TYB
Immediate filter of 'immediate filter' announcements.
Kek, thanks for proving you're the IP hopping 'wonka/narcissist pepe' spam shill.
Low IQ.
>>19448964
You're scared of symbols you can't control.
Kek
So the story goes, but anon believed only the 'thought' of satan exists.
Huh, Q+ updated the truth post from "Roomer" to "Rumor"
The health industry has good and bad behavior. Using discernment is anon's only and best tool.
See pic. You shouldn't assume that
Does the ‘thought’ of SATAN exist?
is synonymous with
Does the ‘thought of SATAN' exist?
When a 'thought' occurs, in what respect does it have existence? An event in the mind occurred. Those events are real as in they took place. But was a reality of satan really invoked?
If the definition of 'plant' includes the following:
anon writesPink elephant, and then you read this, and experience a thought of a pink elephant, is it correct to say anon 'planted' the thought in your mind?
Why do you fear original drop 133 without your deceptive commentary attached?
>>19449177
Why do you fear confirming with anon whether anon fears whether or not the thought of satan exists?
Sorry, didn't see your reply to whether your thought of apink elephantafter anon wrote it, is an example of a 'planted' thought.
To answer your question, yes, anon KNOWS mkultra is a real program that impacts impressionable vulnerable minds.
For hypnosis, it never worked on anon so can't say it's real independent from the mind of the target.
How effective are the shills today after they were themselves changed by virtue of anon engaging and exposing them?
They are so terrible today because they were tricked into expending all their ideological ammo.
They used to be more subtle and well hidden. After years of anon training, they're now obvious.
Again I am trying to understand what your definition of 'plant' is.
Does it include the example of a pink elephant?
Would you say that your thought of a pink elephant was a result of anon 'planting' that thought in your mind?
>That's not what I mean by planting a thought. I've already answered this.
No that's not what I meant by the question. I am asking about your definition of the words you're using, so I can adequately answer your question because at this time I don't know what you mean by 'plant'.
Yes or No, would anon have 'planted' the thought of a pink elephant in your mind by virtue of having written it for you to see, yes or no?
It's ok if the answer is no. If you answer no to that, then I'll have a better understanding of what it is you in fact mean when you write 'plant'.
Bingo.
Research 'unthinking communism' from Karl Marx (who was a follower of Hegel and retained his logical categories even when he 'turned Hegelianism on its head'), essay "Private Property and Communism":
"In completely negating the personality of men, this type of communism is really nothing but the logical expression of private property. General envy, constituting itself as power, is the disguise in which greed re-establishes itself and satisfies itself, only in another way … In the approach to woman as the spoil and handmaid of communal lust is pressed the infinite degradation in which man exists for himself."
These vivid indications from the Paris manuscripts of the way in which Marx envisaged and evaluated the immediate postrevolutionary period very probably explain the extreme reticence that he always later showed on this topic in his published writings.
But if this communism is admittedly so monstrous, a regime of "infinite degradation," why should anyone favor it, much less dedicate one's life and fight a bloody revolution to establish it? Here, as so often in Marx's thought and writings, he falls back on the mystique of the "dialectic" — that wondrous magic word by which one social system inevitably gives rise to its victorious transcendence and negation. And, in this case, by which total evil — which interestingly enough, turns out to be the postrevolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat and not preceding capitalism — becomes transformed into total good.
To say the least, Marx cannot and does not attempt to explain how a system of total greed becomes transformed into total greedlessness. He leaves it all to the wizardry of the dialectic, now a dialectic fatally shorn of the alleged motor of the class struggle, which yet somehow transforms the monstrosity of raw communism into the paradise of communism's "higher stage."
minds will be blown when the chain of command is exposed.
Judeo-Christian logic is that the individual is redeemed or not redeemed, and not the species being redeemed or not redeemed, thankfully.
It's why free enterprise spreads with those logics.
Shudder the thought of any human being or group of human beings killing people in the name of redeeming 'the species'.
Ben Garrison is a national treasure.