Month: November 2017

'The other guys' have been demonstrating [via Newshour, for example] an investment in a covert effort to sound Me out about the matter of culpability in the context of seeking to affirm justice. Their main implied angle if I'm interpreting it correctly seems to be, 'Where is the demarcation between victim and criminal here? How are you differentiating between someone who's manifestly volitionally culpable, and someone who's only manifestly culpable due to ignorance, or duress, or psychological diddling on our part?' Continue reading "Re: Manifest culpability"

Getting enough instances of something to notice a by now familiar covert pattern invested in by the telepaths and propheciers, manifestly recurring again. It's all done using an invalidating miasma of counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature imagery and symbolism meaning it's non-credible from the start, but I'd like to do My duty by describing it and then collapsing it by correlating it against Divine Will and True Nature because that's more effective and potentially more assistive to others.

Continue reading "Using Divine Will principles to dispel another “rerun”"

I've been incommunicado  for a bit, however it did give Me the opportunity to sort through some new pattern in to which 'the other guys' seem to have been investing; all within a voided-out context of counter-Divine Will and counter-True Nature, of course. Continue reading "Re: ‘Nuance’"

As more instances of 'the other guys'' implied new layer of covert messaging format appear, the larger My dataset and My ability to evaluate it become. Continue reading "Re: The ‘Double Negative’ and self-deprecation"

Noticing that 'the other guys' are still using a counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature basis.  This is still unacceptable.

Within that premise, they appear to be using a sort of 'double negative' approach in their symbolism, like a sort of intensified version of the usual Babylonian Gnostic symbolism but with another 'isn't', 'doesn't', etc. added onto it.  This appears to be the symbolic pattern they were investing in when I noticed them earlier investing in a 'what if we were you?' symbolic premise; just another symbolic inversion added onto the usual symbolic inversion, all on a counter-Divine Will, counter-True Nature premise which is of course itself invalid.  This also appears to be the nature of the investment in a symbolic pattern with Britain's Prime Minister's speech I'd described here recently; a double-inversion format predicated on a basis of 'suckage'. Continue reading "Re: The ‘Double Negative’"