Good and Evil
Staring right at us.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/justice-clarence-thomas-dissent-libel-standard/2022/06/27/id/1076249/
Trying to cover up his knowing treason, selling VP office to globalists, all to portray himself as 'in cognitive decline'.
He was TOLD to 'tilt' the card to allow it to be photographed.
Remember Q+ did this a number of times 'KNOWINGLY' to signal comms, right?
"tHose qAnOneRs aRe rAcisT, LoOk hErE, iT's tOtaLLy nOt uS pOsTiNg tHiS On 8Kun aFtEr wHiCh fAkE NeWs pUBLiSheS 'HiT PiEcEs' bY DiAlEcTiCaLLy InVeRtiNg OuR oWn RaCiSt pOstS To sToP tHe GreAt AwAkeNiNg"
>you seem to agree
Is that the best cringe mind control attempt/smear you can come up with?
Fucking incel.
Senate sergeant-at-arms during Jan. 6 died Monday
Attention employees of Democrat Party, they'll kill you to prevent the information you might have that implicates them in sedition and treason.
https://justthenews.com/government/security/former-senate-sergeant-arms-during-january-6-dies
Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr WOULD BE IN JAIL.
Bidens skate.
How to logically dismantle radical left dialectic inversion (RLDI) on religious liberty 'infringes' on 'those who don't agree':
Look to the (self-refuting, false) logical CONJUNCTIONS that RLDI uses to link information objects.
A. One information object A is a coach praying in one field in one city in one country in the world.
B. Another information object B is any other person who prefers not to pray to God.
The RLDI logic adds "but" or "however" or "yet" or "contrary to" between A and B, thus OPPOSING A 'against' B BEFORE any engagement between A and B occurs, or, in other words, it sets a logical stage where A and B's narrative with each other would become one where both information objects cannot coexist, that one or the other is presumed to need to end or annihilate in order for the other to have liberty.
This logic is a contingent one itself that rests on a one true logic of discourse, so Anon prefers to go right to the source code instead, where the conjunction word linking the two would be "and".
A and B.
It does not logically follow that the mere occurrence of A somehow 'negates' or 'destroys' B or makes it impossible for B to choose not to pray, or for B to continue to maintain their 'I don't prefer to pray' information object in their minds as state.
The NWO's dialectic logic put in "but" to tacitly DIVIDE A AND B from each other, so that A and B's narrative with each other is one where there is an 'attack' of one against the other as the final means of reconciliation.
But when this logic is introduced, WHO IS ACTUALLY INTRODUCING CONFLICT?
It's certainly not A whose INNER thoughts and SPEECH does not in any way block or prevent any other information object from being formed by anyone or anything else.
It's not B either if all they did was disagree and prefer to not pray to God.
The conflict is ALWAYS sourced by the LOGIC of division being introduced to LINK the information objects with an 'interpretation', and philosophically often referred to as "critical theory".
In critical theory, reality itself no matter what it is, is to be 'linked' to humans as divisive, where there is human this and that, and lots of "BUT" to link to reality.
So this is how to dismantle the NWO.
Everywhere they talk, just point out how they are falsely implying "BUTs" where there are logically "ANDs".