connections that aren’t really there.
I think it’s worth it to exchange information with others about what theyve perceived and how they process that information.
There are multiple deceptions within that sentence.
a) you attribute "worth" to information suggested by others. You ignore being evaluation (perceiving) within value (perceivable). By doing so; you give others the power to define value by suggestion; which tempts you to ignore more and more of the perceivable. For example: the entire monetary system is based on the few suggesting the many that money represents value; while utilizing the consent of the many as the power of evaluation; which the few can only then wield against the many.
b) IN (within) FORM (formed by) -ATION (through action) + IN (within) SPIR (spirit; Latin spiro; to breathe) -ATION (through action). Information implies within form; while inspiration implies as form adapting to flow. Life represents the temporary form state; while the motion from inception towards death represents the ongoing flow state.
In simple...nature doesn't suggest any information; it doesn't brand anything; it doesn't proclaim what anything is. What nature does is moving everything; which those within nature perceive as inspiration for adaptation. Living implies being processed by dying; hence in need to adapt to being moved; while tempted to want to go with the flow aka the path of least resistance.
To exploit a nature that communicates itself solely as perceivable inspiration; a bunch of us dipshits shaped the perceivable sound into suggestible words; hence starting to brand a moving system until as much as possible of reality had a fictitious name. Wind isn't "wind" because we brand it as such; but because it represents a formed expression of a flowing system.
With so much being branded, and each brand implying a choice (suggestion) to choice (consent) contract; we now had power over one another by simple means of suggestion, a power that can shape the perspective of anyone consenting to it; which also controls their behavior in accordance to the will of others. This represents the allegory of the golem (a monster out of clay; controlled from the outside).
c) inception towards death represents the only process; all life exists within it. Consenting to suggested information (affixed meaning) tempts one to ignore the ongoing process aka perceivable inspiration (communication from flow to form).
To a point.
Towards a point implies towards an end. If the living follow the suggestions of others towards an end (point);then they are being tempted towards death. All other points represent suggested distraction from the only point of living...dying. The rhetoric of "point" aka "what's the point" represents suggested progressivism (outcome orientation); which tempts one to ignore that life represents response-ability (choice) to origin (balance).
I can never fully understand everything going on in your head
You are tempted to want to understand suggested information; which you need to resist for adaptation to perceivable inspiration. Instead of getting intimidated by struggling through a wall of text...try to adapt to the first thing inspiring you and try to put it into your own perspective. The more you adapt to perceivable inspiration; the more you grow your comprehension of all perceivable.
Instead of figuring me out; grow your own comprehension and you will notice that we will both resonate with the same source. This isn't an agreement vs disagreement; intelligence vs less intelligence; normal vs schizophrenic; true vs false; good vs bad; believing vs not believing conflict...unless you choose to shape it into one.
Use implication (if/then) to avoid reasoning (want vs not want) over suggested information. You don't have to agree with reality; it moves everything with or without your agreement. It's the suggestions by others that tempt you ignore this; while reasoning with others about the suggested meaning.
And there are only so many hours in a day
Overcoming the temptation to count requires one to stay within momentum until fatigue sets in. The temporary (living) doesn't need to count the ongoing (dying)...it needs to grow resistance within the momentum (balance) of motion. You can start with re-calibrating to the perceivable sun; while slowly ditching the suggested clock.
So there is such a thing as too much information.
Where does one store suggested information? Within memory. What if the memory needs to be used for adaptation to ongoing inspiration (like a ram); while being tempted to want to be misused for the accumulation of temporary information (like a hard drive)?
What if everything perceivable is available at any moment to everyone perceiving it within? What more if others can corrupt access to perceivable and hence curtail the growth of comprehension to it; by simply suggesting more and more information, as to fill up the hard-drive; while slowing down the ram?
Ask yourself if there can be too much inspiration? The more you comprehend about that; the more you can question if one can ever run out of perceivable inspiration?
You lost me.
Take any object next to you; open a txt file and write "things I can do with..."; then spend 20 minutes a day on filling such a list until you comprehend that you can draw infinite inspiration out of anything you perceive. After a couple of weeks compare your list (adaptation to inspiration) with the dictionary entries for that object (suggested information). Notice how your list is massive; while the entry is small. Next step; acknowledge how much your comprehension about the perceivable object grew and how you comprehended more and more about the things surrounding that object.
