Poisoning the well with retarded conspiracy theories
(files.catbox.moe)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (47)
sorted by:
I think it's curious that your comment simultaneously makes a claim without elaborating on what that claim is.
What exactly was common knowledge?
That jewish financial and zionist interests were behind much of what transpired throughout modern history (1600's onwards), especially in terms of cultural subversion, central banking, wars and revolutions.
Here's are some good book on that: https://archive.org/details/stephen-goodson-a-history-of-central-banking-and-the-enslavement-of-mankind.org
https://ia601905.us.archive.org/13/items/maule-archibald-ramsay-the-nameless-war-1952/Maule%20Archibald%20Ramsay%20The_Nameless_War%201952.pdf
https://vault.fbi.gov/protocols-of-learned-elders-of-zion/protocols-of-learned-elders-of-zion-part-01-of-01/view
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.
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.
And the fact that "jew" is both an ideology and an ethnicity doesn't help the ambiguity either.
How can I explain? Like imagine the mafia... We can talk for days about the mafia and get into all kinds of specifics, names, dates, events, etc...
It's not "the Italians are behind crime". "Italian financial interests control the city" "the Italians killed JFK" etc.... Nobody talks about it like that.
Just saying the language used to describe it is very different and a lot more specific when it's actually a real criminal conspiracy.
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.
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.
Could you give an example?
A book is not evidence... If the book cites evidence then you can cite the same evidence in a comment without trying to send me to the book as a middleman.
Sure.... "The Italian mafia calls their organization La Cosa Nostra, one of its bosses was a guy named Carmine Persico and he was prosecuted and sent to prison by Rudy Giuliani."
now here's an example of me trying to talk about the same thing without actually explaining anything or providing any facts.
"The Italians were behind much of the crime in NYC and then they put themselves in jail."
In the top sentence I'm describing reality. What actually happened with names and specifics.
In the bottom sentence I'm describing shadows on a wall as if I'm trapped in Plato's cave, as if I had no knowledge of the actual mafia or who was running it, or what they do.
The Plato's cave an analogy also applies to using indirect citations like a book rather than directly showing me the evidence the book supposedly talks about.
Youre not showing me evidence, You're showing me the shadow that the evidence casted on the wall.
This is how the Jewish conspiracy has always been described to me... in vague sweeping generalities leaving out names and specifics, with indirect citations if any.
You said jews are behind much of the historical events since the 1600s. That is a vague sweeping generality.
Get specific.
WW1... Let's start there... Tell me how jews were behind WW1. Name the jews that are responsible and explain to me what they did to start the war. What were their motives? And how did their story turn out after the war?