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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
Here it goes:
World War I started on 28 June 1914 when Gavrilo Princip, allegedly of Jewish origin and a member of a terrorist group, the Black Hand, assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austrian throne, and his Czech born wife at Sarajevo, Bosnia Herzegovina. Princip was a collaborator of Leon Trotsky (real name Lev Davidovitsj Bronstein), [186] a Russian Jew who was conspiring with a fellow Jew Vladimir Lenin (named Ulyanov when adopted, real name Zederbaum)
[187] to overthrow the Russian monarchy. He was in turn financed by an American Jew Jacob Schiff, [188] who was a front man for an English Jew Lord Nathan
Rothschild, who was one of the masterminds behind this appalling catastrophe. These facts were confirmed in the United States Senate in 1921, when it was recorded that “Full responsibility for the First World War lies on the shoulders of the International Jewish Bankers. They are responsible for Millions of dead and dying.”
In late October 1926 further confirmation of these incontrovertible facts
was revealed in a conversation between British parliamentarian Victor H
Cazalet and Henry Ford (1863-1947). When the former asked who the
international Jewish financiers were, Ford replied: “I have several books
which will tell you who they all are. They were responsible for the last
war, and will in the future always be capable of creating a war when they
feel their pockets need one.” [190]
Trade rivalry, competing alliances and misunderstood mobilisations are
often proffered as being the primary causes of World War I. However, the
real reasons in order of importance are as follows:
To destroy the Russian Empire and its State Bank.
To break up the other empires (Austro-Hungarian, German and
Ottoman) into smaller states, which could then be exploited more
efficiently through the establishment of central banks.
The theft of Palestine and the creation of a Zionist puppet state
under the direct control of the Rothschilds.[191]
By the end of 1916 the British and French armies were in danger of losing
the war, with the latter army having already mutinied on the Western
front. The British had lost their naval supremacy at the Battle of Jutland
on 3 May 1916, when the German Navy, outnumbered by two to one,
humiliated the invincible Royal Navy, sinking 12 vessels for the loss of
six and losing 2,551 sailors compared to the British loss of 6,094.
[192] Both Kaisers were desperate to bring an end to this fratricidal and pointless slaughter. Seemingly out of the blue came an offer from Lord Rothschild to secure American intervention in return for handing over Palestine to a group of Jewish Zionists after the liquidation of the Ottoman Empire.[193]
On 6 April 1917 the United States declared war on Germany [194] and the other central powers and on 2 November 1917 Lord Rothschild and his Zionist collaborators received their written undertaking by Great Britain
to eventually hand over Palestine to Jewish settlers. [195] This infamous document known as the Balfour Declaration, was drafted by Lord Arthur James Balfour, British Foreign Secretary and General Jan Christian Smuts, a member of the Imperial War Cabinet.
The misery of this unnecessary war dragged on for another two years. Russia was totally destroyed and an insoluble problem was created in the Middle East. As Rabbi Reichorn prophetically remarked in 1859, “Wars are the Jews’ harvest, for with them, we wipe out the Christians and get control of their gold. We have already killed 100 million of them. We shall drive the Christians into war by exploiting their national vanity and stupidity. They will then massacre each other, thus giving room for our own people.” [196] In similar vein Gutle Schnapper, Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s wife, is reputed to have said shortly before she died in 1849, “If my sons did not want war, there would have been none.” [197]
An armistice was declared on 11 November 1918 and seven months later
on 28 June 1919 the deeply flawed Treaty of Versailles was signed.
Germany had to accept exclusive blame and pay extortionate reparations
of £6.6 billion [198] equivalent to the entire wealth of the country, even
though the other principal belligerents England, France and Russia were
equally, if not more blameworthy. This indemnity would be used to repay
the international bankers the fraudulent loans and interest, which had
been previously lent to the governments of Great Britain and France. As
General Smuts said at the conference, “Everything we have done here is
far worse than the Congress of Vienna. The statesmen of 1815 at least
knew what was going on. Our statesmen have no idea.”