The growth of ones comprehension represents the mapping out of all perceivable; yet it requires FRE'QUENCY, noun - "a return or occurrence of a thing often repeated at short intervals". This frequency represents your free will of choice choosing to adapt to perceivable inspiration. Comprehension represents the seed within the soil of perception and anything suggested tempts you to ignore growth.
I want to interact with you, but it’s difficult.
Want over need. You are looking at text on a screen; which tempts your consciousness to fill in the blanks about whoever wrote it. This isn't communication; but a designed trap (Plato's allegory of the cave - the digital version) to hook you on suggested information; which further tempts you to want confirmation over and over again.
For me...adaptation to inspiration while reading text is like plucking fruits from a tree while tasting the flavors. Each bite of inspiration I adapt to opens up more impressions of the perceivable. I don't look at the tree and go "too much fruit; too little time; too difficult to handle; I can't eat all of that; that schizo tree must be crazy to produce so much fruits".
Now take this allegory and add your free will of choice responding to need (hunger) or want (taste) to it...I chose the need to adapt to inspiration; you chose the want to consent to information. I can write this down; yet only you can change your choice.
Advice is from videre— to see— and not from vitium —a blemish— like “vice”. If you look too closely for hidden meanings, you can see connections that aren’t really there.
One can "see" both perceivable inspiration and suggested information; it's the responding choice that shapes behavior. Those with eyes to see don't require advice from the suggestions of others; yet when they are falling for such a temptation; they're blemishing what they see with what others suggest it means.
I utilize the older roots of suggested words to show the revisionism applied to them since; as to strip away the rhetorical tricks that tempt others to ignore the perceivable sound for the suggested word. A word doesn't represent meaning; yet consenting to evaluate a suggested word can tempt one to believe the suggested meaning.
As for connections...all represents one in energy. Everything is connected and each one within represents the potential to express everything. The connections we don't see represent the lack of growing comprehension about it.
that aren't really there
Where in perceivable reality can your senses perceive things that "are not there"? How could one-thing within everything perceive nothing? Could it be that "nothing" was suggested to you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI
[ + ] Teefinyomouf
[ - ] Teefinyomouf 14 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 10:58:43 ago (+14/-0)
[ + ] Sector7
[ - ] Sector7 16 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 11:24:20 ago (+16/-0)
[ + ] MelGibson
[ - ] MelGibson [op] 7 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 11:40:05 ago (+7/-0)
[ + ] Boardallday3
[ - ] Boardallday3 5 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 12:21:11 ago (+5/-0)
[ + ] xmasskull
[ - ] xmasskull 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 13:37:34 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 2 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 12:40:39 ago (+2/-0)
Homophile
Androphile
Gynophile
Just use -phile wherever possible
Sexually inverted
Sodomite sounds corny and old fashioned, but how about ‘analist’?
Tribadist
Men ‘on the down low’, rather than bisexual, or maybe panophile or ambiphile?
Use pederast for any fag that is attracted to a youngish man. Blur the line between attraction to a 21 year old and attraction to a 14 year old.
I think I like homophile and analist the best. They sound dirtier than homosexual.
[ + ] MelGibson
[ - ] MelGibson [op] 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 14:51:38 ago (+1/-0)
Maybe go with something that has shock value that immediately puts repulsive imagery in someone’s head. Something like “shitdicks”. Normal men can be called “cleandicks”.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 15:46:50 ago (+0/-0)
Shit dicks is fine for niggers and beaners.
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 14:51:15 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 15:54:01 ago (+0/-0)
I don't see why you have to blur any lines, that's what it originally meant.
[ + ] ItsOk2bArian
[ - ] ItsOk2bArian 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 11:26:08 ago (+1/-0)
Ha Ha Ha
I love it, I'm absolutely going to start using that. I can't wait to piss off a normalfag with that one
[ + ] Clubberlang
[ - ] Clubberlang 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 22:23:14 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Spiral_Out
[ - ] Spiral_Out 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 21:59:34 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Clubberlang
[ - ] Clubberlang 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 22:22:04 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Teefinyomouf
[ - ] Teefinyomouf 6 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 10:52:25 ago (+6/-0)
[ + ] MuricaPersonified
[ - ] MuricaPersonified 3 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 12:28:01 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] Temp20210918c
[ - ] Temp20210918c 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 12:30:27 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] NuckFiggers
[ - ] NuckFiggers 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 12:49:41 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Kozel
[ - ] Kozel 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 14:40:31 ago (+0/-0)
You're all scardicks to me, a puredick.
