Translated? (Enoch)

[allodial]

thats an interesting thought to ponder actually. with so many truths and insights though things get very confusing. heck just the words we use are confusing once you start to "change the mind" (forget everything we thought we knew and start over. repent?) for instance: "light of truth" not unlike "state of kansas", or the constitution "of" instead of the constitution "for".

There might be many perspectives or observations but I dunno how there can be "many truths" in the sense of two things holding true but conflicting.

On the topic of 'state of Kansas'..."Kansas" (like "Florida" or "Bavaria" or "Belgium") is technically is the name of a nation. The estate they formed was called State of Kansas. "Constitution of the State of Kansas" is a title of the document. However "Constitution of the State of Kansas" can also refer to its collective makeup (principles, laws (written and unwritten), etc.). The Federal Government calls its districts states. The Constitution of the United States is a general reference to the jurisprudential makeup of the Federal State known as "the United States". The Constitution for the United States of America refers to a document because that very same document bears such self-reference. That which constitutes --constitution. The by-laws of the State of Kansas set forth by the nation (i.e. the association of People which call their association "Kansas"). Kansas is not the State of Kansas. The (e)state of Kansas comes out of (is 'of') Kansas the nation. First one has to determine what a "Kansas" is...it is a name of a nation--the name of an association of people who associate under or through the name "Kansas" (not much different than a tribe). Federal districts of (associated with) Kansas are regarded to be states also.

IMHO terms like "Kansas Constitution" should be viewed with caution because they don't necessarily mean what they seem to mean. As in "Constitution of the State of Kansas" and "Kansas Constitution" aren't necessarily the same. With "Kansas Constitution", "Kansas" seems to act as a modifier of "Constitution". "citizen of Kansas" and "Kansas citizen" don't strike me as being the same. Similarly, "Constitution of Kansas" is not the title of a document based on the document called "Constitution of the State of Kansas". Constitution of Kansas appears to be a reference to the general makeup of the order, realm, nation, real, state or people associated under the name "Kansas".

The term "state of Kansas" is a generic reference to the estate of the nation called Kansas ("the People of Kansas") which is formally known as "the State of Kansas"--the name of the state as distinct from the state itself. The independent and free state of Missouri (the nation) is stiled "The State of Missouri". What they left out of high school is that Missouri, Florida, Georgia are nations. Missourian is a nationality. "The State of Missouri" is not the same as "the State of Missouri". In the first "The" is not operating as "the". A Missourian is technically foreign to the United States. The People don't necessarily live in the estate they formed. Just because you and I buy land and declare certain areas to be "commons", that doesn't make our private dwellings part of that estate, does it?

Despite all of the progressive thinking, I'm not sure how the United States could be regarded as an organic nation.

Linguistics can be used as a weapon. Attention to detail is an important part of defense IMHO.

TBH it doesnt seem we are too far from that now and in many ways we are there. men acting as cops and soldiers seem to get away with murder often, no? and this is a large part of the reason I now question everything including my own long held beliefs in jesus. its not easy (very few could even deal with the thought of this even) life was much easier prior but this is where im at now and that is subject to change too.

That's militant atheism arising out of heretical gnostic ideas. They will not get away with it. They only seem to, but they are mistaken as to the consequence. The longer it takes the rock to fall....

where would we be? a different world, that is near certain.

Among other things, the evidence is that brown-skinned Christian and fair-skinned Christians tended to get along quite well until the heretical Gnostics started meddling with things. There are rumors suggesting the "Gay Agenda" is an indirect tactic of "White Supremacy"--a tactic to diminish the rights of brown-skinned people by associating with persons who claim cultural affinities based on their sexual fetishes (how does one identify primarily with a sexual fetish and call it a culture?). Or is it a tactic to diminish the rights of everyone? Seriously, as much intelligence and potential a man can have, for one to based his identity on how he sexually pleasures himself seems to be bottom rung. A society of engineers, a society of doctors, a society of seamstresses, makes sense. But a society of buggerists, felatioers or strap-oners? How does that happen? The association of traditional sexual taboos with "Blacks being free" seems to be a type of assault.

Speaking of hieroglyphics, word pictures and art.... ^

...meaning is the “holy grail” not only of linguistics, but also of philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience—not to mention more distant domains such as cultural and literary theory. --Foundations of Language by Ray Jackendoff

Speaking of linguistics: there is the use of linguistics as weaponry, subversion through modification of original meaning or intent. Take the term "homophobia" which means fear (phobia) of the same technically but is redefined to mean "hatred of homosexuals". Disgust is redefined by the same Bolshevik politicals as 'hatred'. Because someone might be disgusted should one stick one's finger ones arse and pick one's nose right or because someone suggests doing to same to be disgusting or could make you sick --that is simply disgust and concern. But the politicals behind the Gay Agenda use have been attempting to redefine 'disgust', 'fear' as 'hate'. The same have spent quite a lot of energy to redefine 'gay' from the original meaning of 'happy' to refer to someone who has a penchant for buggery or other associated sexual fetishes.

This gets more to the OP: There are 'occultists' who suggest things like words or letters having power in and of themselves. Perhaps they know the truth and are operationally bent on hiding it. In any case, it seems rather evident to me that words and letters are tools of expressing meaning. The word 'word' itself is similar to the word 'veritas' or 'verdad' (in Espanol): which means truth. But when we say 'word' we mainly are referring to letters assembled to mean something. gay means happy. But to the Gay Agenda psychologists, politicians and spin-doctors: gay refers to men who identify with unhealthy sexual practices. In all honesty, there is really no such thing as a lesbian--at least not among females who have yet to reach menopause.

In warfare, disrupting communications by jamming useable radio frequencies is not an uncommon tactic. Politically or on the PYSOPS level, attempts at the the same kind of jamming or disruption has been carried out through attacking 'meaning'.

Related:
What Is Militant Atheism?