Neuro-linguistic propaganda

But at the conduit, you are more or less are like me, in fact more then less, like me.

I am neither fearful of either possibility, and as it stands, any deviation that may exist between last men and supermen is more trivial than profound.

The inclusiveness in peer groups overrides the exclusive pleasurable access problem,by virtue of progressive consent regardless of sexual identification, or any other performance validation over performance adherence.

That bothers a lot of people, which in their mind presents an absolute litmus validity.

Somewhat vague the framing becomes in light of reduced visible content, as the referents themselves,regressively overlap.

The poetic justice between tragic overtones become laughable attempts at effect, not here intended at any rate.

Therefore the fear it’s self should be the factor which should be concerned, at any rate they both are subtly , and synchrenistically connected, one by typical generic modes of perception, the other, by shifting alliance of protracted markers.

Or somethin very close.

Reference a new(to me) attempt for a Sartre (self taught) man, to come to terms with his own reliance , on Levi Strauss, then William James.

ref: James Luchte

‘The Body of knowledge and the aesthetic phenomenology of Arthur Schopenhauer”

I think you are saying in a lot of convoluted words what I have said in short clear ones.

This happens when the conclusions are uncomfortable. If shaded, perhaps less impactful. The scam of repression.

It is the eternal comedy of the propagandist. That though their commitment is more direct and sincere, it can never be admitted. The absurdity of exclaiming “for sincere purposes I am insincere,” the sincerity of it thwarts it.

Even if the insincerity is admitted, it has to be admitted insincerely, which hilariously is possible.

Mostly this is done by falsifying the reasons, but there’s all sorts of ways.

They all come off as patently ridiculous, which often is the intent. Ridiculousness can be and is frequently weaponized.

People struggling to their limits against their own humanity (and, hilariously, patting themselves on the back for it, for it representing a TrIuMpH oF tHe WiLl).

Ok, that’s a very deep assumption, and the explanation is purely logistics not metaphore strategy.

In order to release that may imping on many issues, privacy is the cover, security private and public another.

The sophist, the diversionary tactical and basically the narrator, the narrative , would be compromised by the rhetoric.

Allegations, opinions, representations are just that, they evade discovery of bias, which may prejudice a jury of fitnesses, who are required to pass judgement, as they only are fitnesses to other descending and less cogant illusions of containment.

Facts such present at the scene are vastly different, and I am speaking unfortunately as a failed lawyer and an inconsequential philosopher.

I am truly a slave, to truth and naively so. Naive realism can not shield logic from being assailed by a dementor that merely reflects its self included image. That mistake immodestly sent Narcissus to his hell.

You got me on the back foot Meno, I’m not gonna lie.

I think I know enough that I totally agree to your honest self description, to agree, and not merely for the sake of agreement or disagreement.

Can you give me the no-bullshit explanation of why people do this with the capital letters?

Haha why was it this particular instance that offended you.

It’s just the most recent.

nm. clearly you don’t do the no-bullshit thing.

No bullshit demands no bullshit, like not pretending you don’t realize what is genius about it.

guess its genius will forever escape me

Tsk tsk ighchsthas…

Reallty wonderful this is the level of response my topic has inspired.

I appreciate the final confirmation

Hey look, you’re the one who ran away.

Unattended things decay.

enjoy teh void