[ + ] NuckFiggers
[ - ] NuckFiggers 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 14:57:03 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Kozel
[ - ] Kozel 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 15:00:14 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 15:49:05 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Kozel
[ - ] Kozel 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 16:56:43 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] SilentByAssociation
[ - ] SilentByAssociation 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 12:58:08 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] olinneserpona
[ - ] olinneserpona 4 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 12:02:57 ago (+4/-0)
This concept is much easier to explain with Norwegian words:
Innvandring = immigration
+
Fiendtlig = hostile/animosity towards.
=
Innvandringfiendtlig = hostile to immigration.
The media, academics and politicians memed the word "innvandringsfiendtlig" into existence before I was born. They did this without mentioning anything about begin hostile towards Norwegians or friendly towards Norwegians or immigration.
This gave Norwegians no choice because they had no language to combat they idea of immigration in a positive sense, while at the same time begin painted as a negative if disagreeing with immigration.
I made up the word "Norskfiendtlig"(hostile towards Norwegians) and not once have anyone ask me for a definition or reacted negatively to the term. I use it in everyday conversations as if it's a term that has always existed. It's almost as if people have been waiting for a word/term to describe what they feel and are observing. Language is weird.
I'm going to force them to make a choice - are you innvandringsfiendtlig or Norskfiendtlig?
[ + ] PotatoWhisperer
[ - ] PotatoWhisperer 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 15:21:47 ago (+1/-0)
I like to use "invasion", really gets to the core of the issue.
[ + ] lurker
[ - ] lurker 3 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 12:15:04 ago (+3/-0)
I propose we find an older word to describe them. Something that's in a dictionary but will confuse them. debauchee?
[ + ] MelGibson
[ - ] MelGibson [op] 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 14:24:57 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 16:51:51 ago (+0/-0)
There are a couple of other suggestions such as, you burn wooden faggots so gay men are similarly named because they were burnt on a stake.
I think faggot collector as an effeminate person seems like a likely origin.
[ + ] olinneserpona
[ - ] olinneserpona 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 14:45:01 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] we_kill_creativity
[ - ] we_kill_creativity 3 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 11:02:15 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] TrannyHunter
[ - ] TrannyHunter 3 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 10:53:06 ago (+3/-0)
Ditto Woman laying with Woman --abomination. They are damned. Trannys? Damned.
[ + ] 9000timesempty
[ - ] 9000timesempty 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 16:52:37 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] 0rion
[ - ] 0rion 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 15:47:25 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] GrayDragon
[ - ] GrayDragon 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 13:21:27 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Leveraction
[ - ] Leveraction 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 12:30:31 ago (+1/-0)
MENTALLY ILL
GET HELP.
[ + ] Clubberlang
[ - ] Clubberlang 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 22:23:41 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] beece
[ - ] beece 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 21:38:13 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] texasblood
[ - ] texasblood 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 17:59:14 ago (+0/-0)
I did not evolve from pond scum.
Faggots are monkey fish frogs
[ + ] WhatColorIsYourTigerCage
[ - ] WhatColorIsYourTigerCage 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 14:40:37 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ]deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 13:11:48 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 12:20:26 ago (+0/-0)*
Before the suggested word comes the perceivable sound. All languages represent the suggested spell-craft of the few; who by consent of the many gain the power to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) any suggested meaning.
The above represents the foundation exploited for all further levels of deception build upon it. At your level of noticing revisionism is suggested meaning...look into Latin to Pig-Latin (English) and how all the natural connotations were stripped out of it. English is not only filled to the brim with rhetorical deceptions; pushed through the world wide web as the one world language; numerical encoded for communication underneath, but also utilized as legalese to hide maritime admiralty law (piracy) underneath the peasant laws.
a) every "versus" conflict represents a rebranding of want vs not want (suggested information); while ignoring need (perceivable inspiration).
b) the want vs not want conflict represents division by suggestion and is called "reason".
c) it doesn't matter which side one chooses within any conflict of reason; since only the few making the suggestions from outside the conflict have the power to define; redefine and contradict whatever the many are reasoning about.
d) reasoning cannot be won; it only grinds both sides of ignorance against each other; hence depleting themselves; while a 3rd party parasitically leeches upon them.
