CONSOOM The Evolution of Taste, or Lack Thereof
(media.scored.co)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
It's the description which a jew shapes for both sides of conflicting gentiles. Scribe; noun - "professional interpreter of the jewish law"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/scribe
a) Nature sets each thing within apart from one another, which makes each thing (effect) inherent within everything (cause).
b) Only while inherent can each thing describe everything extrinsic to one another.
c) Can't (can nothing) inverts that each thing within everything can/cunnan - "to know; have power to, to be able"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/can
Nothing represents the inversion of everything and it's based on the jewish suggestion of nihil-ism (nihilo; nothing), which tempts each consenting gentile into de-nial of everything perceivable.
>Describe the color blue.
The label BLUE represents the script (scribe)...me describing it to you implies the natural division (de) from one another. You consenting to my suggested description represents the artificial unification, which distracts you from natural division, while permitting me to exploit you.
As for color...light > spectrum > ray. That's how each ray within the visible spectrum of light can perceive each color differently.
>We will both agree that a thing is blue
a) Agreement implies to the suggested label "blue" onto which then comparisons can be drawn like "blue like water; sky; cookie-monster". Doing so tempts one to ignore that nature divides each thing from one another. Only while apart can labels be attached to and comparisons drawn together.
b) Nature WAS perceivable before a being can suggest what it IS. Consenting to what is tempts ones perception to ignore what was.
c) It's ones choice to agree or disagree which tricks ones perception to believe in BOTH aka two instead of one or the other one, which is based on the jewish suggestion of dual-ism, which inverts natural singularity.
d) As for WE... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we aka jewish nosism aka using the plural pronoun "we" to refer to a singular subject aka oneself.
>you cannot know what I see
Seeing implies each ones different perception of all perceivable knowledge. Each being sees the same nature from a different position...it's consenting to any suggested description which shapes likeness by consensus.
The blind men (each ones perception) and the elephant (all perceivable)... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant That's how a jew tricks blind gentiles to fight each other over different suggestions about the same origin.
>Different species literally experience a different reality through their perceptions.
a) Only within singularity (whole) can there be differentiation (particle)....suggested pluralism (species; perceptions) tempts differences to think alike one another, while contradicting being differentiated from one another.
b) Real implies each ones response (re) to all (al) aka each ones different perception within all perceivable sameness.
It's a jew who builds internal (logic) and external (reason) cycles for gentiles to distract from natural delineation (inception towards death) of being (life).
>Words have power, but they are not power.
Words imply the articulation of natural sound. Sound empowers instrument aka mind (ment) structured (stru) within (in) to articulate, which a jew shapes into an inversion.
>Stop equating words to reality.
Words imply letters put together (synthesis); reality implies sound setting each instrument apart from one another (analysis). Sharing a word requires one to LET another put LETTERS together.
>Perception is reality
Perceivable WAS before perception comes into being...suggesting what it IS tempts one to ignore that.
>Words are an external communication system
Nature divides internal within external...communication of words implies the internalization (consent) of external (suggestion) which is artificial.
>You're basically saying
The base of saying implies sound. Only within sound can a word be said.
>light bulbs use electricity, therefore all electricity is light bulbs
a) Elect implies "to choose"; magh implies "to be able"...a jew suggests electrisim and magnetism to distract gentiles from discerning self as elect within magh.
b) A light bulb doesn't use electricity...it re-uses aka responds (effect) to being used (cause).
The trick behind the light bulb is about suggesting a necessary connection between effect (bulb) and cause (light), which inverts nature dividing effect within cause from one another.
The sleight of hand for those with eyes to see...bulb, noun - "onion" from root oi-no - "one, unique", hence screwing oneself when connecting a bulb.
- https://www.etymonline.com/word/bulb
- https://www.etymonline.com/word/onion
>you're the schizophrenic
Another jewish trick...the jew who coined schizophrenia (eugene bleuler) and the jewish father of psychoanalysis (sigismund freud) have conspired together to "conquer psychiatry". ~ https://img.gvid.tv/i/3gc1x1nk.jpg
Gentiles calling each other schizophrenic are conquering each other for jewish psychiatry.