CANDID, adjective - "fair; open; frank; ingenuous; free from undue bias; disposed to think and judge according to truth and justice, or without partiality or prejudice; applied to persons"...
Why are you using the term "candidate" when describing their injustices? What if the consent of the many to use the terms suggested by the few represent the foundation to commit injustice right under the nose of those ignoring it?
owned by the same
a) differences (living) are owned by sameness (process of dying)
b) how does nature suggest those within that they can own what they claim?
c) if OWN, adjective - "possession in express exclusion of others", then why all the conflicts with others about ownership? Who is excluded from nature?
gay
GAY, adjective - "merry; airy; jovial; sportive; frolicksome. It denotes more life and animation than cheerful"
Why did the many consent to the suggested revisionism of the 1940 to "homosexual" as the definition for gay? Furthermore; why do so few question the contradiction of HOMO (same; equal) SEX (Latin seco; to divide aka different)?
marriage
Why does the marriage vow, formal declaration or contract by which two join in wedlock require a 3rd party? Why does the marriage vow; formal declaration and contract between two to unite (Latin unitas; unus; one) does not constitute a legal marriage?
dominating the corrupt Injustice system
a) what about the system that just-is (justice) aka free will of choice within the dominance of balance (free-dom)...can that be corrupted?
b) contemplate a central control of all "corrupt injustice systems" (sanhedrin)...could corruption be suggested to distract from the integral system running the show?
Next; contemplate if underneath internet; politics; religion; news; entertainment; education etc. the so called jews have a system (kehillah) to communicate an order faster than all of the others combined? Would that allow them to direct before others can react and to react before others can be directed?
Why are you using the term "candidate" when describing their injustices? What if the consent of the many to use the terms suggested by the few represent the foundation to commit injustice right under the nose of those ignoring it?
a) differences (living) are owned by sameness (process of dying)
b) how does nature suggest those within that they can own what they claim?
c) if OWN, adjective - "possession in express exclusion of others", then why all the conflicts with others about ownership? Who is excluded from nature?
Why did the many consent to the suggested revisionism of the 1940 to "homosexual" as the definition for gay? Furthermore; why do so few question the contradiction of HOMO (same; equal) SEX (Latin seco; to divide aka different)?
Why does the marriage vow, formal declaration or contract by which two join in wedlock require a 3rd party? Why does the marriage vow; formal declaration and contract between two to unite (Latin unitas; unus; one) does not constitute a legal marriage?
a) what about the system that just-is (justice) aka free will of choice within the dominance of balance (free-dom)...can that be corrupted?
b) contemplate a central control of all "corrupt injustice systems" (sanhedrin)...could corruption be suggested to distract from the integral system running the show?
Next; contemplate if underneath internet; politics; religion; news; entertainment; education etc. the so called jews have a system (kehillah) to communicate an order faster than all of the others combined? Would that allow them to direct before others can react and to react before others can be directed?