SEX, noun [Latin seco, to divide.] - "The distinction between male and female". What you talk about represents the temptation of lust (want) while ignoring the sustenance of self by intercourse with another (need).
Before that they gave us a name; which allowed the parasitic few to incorporate the living man; who ignores himself for a life wasted "in the name of" a suggested brand. Nature doesn't brand anything; it moves everything; which communicates perceivable inspiration for adaptation to everyone within.
Nature doesn't require names; it designates units (unitas; the state of being one; oneness) and all represents one in energy. Sleight of hand: "all for one and one for all"
The perceivable natural order represents being the temporary living "resisting" within the ongoing process of dying. The suggested "norm" tempts others to follow orders towards suggested outcomes; hence towards death; while ignoring to resist for the sustenance of life.
Sleight of hand: Cheers (where everybody knows your name)...
Norm: "Hi everyone"
The many:"Norm; Norm; Norm..."
Aka suggestion for domestication of behavior. It's cattle farming.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 21, 2022 16:04:22 ago (+0/-0)
You seem to be suggesting that there’s no use in simplifying conflicts to a binary choice and you ignore that the norm exists because it ihas been historically the most successful pattern compared to outliers.
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 22, 2022 04:27:30 ago (+0/-0)
Upvote (want) versus downvote (not want)...a conflict of reason. What about need? is there a conflict between need (perceivable) and want (suggested) or is there choice within a balance?
What if obscuring perceivable (inspiration) represents the choice of ignoring it for suggested (information)? I try to adapt to whatever inspires me; hence expressing comprehension of perceivable on the fly. I resist the temptation to suggest information towards others; or even to write for validation by others.
If others respond I can then adapt to their state of comprehension, but it has to be their choice adapting to perceivable inspiration; not me using suggestion to tempt others into wanting to understand (stand under) suggested information.
In short...light (perception) is offered to each one within for enlightenment (need) or ignorance (want). Consenting to suggested information; obscures ones comprehension of perceivable inspiration.
a) the conflict (want vs not want reasoning) is caused by consent to want or not want any suggested information. Want (suggested information) ignores need (perceivable inspiration).
b) I can write that I use need over want; inspiration over information and implication (if/then) over reason (want vs not want); but each one reading it has to choose for themselves to utilize it as inspiration (need) or information (want). If you read information; while reasoning about how to handle it (want vs not want; true vs false; believing vs not believing; good vs bad etc.); then you made a choice before...want (suggested) over need (perceivable). In this way you put yourself into a conflict by consenting to what others suggest you reason about, and in return this ignorance of perceivable will tempt others to exploit you with endless more suggestions.
c) BI'NARY, adjective [Latin binus, two and two.]. You represent ONE (perceiving) within ALL (perceivable). The suggested "two" implies ONE choosing to count other ONEs and then suggest it to mean "two". Take any "two" things and allow yourself to notice that for you to be able to perceive them; each ONE of them has to exist within a different position. You are perceiving different ONEs; differentiated by the same ALL. This self-differentiation represents the transmutation of ingredient ONE out of base ALL.
The inversion of perceivable transmutation (out of all) represents suggested creationism (out of nothing); which leads me back to binary aka 0 (nothing) 1 (everything). There's no such thing as a 0 state within nature; but a 1 can be tempted by suggestion to respond like it does. Question being temporary form (life) within ongoing flow (inception towards death) and then try to apply a binary to it without running into self contradiction...
a) SUCCESS', noun [Latin succedo] - "the favorable or prosperous termination of any thing attempted". Apply this to your status quo of temporary living within the ongoing process of dying. What does "prosperous termination" of life imply? Have a sleight of hand from the parasitic few...Terminator: "I'll be back".
b) what if life isn't outcome (success) oriented; hence being processed towards death, but the temporary response (choice) to an ongoing origin (balance) for the sustenance of the living, while dying?
c)where are you; the perceiving ONE within the perceivable ALL, in the suggested his-story by others?
d) what if each one represents the accumulation of all that was; the representation of all that is, and the potential expression (need) or repression (want) for all that will be? How easy would it be to tempt the many to ignore this potential for the suggested his-story narratives by the few? And of course the consent of the many to the suggestions of the few represents the source of power (ignored potential) which the parasitic few can extract; exploit; shape; direct and use against the many at their will.
e) the pattern proposed for imitation represents perceivable inspiration through a self differentiating system; which simply moves everything inside; which the perceiving senses of those within perceive as inspiration for adaptation. The more one adapts to perceivable inspiration; the more one comprehends; the more resistance (life) increases within velocity (inception towards death), and the more ones potential (growth) within all potentiality (loss) sustains and expresses itself.
