>>11885405

will we get crayons for when we need to draw it, and some paper to draw on?

>>11885380

what is that old saying, and your 'statement' at the front makes me know you are a larp, that an 'unquestioned faith is a dead faith'?

it was made in Spanish by someone famous.

if you have Spirit you know that the Spirit will move you if you need to move or let you stay if you need to stay. And you don't blame others for 'sparking' violence, because you realize that they are slaves too, in a very broken world.

"Suffice it to the day the evil there in"

>>11885418

when OZONE was first measured they used balloons and they set them up into the sky with batteries that were designed to run the electrical equipment to measure the gasses up there but . . . they seem to have forgotten about the creation of OZONE by the very discharge of those batteries.

now they use LIDAR to measure it (or at least did 25 years ago) and so the OZONE levels are measured from very far away.

so no OZONE is released as the gass is being measured.

so, why would there not be a 'hole' when the Earth is a dipole and . . . wait for it O3 is a polar ized (meaning magnetic) molecule?

naturally there would be a hole but . . . if you tell the public that how do you fund your high-born sons to take over the Aerospace Industry and send them on missions to do 'Space Research' and act all important and as if you are smarter, when the real truth is that the HR is also run by the same families.

OZONE hole always seemed like a lie to me . . . Sorry.

>>11885431

you made a statement which is a marxist taliing point to make Christians look like fools, is why.

>>11885432

Mathew 6:34

thank you

>>11885466

If you want to understand the 'gods' of the ancients the easiest way is to start to study the coins that they issued to honor them.

surprisingly the Numismatic literature explains who the gods were, what they represented, and what they are doing on the coins as small little meme-like participants in an elaborate scene.

>>11885491

they were high all the time?

Lookit, there are tall people. That's a fact.

there are also 'personality types'. we know this through observable social science.

but then we can also observe how 'something comes over someone' and how some have actions that seem 'blessed'.

It's like they are being 'protected' or 'watched over'.

the ancients would observe that in people, and some men (nad women) would seem to 'be' the personification of some other type of spirit creature . . . not a 'giant' or big-tall-man, but a person who has let the 'spirit' guide her.

who were those entities?

how did they 'guide' the ones who 'channeled' them?

or was it all a rouse?

In some sense the gods were just used as a way to propagandize the behaviors that were desired by the rulers. So Mars is shown cheery and marching off to do battle by a cowardly emporer on tha reverse of his coins.

He's that dope-i-oppie, I'm a charming goodlooking guy who the ladies adore, I run a great villa, and grow food for everyone, and I'm daddy to all the good citizens, and make sure things work of for them. Sounds like a good guy?

so you taunt him by putting him on your coins to try and make your loving family of 'children' go and murder each other? Then Mars isn't going to be too pleased with that so . . .

it's a concept.

Did Mars take on the persona of St. Michael?

Or Nemesis take on St. Michael?

do we map the 'good' ancient dieties to the holy angels (the seven on our side?)

or do we say : all of it is bullshit, we need to get along.

but the spirit of the warrior daddy says 'bullshit, when they do bad stuff they need to get spanked'

>>11885546

no one rememebers in a collective way with a nostogic 'we' in the manner you present.

the logic of not doxing was clear last night when democrat tried to dox the woman who testfied as to the fucupperyie of the Michigan election counting.

>>11885555

a joke repsonse:

someone has to run the MK-Ultra?

>>11885565

um, the ancient 'dieties' usually have a birth story on Earth.

They didn't fall, they were born in it.

>>11885576

that whole 'say the name' dippshittery is very conclusively false.

the technickel term for the spyoperative use of said phrase is spycoleralogical dippsheaterry, and in plurals: robodonckularially readrumored and spurious splurges of repluggularities of d'shipt-tarriers

false platitudes need spurious constant repetition

>>11885588

in your story that is true.

in other stories they were born some how, and explained as having very fucked up family who . . . really they only unbind once a year (after concorign them) and reforming the bad ways of the grandparents of their very very screwed up family but . . . they learned to do good and spread joy and be charming and fall in love and care for people, that dark haired loving man who protects you from the bandits and he's dopey if you want that, but he'll jump to your defense at a moment and spring into action, Voillla!

who doesn't love him?

so is he really like St Michael? I say no because St Michael isn't shown as a lusty charmer.

>>11885633

maybe santa is the natural progression of some other person of antiquity?

let's see? abundance? Sharing?

Virtue of the Augusti

>>11885682

basic point:

everyone knows what you say snarling.

but they also respect the real facts of what is.

everyone who has archives of old breads knows that the image in question was always there and thus, it's OK that it hase the letters that say represent a non entity.

we always knew that.

it was a hashtag.

and then if Q says 'even as a hashtag, don't use it anymore' that's fine. We aren't.

but Q never said 'turn into Orwellian idiots and purge it from history'.

that's you, and that's why people give you a hard time.

>>11885749

you are an orwellian mock, dude.

no one buys your conflict.

I'm not deviding the board but explaining why you petchulently persist in your explainging about the alpha-numerics of what was a hashtag.

you insult me because you know that I see right through you.

maybe the optics of it are reflection back to you and the pathos you describe is your own situation? that's more likely than your explanation. Your explanation of me is incorrect.

>>11885446

no, I said that you used a marxist talking point.

it makes you a dupe of marxists, not a marxist yourself.