Hello folks!
Let's analyze the LOGIC of the death trap system based on the information available...
(I'm not a native english speaker, but I'll try my best to phrase everything correctly.)
So, to use logic correctly, we must know that every deduction is based on assumptions. Assumption A leads to deduction B and so on. So what are the assumptions at the foundation of the death trap concept?
1. An Is-Be can't be *killed*.
2. An Is-Be can be *controlled* through that system.
3. The control of an Is-Be yields a *profit* of some sort to the operator of the system.
If one of these assumptions is false, the whole concept doesn't work anymore. Any questions about HOW it works are not important at this point - I will cover them later.
The terms within the * are the fundamental concepts we must look deeper into in order to be able to understand what is really going on. Let's see:
*Killing* is the action of doing harm to another being with the result of death. In order to understand death, we must understand that death fundamentally is the idea of "not being able to return" (imprisonment) in conjunction with "no contact" (isolation). Killing therefore means to cut off a being from everything else. But: Is that even possible? Everything in the universe is connected (yes, this is another assumption), so "an Is-Be can't be killed" is just another way of saying that there are no isolated systems within the universe (or even multiverse), therefore *killing* would be an invalid concept.
*Control* is the ability to suppress or manipulate the expression of free will. If we assume that an Is-Be can't be killed, then controlling it is the "next best choice" in order to cut it off. This can be done by imprisoning it through brute force, but that approach is really expensive and exhausting. The more "elegant" way of cutting a being off would be to eliminate its need for contact. Control only is a valid concept if there's a way to somehow eliminate (or redirect) needs. This can be done, but also leads to the assumption that the effect is not lasting, otherwise the operators of the death traps would not be concerned to lose the prisoners.
*Profit* is the difference between revenue and effort. In order to have a positive profit, the revenue must be valued higher than the effort put into it. In other words: Whatever the profit is, creating and maintaining a death trap system for billions of people must be "worth it". So the question arises: How?
For a better understanding, let's dive into the motivation behind the "wish to kill", meaning the need to cut off an Is-Be from everything else. Where does this wish come from? How does cutting off billions of souls yield a profit for someone? And what exactly can that profit be?
Harvey told us that they need so many people for "manual labor" (sort of) in order to achieve something big. But what could that be? How is it done? What is the big goal?
We must assume that whatever it is, having a big population on a prison planet like Earth helps to get there (or at least seems to help), otherwise it wouldn't be done this way. So, what's the goal then? In order to understand that, we must look at the conditions:
Imagine two buckets. Bucket A is full of pebbels in all shapes and colors. Bucket B is empty. Now imagine the effort to put all the blue pebbles into bucket B. That's the goal, in a metaphorical sense. But there's a problem: The blue pebbles in bucket B don't stay this way. Some of them become another color again. So you put these ones back into bucket A. Now another problem arises: The pebbels in bucket A develop the wish to have contact to the ones in bucket B, as it is not a normal state in nature to have totally isolated systems at all.
If you understand that picture, you understand the principle of what is going on. Bucket A must be contained and cut off from bucket B. The goal is to keep bucket B "clean". That's all.
While this explains what's going on principally, it does not explain the motivation for having a bucket B in the first place and why the effort of "seperating the pebbles" is believed to be "worth it". Well, this is not so easy to explain. Please have a look at this excerpt from Mark Passio's presentation "Fake-Ass Christians", starting at 2:23:16, titled "Our Rulers Worldview":
Bucket B is the "kingdom" of the ones rebelling against God. It's not important wether you believe in God or not. Important is the fact that this believe system and therefore the rebellion exists. Seperating the pebbels is the act of rebelling against the natural order of things.
So the next questions arise: Why does that rebellion start in the first place? What went wrong so that someone is so frustrated that he puts a lot of effort into building death traps for billions? And are we speaking of "Lucifer" himself?
I'll leave you there for now...
Hello, @Larry ^ @Manuel ,^ [others]
my comments below in review of L's comments to Manuel about his comment, approach, format, & contextual content .....see contrasted with explicit .
a) Manuel, Your entire approach to this post was flawed....."
b) "......We are especially tolerant with our views here however “fake ass Christian’s” goes beyond any attempt at sarcasm or pathetic humor....."
▬ [] ▬
1] Larry you got up, said something, explained your position & managed a proper reply to it all.........RESPECT
2] Your example sets a precedent for anyone else engaging on THIS platform.
