I think a thick ass book is the most bad faith and intellectually dishonest way to present and argue for any controversial claim, as a book is essentially one person's monologue, and the longer a single person is allowed to drone on uninterrupted the more easily they can build up false narratives by introducing a few falsehoods here, twisting a few things there, cherry picking a bit from this, and disregarding a bit of that. We've all seen this very phenomena on every TV news show.

Dude, I presented you the argument and gave sources that show the evidence, what else do you expect? What is the "intellectually honest" way to go about historical events? Search my feelz and come to the truth inside me? What's your alternative to gathering knowledge on things you don't have direct access to besides reading books and papers other people wrote?

I'm not asking you to take it for granted because someone wrote about it, but if you're doing research you should look into their arguments. Rejecting them because "it's someone else's biased view on things presented in a book (as opposed to what? a tiktok video? a conspiracy sub?)" is as bad faith as it gets, talk about intellectual dishonesty. All narratives of events are someone's interpretation and are biased. If you care about the subject, you read and crosscheck the information given while discerning to what extent the opinions presented are logically sound and cohere with the overall narrative. People literally can't read serious books any more. They have been psy op'ed to get instantaneous and effortless knowledge on demand with no subject being too complex and deep for that (the "ask google" effect).

That's essentially the same bad faith argument normies defer to when any grand conspiracy, tptb, establishment elite, etc. are mentioned: "Who's They?!?" Sure, I can tell you exactly who They are if you have a few days to spare, but it won't happen in the context of a casual conversation. That's like asking me to explain grad-level music theory (or any complex subject), which takes years to learn, to someone who has no musical education in a few sentences over a beer or two.

Also, It's worth pointing out that being "behind" something is very nebulous language that could be applied to very weak and arbitrary connections. And "jewish financial interest" is also very nebulous language.

It could be and that's why you have to see if that's the case. It's vague because it's a broad argument synthesized in a single sentence. There are very particular definitions and elaborations on the things you ask about but you complain they are too long and complex because they are not a tweet or a random anon's take on the conspiracy sub.

Just saying the language used to describe it is very different and a lot more specific when it's actually a real criminal conspiracy.

Could you give an example?