Some people here don't understand how others submit to indoctrination. For example, some don't understand how can intelligent people go get the shot(mrna), despite this shot being absolutely ridiculous in logical sense. Then all this "support ukraine" ordeal.
It all comes down to will to power(just looked up, nietzsche already wrote about this. Damn, i'm not original). It's a concept that most people want to hold power over other people, only rarely only over their own life. Protocols of Zion have touched this on first page in first paragraph, that almost every person wants to be a tyrant. Now, this an ancient concept and we have come a long way from this. Specifically, nowadays the systems in place have already been set(we are not running around with swords beheading other people, but bitching about how there is little privacy around bank card usage), and thus humanity have reduced itself to something more specific. Namely, there is little point being against power, if a persons abc motto is a will to power. It's absolutely detrimental. Instead, it's logical be an order follower, to be subordinate to current power and have hope that he or she can wield that power through subordinance. The logic of reality is not important, if the current power demands to believe something absurd. On the other side, if the power doesn't demand to do/believe something absurd, then most people can be quite logical and intelligent. As soon as the order comes down, most people will override all the logic with highest priority of their basis of life, to be subordinate and hope he or she becomes wielder of power(yes, i'm repeating, it's important).
You, on the other hand, who says that he or she shouldn't be an npc/subordinate, are always an enemy, a contrarian. You stand in his or her way to wield more power. Sometimes you can poke around how far can that person ignore reality and sometimes you can succeed in convincing other person to understand the reality at that second/minute/hour. Then you can observe how fast the other person will revert back to subordinance. Sadly, nowadays the moment they see their own hugbox/screen.
God help us. Or maybe not. Maybe that's the experiment.
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason -1 points 2 yearsApr 15, 2023 16:26:38 ago (+0/-1)
Consenting to stand under (understand) the suggestions by others, gives those suggesting the power of consent to indoctrinate with suggested.
INTEL'LIGENCE, noun [Latin intelligentia, from intelligo, to understand) represents the inversion of KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists".
Logic implies the conflict of reason (want vs not want; agreement vs disagreement; yes vs no; good vs bad; belief vs disbelief etc.)...reasoning over suggested corrupts sensing perceivable.
a) being free "will" of choice represents the power of reaction (life) within the power of enacting (inception towards death).
b) choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law tempts one to willingly submit to the power of others.
Everything perceivable represents the origin of each perceiving one within...suggested nothing (not) tempts one to ignore that.
...tempts one (life) to ignore the need to let go (inception towards death). Choosing need implies resisting want, and resisting (living) temptation (process of dying) sustains self...unless ignored.
...tempts one to ignore being free will of choice within balance (need/want). Choice can only exist at the center of balance.
Ones living choice can only temporary exist within the balance (momentum) of the ongoing way (inception towards death). Others suggest ancient and futuristic (that which was and that which might be) to tempt one to ignore the ever changing moment(um) aka "now" (that which is).
Life (choice) can only exist in-between inception/death (balance)...not before (ancient) or after (futuristic).
Inception towards death represents the natural order for the life within, and living within the process of dying implies the need to resist wanted temptation. The few suggest the inversion thereof...following suggested orders instead of being the resistance within the natural order, and what they're suggesting represents "progressivism" aka following towards outcomes, while ignoring to resist origin.
Logic (reason) represents the conflict about suggested outcomes aka hope vs fear.
a) perceivable reality represents current (inception towards death) aka ongoing motion, which demands adaptation from each one within.
b) logic represents reasoning against one another over suggested fiction, while ignoring perceivable reality.
c) the natural order imports (inception) and exports (death) each life within.
d) to believe represents ones consent to the suggestions by another, hence RELIGION (Latin religio; to bind anew) aka binding oneself to another through choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law.
The natural order generates ones upcoming (inception) and downfall (death), while offering the temporary opportunity to grow (living) within loss (process of dying) by resisting temptations...others tempt one to follow suggested orders instead, hence being able to exploit ones willing lack of resistance.
High vs low represents logic (reason) and it tempts one to ignore being center (perceiving) within surrounding (perceivable).
Example: stand in front of stairs and choose to step up, which implies you came from low and now stand high. Take another step and allow yourself to discern that you came from low and now stand high...there's no high vs low; only your choice at the center.
Only within the momentum of motion (inception towards death) can one have choice within left/right; up/down; forwards/backwards-balance...others suggest one the labels left vs right; up vs down and forwards vs backwards to tempt one to reason about them.
a) saying implies suggesting words, hence tempting others to consent (want vs not want) suggested words (definitions). Whatever one suggests will tempt others to view it through the lens of reasoning aka through the lens of conflict, hence viewing others as enemies and their suggestions as contradictions.
b) the few utilize suggestion to divide the many into reasoning, while exploit the consent of the many to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the suggested definitions.
c) nature communicates itself as perceivable sound, those within tempt each other with suggested words to ignore communication (resonance) for miscommunication (dissonance).
Example: suggested "insane person" tempts one to ignore perceivable... "in sanus" (within sound) and "per sonos" (by sound) aka being within; by; out of and in response to perceivable sound.
Those who adapt to perceivable sound represent PHONETICIANS (from phonics; sound), while those who ignore sound for suggested, word-based definitions represent DEAF PHONETICIANS.
Consenting to the suggested label "person" tempts one to ignore all perceivable reality (per sonos aka being by sound) for the suggested fiction of the label, the idol, the brand; the fiction; the corpus oration (corporation) etc.
The foundation of ignorance represents ones free will of choice to choose want (suggested information) over need (perceivable inspiration).