Question...impression (perception) to compression (comprehension) for expression (growth) or regression (loss)?
What if the living within the process of dying represent temporary chaos within the ongoing natural order? What if the status quo represents resisting the natural order by resisting the temptation to ignore response-ability (choice within balance)...a temptation suggested by others; tempting one to ignore the sustenance of self by adaptation to all?
Describe to me the success of the many over the few within any historical context?
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 22, 2022 08:00:04 ago (+0/-0)
I remember someone similar from voat. Maybe you are him?
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 22, 2022 10:47:09 ago (+0/-0)
The goat that didn't vote...Blood-is-Nature.
How could others grow if they seldom perceive expressed growth within others? Is living within the process of dying a matter of attending or a demand for responding?
What if comprehension cannot be shared by suggesting others information? What if comprehension (compressed within) can only be grown by adaptation to perceivable inspiration (impressed into)? What if what I'm doing represents the expression (growth) of compressed (comprehension) impressions (perceivable inspiration)? How could I share this; when it implies my own effort; struggle; resistance to temptation; free will of choice?
In short...what if shaping perceivable out of comprehended is on oneself and not from others?
What could I write to inspire others to question the origin of time and energy? Does time represent the suggested states of past; present and future or does it represent the perceivable ever changing moment(um) of motion aka tick; tick; tick...? As for energy...what isn't energy?
a) does one need to restrain ones expression of all or is one tempted by other ones to want to do so?
b) what is the implication of suggesting "limit your length" to the temporary living within the ongoing process of dying?
a) what if the issue is your want to interact with me; while ignoring to be the reaction to INTER (internal; within) ACT (action, enacted)?
b) as the living within the process of dying; what represents "easier"...resisting being moved towards death; or being tempted towards death by the ongoing motion?
AD (to approach; to come near; to; at) VICE (defect; fault; blemish; temptation). Well; with friends like these...
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 22, 2022 13:19:24 ago (+0/-0)
You lost me.
I want to interact with you, but it’s difficult.
Advice is from videre— to see— and not from vitium —a blemish— like “vice”. If you look too closely for hidden meanings, you can see connections that aren’t really there.
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 22, 2022 15:19:12 ago (+0/-0)*
Helena73?
There are multiple deceptions within that sentence.
a) you attribute "worth" to information suggested by others. You ignore being evaluation (perceiving) within value (perceivable). By doing so; you give others the power to define value by suggestion; which tempts you to ignore more and more of the perceivable. For example: the entire monetary system is based on the few suggesting the many that money represents value; while utilizing the consent of the many as the power of evaluation; which the few can only then wield against the many.
b) IN (within) FORM (formed by) -ATION (through action) + IN (within) SPIR (spirit; Latin spiro; to breathe) -ATION (through action). Information implies within form; while inspiration implies as form adapting to flow. Life represents the temporary form state; while the motion from inception towards death represents the ongoing flow state.
In simple...nature doesn't suggest any information; it doesn't brand anything; it doesn't proclaim what anything is. What nature does is moving everything; which those within nature perceive as inspiration for adaptation. Living implies being processed by dying; hence in need to adapt to being moved; while tempted to want to go with the flow aka the path of least resistance.
To exploit a nature that communicates itself solely as perceivable inspiration; a bunch of us dipshits shaped the perceivable sound into suggestible words; hence starting to brand a moving system until as much as possible of reality had a fictitious name. Wind isn't "wind" because we brand it as such; but because it represents a formed expression of a flowing system.
With so much being branded, and each brand implying a choice (suggestion) to choice (consent) contract; we now had power over one another by simple means of suggestion, a power that can shape the perspective of anyone consenting to it; which also controls their behavior in accordance to the will of others. This represents the allegory of the golem (a monster out of clay; controlled from the outside).
c) inception towards death represents the only process; all life exists within it. Consenting to suggested information (affixed meaning) tempts one to ignore the ongoing process aka perceivable inspiration (communication from flow to form).
