https://www.google.com/search?q=discharge
37 = EL = le.x luthor = a lex.a = f.el.ix = el 6.9 = L 69 = (12)3-6-9 = ⊕
1337 = LEEt + spy.der(red, read, reddit) web,
fee licks/likes/slick/skill/kills = (φ)fee lix = like$ fee$ 2 B light speed
e.f.e. = fee = 5.56 = ϖ.ξ.ƒ.
censored embedding twitter/x:
https://x.com/Gentilenewsnet/status/1885177625875788282
censored embedding twitter/x: https://x.com/seethroughit2/status/1936697550964171217
@1:50 ⇑ ‘el mode’ tell ≡ ⇓ ‘hell mote el'(labor-rate)
the tall mud is a small(hat) T-shaped play-stic device,
inserted into the uterus by a healthcare provider (never jewish),
to (rot child) prevent pregnancy for several years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_law_by_country
https://ia600204.us.archive.org/23/items/nonsenseorship00brourich/nonsenseorship00brourich.pdf
Human and Historical Development
Another proof that Torah is an addendum is argued from the standpoint of “human and historical development”. In truth, many commands could not possibly be given to Adam, since they only came to address subsequent events. These include prohibitions of copying the Canaanites, the Egyptians, witchcraft, many idolatrous rites, and all of our holidays. For a holiday cannot act as a remembrance, if the event to be remembered had not yet transpired! Thus, all men from Adam through Joseph could not be commanded in Passover. (Rashi says Abraham made the three angels matzah since “it was Passover”. This is metaphor.) And copying heathen and idolatrous peoples and rites cannot be prohibited before those people existed. As human corruption increased, so did God’s Torah grow until He gave it at the perfect moment. Of course we know the statement, “God pondered the Torah and created the world”. This implies that Torah already existed at Creation! Well, it did, as God knew all mankind’s flaws from the outset. But I speak in terms of man’s perspective. However, this statement means that God created the world based on the perfections ultimately to be given through Torah. The Earth was created as a compliment to Torah. Creation is subordinate to Torah. This is how to understand this statement.
But this argument from the “human and historical development” is second in priority to the first argument; that God desired man to use his mind. Again, God’s preference was that man derives true ideals using his mind alone. Thus, Adam was not given a Torah. Adam possessed all he required to live perfectly. But mankind erred throughout time. Torah became necessary. In fact, the first argument explains the second argument: due to man’s lack of intelligence in not following “God’s preference”, he erred, and Torah became necessary to address mankind’s corrupt “development”.
Procreation, circumcision and Gid Hanasheh, originally Noahide laws, were transferred to the Jew because Jewish law now replaced Noahide law as the “optimum system”. An optimum system cannot be bereft of laws, which Noahide law might contain. (San. 59a) That would indicate Noahide law perfects man where Torah falls short. (The female captive and stealing less than a prutah coin are prohibited for Noahides and not Jews for separate reasons. ibid)
But why these three? Procreation, circumcision and Gid Hanasheh address three essential components of perfection.. Circumcision minimizes sexual gratification of both men and women. (Maimonides; The “Guide”, Book III, chap. xlix). Gid Hanasheh expresses man’s internal perfection of his ideals. And procreation continues these people who are perfected in the physical (circumcision) and the spiritual (Gid Hanasheh).
The first state of man could have led him to perfection. But it didn’t. This latter, Torah law modifies man’s original obligations, now leading him towards perfection. The former Noahide law still exists, but no longer as a means for current-day man to perfect him. Noahide law is a limited system that guarantees its followers continued life. However, any infraction in Noahide law is punished with death. Although a Jew who steals is not killed, a Noahide is killed for the identical act. This is not due to an unfair God, but due to the nature of each system. Noahide law guarantees life, as it is the minimal system any human must follow. It sets the threshold of God’s tolerance for any human being to live. But Torah law is a “perfecting” system. Therefore, Jews are not killed for stealing, as the complete Torah system offers any follower a path of correction and perfection.
25 Ways To Suppress Truth:
25-rules-of-disinformation
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (8 Traits of A
Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney. These 25 rules are everywhere in media,
from political debates, to television shows, to comments on a blog.1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it —
especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen,
and you never have to deal with the issues.2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on
side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct
group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of
venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually
exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press,
because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”.
If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor”
which can have no basis in fact.4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which
you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad.
Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the
opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest
charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all
the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary
attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach.
Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “leftwing”,
“terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”,
“sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of
gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent
position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any
answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where
a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism
reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never
answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the
opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing
issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your
argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and
simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing
sources.9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing
issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or
make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any
large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or
were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw
man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans.
Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be
associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to
address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the
original source.11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the
facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in
hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out
of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce
this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming
clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding
the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to
solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more
quickly without having to address the actual issues.13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with
an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime
at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime
was planned with contingency conclusions in place.16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have
to address the issue.17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a
way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of
turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with
companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena
in order to avoid discussing more key issues.18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide
and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make
them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less
coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their
emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing
on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the
“play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public
forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent
to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known
to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid
discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as
valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by
government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and
manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive
issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with
contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the
fabrications.21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert
the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open
discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when
properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand
Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent
investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty
innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is
achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or
influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social
research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address
issues, you can do so authoritatively.23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from
sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as
trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from
circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed
entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their
character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with
blackmail or other threats.25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think
the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
Countering disinformation: A guidebook for public servants
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/di-id/images/pcdi/guide-eng.pdf
a mage game gem, e-mag you late cons ‘cept shin,
bet on mag e. simpson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Mega
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Omega
Scrollin’, scrollin’, scrollin’
Scrollin’, scrollin’, scrollin’
Scrollin’, scrollin’, scrollin’
Scrollin’, scrollin’, scrollin’
Rawh(i.d.)e!
