-
Yet, when Epstein ran a child prostitution/blackmail operation with the funding of Les Wexner and assistance of Ghislaine Maxwell, why didn't the MSM call it a Jewish conspiracy to commit espionage.
-
When Soros buys riots, politicians and illegal immigrant caravans, why doesn't the MSM call it a Jewish conspiracy to destroy democracy?
-
When Bloomberg buys politicians who are willing to support is progressive erosion of the Second Amendment, why isn't this labeled a Jewish conspiracy to disarm the public.
-
When Haim Saban openly calls for MSM censorship of the globalists' opponents, why isnt this called a Jewish conspiracy to promote censorship?
-
When Alan Greenspan deliberately created the credit bubble of 2008 to justify the subsequent bailouts,, why wasn't this described as a Jewish conspiracy to loot the Treasury?
-
When Ben Benanke oversaw the bailout proceeds being diverted into the coffers of the likes of Bloomberg, Steyer, Ellison, Soros, etc. who proceeded to use those funds to buy the subverted cesspool that we now have, why wasn't that called a Jewish conspiracy to destroy America.
-
When Israel blew up the WTC and "Lucky" Larry Silverstein made billions by frontrunning the attack, why wasn't this labeled as a Jewish conspiracy to commit blatant insurance fraud?
-
When Mark Zuckerberg was awarded the ownership of FB and proceeded to use it to censor any opposition to globalist scams, why didnt the MSM call this a Jewish conspiracy to stifle political speech?
It's almost as if there was a conspiracy amongstthe MSM/ownership to suppress the exposure of Jewish criminality.
It's permitted. That's what the Talmud and the Jewish Encyclopedia says. The The Babylonian Talmud (Complete Soncino English Translation) confirms this.
https://archive.org/details/TheBabylonianTalmudcompleteSoncinoEnglishTranslation/page/n3567/mode/2up?q=Kethuboth
You can search the matter out. ALL OF US can search the Talmud :) How beautiful is that? Surely the gentiles will appreciate what the Jews have written about keeping gentiles as slaves and raping little gentile girls.
Okay I'll give you this, the Talmud is not limited to "white" girls, but gentiles.
"White" is a fake construct anyway. You know this, don't you, schlomo?
Yes, you can search the Talmud indeed. It's what I always recommend to people like you. There's absolutely nothing in there that supports your assertion, as you must obviously know in the way that you're now being quite coy about the issue.
https://archive.org/details/TheBabylonianTalmudcompleteSoncinoEnglishTranslation/page/n3567/mode/2up?q=11a
11a and 11b
LMAO, are you serious? You're really going to try to push this one? Don't you people ever get tired of telling the same old lies?
It's saying that if a child is raped or a woman is raped while enslaved, there should be no punishment for "non-virginity" and she should still be seen as "pure" because the intercourse she had was a violation and not performed through any fault of her own. It's about victim's rights not an endorsement of molestation, you moron.
So there is no prohibition on sexual activity between adults and young children — it's just simply regulated?
Now tell me how the Sabbateans feel about the Talmud!
Then why’d you ask? Is this you admitting that you have no idea what you’re talking about or would you like to keep avoiding taking any position whatsoever?
Why do I have to "take a position"? Wait, you just accused me of already having a "bad faith" position! So, what is your "good faith" take on evil influence within Judaism?
Oh, yes, I asked because I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Why couldn't you just say they were defunct to start then?
I asked because you are an OBVIOUS shill that wouldn't be able to answer a question that even Wikipedia can answer. DUH!
You already admitted that the only reason you even asked was to test me. That’s the definition of “bad faith.” You don’t have a point beyond that.
Oh no, I well do. You just haven't answered, so I cannot continue.
You said the Sabbatean view of the Talmud is "irrelevant". Saying it is irrelevant doesn't answer the question, now does it?
And then you call me retarded, because you can't answer a question? SMH
So tell me about this "good faith" that you have for things. Because the entirety of your account seems like the opposite.
Let me ask you a question first: what do you think you’re even talking about?
LOL, PM'ing me. Because you have to run away from the question. Priceless!
Nope, you first.
Whether or not you agree with my posts, I approach my arguments with nothing but honesty. That is the essence of acting in good faith. You, on the other hand, with your deceptive and evasive (and failed) strategy to trap me on some rhetorical ledge are a prime example of the opposite.
Oh no, I succeeded greatly.
I got you to avoid answering a simple question, for FEAR of the ramifications.
Show me one of your "good faith" queries into a conspiracy...I'll wait...forever...