Living jew finds out he died in the HoIocaust! 😱
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (21)
sorted by:
What I wrote describes origin. A jew utilizes labels to tempt gentiles to seek outcomes like "your point". This inversion of ignoring ones sentience for points made by another is why a jew uses names as label/libel.
Label implies "to affix"; libel implies "to charge"...asking for a point implies affixing by withdrawing into self when getting the point aka a charged burden upon self.
The holocaust narrative distracts one from being caust (life) within holo (inception towards death)...which requires self discernment, not others making points for one.
Origin of what? No, every chapter of Genesis describes it.
Nope, everyone does it. No language -> we are like animals.
Even if so, is that a bad thing?
Strawman.
What sentience is supposedly "ignored"??
No one is burdened by anything here.
"Withdrawing into self"????
MY discrenment is clearly better, then.
Origin of each thing coming out within it.
Why put nothing before everything?
De (to divide) scribe/skribh (to cut)...reading a description implies affixing by connecting.
If origin (genesis) divides (describes), then describing genesis tempts the divided to affix (logic) and connect (reason).
a) Again putting nothing before everything...
b) One cannot be every...only each. Every implies the sum of each aka artificially putting together what nature separates from one another.
c) A being cannot do...only nature does, which allows each being within to re-do self aka to respond to being (life) done (inception towards death).
a) Even (inception towards death) generates odd (life)...a jew tempts gentiles at odds with one another to even them out.
b) Nature WAS perceivable before one can suggest what it IS.
c) Good and bad are in conflict against one another...each thing within everything implies apart from one another aka not in conflict against one another unless ignored.
d) Choosing good or bad puts gentiles at odds against one another within so called conflicts of reason.
a) Inception SENTENCES life towards point of death, hence giving each being SENTIENCE...what a jew tempts gentiles to ignore with rhetorical points is self discernment, which one cannot get from one another.
b) What if words can only be shaped within sound, wouldn't that make any argument through words a straw man fallacy that tempts one to ignore the distinction through sound?
Example...good vs bad reasoning represents a straw man fallacy ignoring implication (if/then) of natural change. As in...holding onto either good or bad tempts one to ignore that nature changes.
What if NO aka nothing aka suggested nihil-ism tempting ones de-nial of perceivable for suggested implies a self imposed burden?
How could not being able to discern in-between everything perceivable and suggested nothingness not burden one?
Examples for "nothing" originating from a jew...
Perceivable inspiration inspires one to draw from, while moving through one...suggested information is drawn by others and held within self. The latter tempts one to ignore the former.
Plato's cave represents holding onto information within mind/memory, while ignoring inspiration passing through. Cave/keue - "to swell"...which is what information does to memory aka growing in bulk, which is how a jew collectivizes gentiles with suggested information by establishing consensus within memory.
My implies taking into possession by holding onto; dis-cern implies the division of perception...the former implies synthesis; the latter analysis.
The origin of my implies I AM (je suit; jesus), which brands everyone else into YOU ARE (jew are; judah)...
Better implies versus worse...conflict doesn't clear; it obscures.