Towards a point implies towards an end. If the living follow the suggestions of others towards an end (point);then they are being tempted towards death. All other points represent suggested distraction from the only point of living...dying. The rhetoric of "point" aka "what's the point" represents suggested progressivism (outcome orientation); which tempts one to ignore that life represents response-ability (choice) to origin (balance).
You are tempted to want to understand suggested information; which you need to resist for adaptation to perceivable inspiration. Instead of getting intimidated by struggling through a wall of text...try to adapt to the first thing inspiring you and try to put it into your own perspective. The more you adapt to perceivable inspiration; the more you grow your comprehension of all perceivable.
Instead of figuring me out; grow your own comprehension and you will notice that we will both resonate with the same source. This isn't an agreement vs disagreement; intelligence vs less intelligence; normal vs schizophrenic; true vs false; good vs bad; believing vs not believing conflict...unless you choose to shape it into one.
Use implication (if/then) to avoid reasoning (want vs not want) over suggested information. You don't have to agree with reality; it moves everything with or without your agreement. It's the suggestions by others that tempt you ignore this; while reasoning with others about the suggested meaning.
Overcoming the temptation to count requires one to stay within momentum until fatigue sets in. The temporary (living) doesn't need to count the ongoing (dying)...it needs to grow resistance within the momentum (balance) of motion. You can start with re-calibrating to the perceivable sun; while slowly ditching the suggested clock.
Where does one store suggested information? Within memory. What if the memory needs to be used for adaptation to ongoing inspiration (like a ram); while being tempted to want to be misused for the accumulation of temporary information (like a hard drive)?
What if everything perceivable is available at any moment to everyone perceiving it within? What more if others can corrupt access to perceivable and hence curtail the growth of comprehension to it; by simply suggesting more and more information, as to fill up the hard-drive; while slowing down the ram?
Ask yourself if there can be too much inspiration? The more you comprehend about that; the more you can question if one can ever run out of perceivable inspiration?
Take any object next to you; open a txt file and write "things I can do with..."; then spend 20 minutes a day on filling such a list until you comprehend that you can draw infinite inspiration out of anything you perceive. After a couple of weeks compare your list (adaptation to inspiration) with the dictionary entries for that object (suggested information). Notice how your list is massive; while the entry is small. Next step; acknowledge how much your comprehension about the perceivable object grew and how you comprehended more and more about the things surrounding that object.
The growth of ones comprehension represents the mapping out of all perceivable; yet it requires FRE'QUENCY, noun - "a return or occurrence of a thing often repeated at short intervals". This frequency represents your free will of choice choosing to adapt to perceivable inspiration. Comprehension represents the seed within the soil of perception and anything suggested tempts you to ignore growth.
Want over need. You are looking at text on a screen; which tempts your consciousness to fill in the blanks about whoever wrote it. This isn't communication; but a designed trap (Plato's allegory of the cave - the digital version) to hook you on suggested information; which further tempts you to want confirmation over and over again.
For me...adaptation to inspiration while reading text is like plucking fruits from a tree while tasting the flavors. Each bite of inspiration I adapt to opens up more impressions of the perceivable. I don't look at the tree and go "too much fruit; too little time; too difficult to handle; I can't eat all of that; that schizo tree must be crazy to produce so much fruits".
Now take this allegory and add your free will of choice responding to need (hunger) or want (taste) to it...I chose the need to adapt to inspiration; you chose the want to consent to information. I can write this down; yet only you can change your choice.
One can "see" both perceivable inspiration and suggested information; it's the responding choice that shapes behavior. Those with eyes to see don't require advice from the suggestions of others; yet when they are falling for such a temptation; they're blemishing what they see with what others suggest it means.
I utilize the older roots of suggested words to show the revisionism applied to them since; as to strip away the rhetorical tricks that tempt others to ignore the perceivable sound for the suggested word. A word doesn't represent meaning; yet consenting to evaluate a suggested word can tempt one to believe the suggested meaning.
As for connections...all represents one in energy. Everything is connected and each one within represents the potential to express everything. The connections we don't see represent the lack of growing comprehension about it.
Where in perceivable reality can your senses perceive things that "are not there"? How could one-thing within everything perceive nothing? Could it be that "nothing" was suggested to you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI