"The Jewish people always BELIEVED in the SUPREMACY of its own ethnic collective over other nations" - Jew admitting that jews are racist supremacists.
Which means that white nationalist "nazis" were right all along. Jews are the racists, supremacists, perform eugenics, have a conflict of interest pushing vaccines to us while they consider themselves superior, etc. White nationalists deserve an apology for having been the first people to identify the racist supremacy of hateful jews which jews themselves now admit and confess to on social media.
When lying jews do not have enough self awareness to recognize their own hypocrisy and how their vilification of others is really just projection, it makes me believe that many of them have no inner monologue or else the blind non-jew followers of jew propagandists lack an inner monologue that would enable them to have enough critical thinking activity inside their brains and consciousness to better differentiate lies from truth, truth from lies.
a) if sole (mono) speech (logue), then why can those without an inner monologue speak outside of it?
b) what language is your inner dialogue? Who suggested you the meaning of the words you use inside yourself?
c) if inner monologue has more value than outer speech, then why are a few controlling the speech of a many?
d) what if reasoning (have vs have not or true vs false) over others tempts one to ignore ones internal; interior; inward being? What if being internal (life) implies external (inception towards death)? What if suggestion could tempt internal (perception) to ignore external (perceivable)?
Does the perceivable external use words to communicate itself to the perceiving senses of the internal? If you are within a forest; then do you require the internal monologue to discern the perceivable differences offered to your senses?
Does nature require those within to attach labels to it for it to work?
lying jews
What if truth (wanting suggested) and lie (not wanting suggested) tempts one to ignore change (perceivable need)?
If perceivable change, then any suggested truth or lie can be changed into its opposite. What if the many do not permit themselves to discern that?
What if jews suggest gentiles to ignore something moving (sound) for something affixed (words)? Are they lying, are they tempting others to believe truth; are they doing both if one consents or are they doing neither if one resists?
jews do not have enough self awareness
What if focusing on others tempts one to ignore self? What if ones lack of self awareness prevents one from discerning that lack? What if others pointing this out will be viewed as an offense to ones focus on others? What if others cannot unlock ones "self" discernment? What if it's easy peasy for others to tempt one to lock oneself out of self discernment by simply suggesting one to focus on others?
the blind...
....ignore to see (perceivable) when viewing what others are showing (suggested).
followers...
...ignore that following the natural order (inception towards death) shortens ones life...yet, it's as easy as suggesting them to follow orders to get them to ignore that.
differentiate lies from truth
What if truth (want) and lie (not want) implies ones consent to the same suggestion (definism aka definite; affixed). What if nature already differentiated each partial within? What if others suggest collectivism to tempt one to hold differences together? What if suggested words tempt one to slap definitions (affixed meaning) over perceivable differences, while grouping together different units as rhetorical groups (-isms) ?
critical thinking
What if ones consent to suggested criticism aka judging separation within a conflict of reason, keeps one locked within the controlled environment of reason, hence within a conflict?
Why are the many entangled in endless conflicts of reason, while the few effortlessly escape judgement over and over again? Why are the few able to judge the many?
Back to thinking critical, while putting reasoning over suggested information aside...what's there to criticize about perceivable inspiration within nature?
Holding ones breath permits living the awareness of dying within a mere moments...what's there to criticize about?
Which means that white nationalist "nazis" were right all along. Jews are the racists, supremacists, perform eugenics, have a conflict of interest pushing vaccines to us while they consider themselves superior, etc. White nationalists deserve an apology for having been the first people to identify the racist supremacy of hateful jews which jews themselves now admit and confess to on social media.
HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
But it's different. They are the supreme race. 🙃
Yeah, but their twitter handle is "net_n_yoohoo", so it's a parody account.
Sound cannot be owned by those within...others suggest words to tempt one to consent to the TRADE of a MARK.
Only 30-50% of People Have An Inner Monologue, And Suddenly It All Makes Sense https://awarenessact.com/only-30-50-of-people-have-an-inner-monologue-and-suddenly-it-all-makes-sense/
People With No Internal Monologue Explain What It's Like In Their Head https://www.iflscience.com/people-with-no-internal-monologue-explain-what-its-like-in-their-head-57739
When lying jews do not have enough self awareness to recognize their own hypocrisy and how their vilification of others is really just projection, it makes me believe that many of them have no inner monologue or else the blind non-jew followers of jew propagandists lack an inner monologue that would enable them to have enough critical thinking activity inside their brains and consciousness to better differentiate lies from truth, truth from lies.
Inner monolog threads are always insane. Sooooo many people without them these days. It used to be uncommon.
a) if sole (mono) speech (logue), then why can those without an inner monologue speak outside of it?
b) what language is your inner dialogue? Who suggested you the meaning of the words you use inside yourself?
c) if inner monologue has more value than outer speech, then why are a few controlling the speech of a many?
d) what if reasoning (have vs have not or true vs false) over others tempts one to ignore ones internal; interior; inward being? What if being internal (life) implies external (inception towards death)? What if suggestion could tempt internal (perception) to ignore external (perceivable)?
Does the perceivable external use words to communicate itself to the perceiving senses of the internal? If you are within a forest; then do you require the internal monologue to discern the perceivable differences offered to your senses?
Does nature require those within to attach labels to it for it to work?
What if truth (wanting suggested) and lie (not wanting suggested) tempts one to ignore change (perceivable need)?
If perceivable change, then any suggested truth or lie can be changed into its opposite. What if the many do not permit themselves to discern that?
What if jews suggest gentiles to ignore something moving (sound) for something affixed (words)? Are they lying, are they tempting others to believe truth; are they doing both if one consents or are they doing neither if one resists?
What if focusing on others tempts one to ignore self? What if ones lack of self awareness prevents one from discerning that lack? What if others pointing this out will be viewed as an offense to ones focus on others? What if others cannot unlock ones "self" discernment? What if it's easy peasy for others to tempt one to lock oneself out of self discernment by simply suggesting one to focus on others?
....ignore to see (perceivable) when viewing what others are showing (suggested).
...ignore that following the natural order (inception towards death) shortens ones life...yet, it's as easy as suggesting them to follow orders to get them to ignore that.
What if truth (want) and lie (not want) implies ones consent to the same suggestion (definism aka definite; affixed). What if nature already differentiated each partial within? What if others suggest collectivism to tempt one to hold differences together? What if suggested words tempt one to slap definitions (affixed meaning) over perceivable differences, while grouping together different units as rhetorical groups (-isms) ?
What if ones consent to suggested criticism aka judging separation within a conflict of reason, keeps one locked within the controlled environment of reason, hence within a conflict?
Why are the many entangled in endless conflicts of reason, while the few effortlessly escape judgement over and over again? Why are the few able to judge the many?
Back to thinking critical, while putting reasoning over suggested information aside...what's there to criticize about perceivable inspiration within nature?
Holding ones breath permits living the awareness of dying within a mere moments...what's there to criticize about?