Hah! Hah! – Frankie L(a.i.)ne, FL = ’63
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellation
weffen technocracy dedollarization to brickist blackchainz
would turn trillionz of inflationary red ink into blackrock inc.
red door black = hunt for blackrocked-over
https://www.howtopronounce.com/superanus
747 = 7:47 ⇑ = ⇓
sep-he-roth
sep = 7
he = ‘divine revelation, the breath of the Creator (Psalm 33:6 – By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host). The world was created with the utterance of the HE. It represents the gift of life and creates the verb of being (היה Haya – being).’
sep.t.ember(=phire) roth
while the two top male icons of wrestling fans and catholics vs. Çatal-Höyüks,
representing the opposite of harris’s voting base, met their debts,
the first american pope, suggests maneuvering for the first woman president,
as preprogrammed by mexico’s zelectzion of sheinbaum.
Hulk Hogan promotes Harris through H(8)ec(e+c=8)ate(8) = H.ate s.peech,
= Hit/Lure = Hitler Heil = HH Pope = 88 mph Biff Trump-Tannen (22) = B.B.(88),
= antisevenites™ = ass.sym.met.trick whore.fare = a(nti)s(emite)s = as tin, smite austin!
Hollywoood Hulk rough ‘n’ low promotes Harris,
= sponsored by steroid rage against the machina, opposite ‘the giggler’.
H+H = 8+8 = 16 = 1/6 insurrection = insure erection,
= sponsored by vIAgra = v.g. = 22/7 = 47th,
= american π-zza = 4×7 = ’28 days later = th.x = xx/xy,
= th.eology = th.e (haul a dollah) allah halal a law wall hall a G = th.eosophy,
= th.is, th.at, and th.e ‘o.th.er'(bro.th.er/mo.th.er/fa.th.er/au.th.or), th.e(re’s) a(lway)s a fee. vie. vote. dumb.
hype promoted A.I., represents her vowels,
= sponsored by san nsa c.ia = see A.I. as yer rabbi.t., btc, rabid rapid, vapid,
suggesting an A.I. (qoph, 1.9.) complete climate chancery block-chained chang-gang
control-grid rollout with ‘Human H.A.I.r’s.’,
= sponsored by phizer/palantir/google/youtube,
= 7777 = 4×7 = ’28 years later = 47th = (tru)m.p. = 7/13 = g-d-d-g.
tangk-queue goo’night.
This idea was promoted early in the twentieth century by Lucien Wolf, a journalist and historian who was friendly to the Rothschild family,
and Wolf asserted that the evidence lay in the Rothschild records. His version appeared
to be supported by the entry for 18 June 1815 (the day of the battle)…More complex is what might be called the Wellington version. On a number of occasions
in the 1820s and 1830s, well before the ‘Satan’ story entered circulation, the Duke of Wellington
asserted privately that the news of Waterloo was brought to Nathan Rothschild by an agent
who learned of it at [intel-a-]Ghent in Belgium, where the exiled French king, Louis XVIII, was
staying. On the morning after the battle this agent saw a messenger deliver to Louis a letter
announcing the victory and so he rushed to London by way of Ostend to inform his employer.
Rothschild then did some profitable trading on the Stock Exchange before informing the
government of what he knew.This story, which only reached a wide public with the publication of various memoirs
towards the end of the nineteenth century, has some foundation in recorded fact. Newspapers
of the week that followed Waterloo reported that a ‘Mr C of Dover’ was present in Ghent
when the news reached Louis XVIII on Monday 19 June and that he hurried to London,
which he must have reached during the night of Tuesday to Wednesday – perhaps as much
as twenty-four hours before the official word of the victory. This Mr C therefore has the
distinction of having been the first person in London to know the French had been beaten
– so far as the known, contemporaneous historical record states. But there is nothing in that
record to connect Mr C with Nathan Rothschild. Only Wellington’s table talk provides that
link, and Wellington, very obviously, was not in London when these events occurred. His
evidence is hearsay at best, and analysis shows that his tale improved with the telling: early
versions of it did not mention Rothschild at all.
88 = ha.psburg, ha.nover (‘hand it over’ = jew elf) guelph.
The “ouroboros“, which depicts a dragon eating its own tail, is perhaps one of the most ancient and universal symbolic representations of the reflexive loop concept.
A Shepard tone is another illustrative example of a strange loop. Named after Roger Shepard, it is a sound consisting of a superposition of tones separated by octaves. When played with the base pitch of the tone moving upwards or downwards, it is referred to as the Shepard scale. This creates the auditory illusion of a tone that continually ascends or descends in pitch, yet which ultimately seems to get no higher or lower. In a similar way a sound with seemingly ever increasing tempo can be constructed, as was demonstrated by Jean-Claude Risset.
Visual illusions depicting strange loops include the Penrose stairs and the Barberpole illusion.
A quine in software programming is a program that produces a new version of itself without any input from the outside. A similar concept is metamorphic code.
Efron’s dice are four dice that are intransitive under gambler’s preference. I.e., the dice are ordered A > B > C > D > A, where x > y means “a gambler prefers x to y“.
Individual preferences are always transitive, excluding preferences when given explicit rules such as in Efron’s dice or rock-paper-scissors; however, aggregate preferences of a group may be intransitive. This can result in a Condorcet paradox wherein following a path from one candidate across a series of majority preferences may return to the original candidate, leaving no clear preference by the group. In this case, some candidate beats an opponent, who in turn beats another opponent, and so forth, until a candidate is reached who beats the original candidate.
The liar paradox and Russell’s paradox also involve strange loops, as does René Magritte‘s painting The Treachery of Images.
prime numbers = n.p. = neu.ro.linguistic p.ro.gramming