3] THe why is double edged lets say→ Your reply was pasted w\eMoTioN & we might say Hitler-esq only to make it clear how it leaned.......rather your statement leaned [U no Hitler,BUT] its......man you know after you said send it, read it, real world you wanted to EDiT some things /;^) RIGHT ?? !! oK so it was FLAWED there......THat said
4] @Manuel hello
....."BRaCe BRaCe"....haha ahh so Larry double edge, your volley back to Manuel was nice, yes his open with the descripts yup you hit it LArry. Only not for your content, → angy again eMo & wt_ is the we 'WE"→ you fire a rubber arogant bullet because it came back & hit you brother........ →you lambasted him from your belief & used finger pointing [on paper] etc. BUT
5] @Manuel there should be no problem with your post style, I like & use similar format when I feel like it....we all should be free to express & w\out censorING anything. BAD eViL DaRK anti-human, you know THEIR behavior /;^) way way diff copy ?? MAke sense?
So back to center your content & some of the dot connecting say, but the opener is flawed HA HA HA no but like Killing, your running the break it down language domino just like say Bible Eng. to Grk. to the Hebrew for best of best YES ? So same thing you trying but back to just killing you got the descritp wrong, not by me but the logic/fact/LOOK IT UP data. In short Act vs. Action, you wanted to run this program this is how it works.
So........all this alphabet jumble & dictionary, there are answers HERE, HeRe, here !! The yield % & the best possibility's & potentiality's with the A + B=C Manuel /;^) And very simple clear with out prejudice Larry that imo is pretty close to hmmmmmm 68% toward full data up load of 100% ....let me clarify some roe like stuff so no one gets trigger happy or butt hurt
WHen you submit intel \data treat it as such. I said the things above with no ill will or agenda other than basicly help each other get to the CRUX of it....what ever it be ! !
NO emotions when submitting intel \data. Try to never use the "I" position ha ha ha ha.ahhhhh man TRUST ME its a mother of a bitch to drop !! READ & re-read what you post.....would you want to receive it ??
Do you believe it ? or do you know it to be true? How ? We here engaging each other are a few things apart ! Assume & know here is "ahead of the curve" and an important piece of ha ha ha something right ha ha.
The storys I am reading are all real close to each other, the answers to about 60-70% everything you dropped MAnuel here goes→ I ← have collected
So I end this post. The gaps →I← will re-post\share. Farsight respect !
Always FOrward ~ Godspeed
[]CoMP[]
p.s.→ the art, more like the feat of removing the → I ← in your comm's, especially paper comm's will force you to think, see & respond differently.........a trim cleaner TRUE-er honester H u M B L e R → U
Hey Larry, he he.....
the "WE" usage is a mild attempt to hide the "I" that is one observation of YOU....
When I said drop the "I" it also includes maybe more so any reference to YOU....you is you I is you.
Unless your qualified & made the grade /designation as comm's police.....To take out the Christian titlle & say its not what we allow ...........?????????? really ?????? “fake ass Christian’s” is offensive ha ha ha, bro come on. Most folks are aware that RELIGION is a CONTROL !?!!!!!! Bet you know this and that most ahead of the curve realize it....
RELIGION is a CONTROL......we good here ? The Hitler thingy just was a world wide commonly used & accepted term for prejudices , and control etc. in a word eViL he hhe or also covers\includes this case CONTROL & PREJUDICE !
/;^) thought that was explained.......it was, you stopped reading one must guess WAIT no you said you could or would not, thats on YOU
The post we made our acquaintance on was YOU & about the salad of distraction put down by→ MANUEL he has a agenda or is in a phase, my guess is he has an agenda here HERE HeRe hahahahah ahhhh .........but seriously if someone goes to that format and did not go all the way in his data, then we find FLAW, and YOU did as did I, KILLING is ACT v ACTION look it up !! hehehehehe
Back to the real stuff, like HARVEY or SOUL TRAP ok ? agreed ? I assume yes, and proceeding.....
The proper move is new post yes, so will make this a new post above. I trust we are ok lets move fwd I as in me myself am not trying to put down anyone, just how my thought process[&training&pratice] works which & falls under LoGiC basically & truth[s?] & Honesty.......steps hmmmm
I want what I believe you all want that are3 here HERE hErE make sense, understand.....so agreed?
WANT OUT or the end of LUCIFER's iterations!!!!!!!!!!! running things
All good