There's a lot more to add too regarding the financial aspects and behind the scenes machinations by jewish bankers like Warburg and Rothschild. If Wilson had not been elected, we might have had no Federal Reserve Act, and WWI could have been avoided. The European nations had been led to maintain large standing armies as the policy of the central banks which dictated their governmental decisions. There are many moving parts here and if you want get into the nitty-gritty you'd have to read the books. People like Carol Quigley, Anthony Sutton, Archibald Ramsey and Eustace Mullins did an amazing job researching the jewish financial elite and their central banking.
I suggest we move to the Bolshevik revolution and the USSR next, because there's a treasure trove of evidence there.
When you get into specifics it stops sounding like the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was a jewish conspiracy to serve jewish interests, and starts sounding more like it was a conspiracy for Serbian nationalism and communist interests, done by a jew.
Seems like the concept of a jewish conspiracy evaporates when generalities are no longer used, and events are described in specific terms.
Or at the very least it's laid bare that a "jewish conspiracy" is broadly defined as any conspiracy involving any jew.
So just right off the bat... If Gavrilo Princip was jewish that is enough of a connection to support the claim that jews are behind the war?
And Trotsky being a jew.... That too is enough of a connection to support the claim?
I'm just trying to figure out if the claim is that some jewish people were involved in the starting of the war, or is the claim that the war was started for the purposes of fulfilling a conspiracy to serve jewish interests?
As those are entirely different claims that will require different evidence.
I guess the point I'm making is that I could go through any historical event and draw connections to other ethnic groups in the same way... In fact it's the same thing wokies do when they claim white people run everything for the benefit of white people.
Yes. you can show countless examples of people who are white in power... But that doesn't validate the conspiracy claim.
Or another example... We could say that there is a conspiracy of Germans to rule the united states, and as evidence we could list every president, senator, governor, mayor, and political leader that has German ancestry, which there will be TONS of them.
But yet we don't consider that as evidence that the Germans are coordinating a conspiracy to everyone else's detriment.
The point is if there is conspiracy to serve jewish interests, I want to see the object directly, not just the shadows on the wall. I need someone to explain to me what are "jewish interests", and tell me how the jews coordinate to achieve them.
Simply identifying historical figures as jewish is not enough to support the conspiracy claim. If they aren't actually coordinating to achieve the same ends, then it's not an actual conspiracy.
So just right off the bat... If Gavrilo Princip was jewish that is enough of a connection to support the claim that jews are behind the war?
And Trotsky being a jew.... That too is enough of a connection to support the claim?
"So the fact I have eyes and a mouth makes me a human?" - that's called reductionism, dude. No, him being jewish is not sufficient evidence by itself but it's still evidence building a case. What do you expect? Someone finding a signed confession letter of a representative of the jewish cabal admitting to it? Well, in some cases such confessions exist like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or the letters between the Sindarin and Oliver Cromwell, but their legitimacy is disputed.
The point is if there is conspiracy to serve jewish interests, I want to see the object directly, not just the shadows on the wall. I need someone to explain to me what are "jewish interests", and tell me how the jews coordinate to achieve them.
There was an obvious example of this in the text. The establishment of the state of Israel in Palestine is a jewish zionist interest that was served by their agents in the British parliament lord Rothschild and lord Balfour.
I guess the point I'm making is that I could go through any historical event and draw connections to any ethnic group in the same way... In fact it's the same thing wokies do when they claim white people run everything for the benefit of white people.
Because wokies are dumb retards with no knowledge of history. There's no such historical grouping of "white people". White people conceived of themselves as followers of some religion in this case Christianity, then they were divided in different denominations that slaughtered each other and belonged to kingdoms and nation states. The problem with jews is that they partake in the government of other countries which they are supposed to be citizens of, and yet their loyalties lie elsewhere - with their ethnic group and state. This makes them foreign agents in those countries and ultimately makes them internationalists.
I'm not here to convince you of anything and I don't care what your opinion is. But we share ideas and information here and if you're interested you can check the sources I gave you, see how they make their cases and judge for yourself - I'm sure you don't need my interpretation of them.
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?
Here it goes:
There's a lot more to add too regarding the financial aspects and behind the scenes machinations by jewish bankers like Warburg and Rothschild. If Wilson had not been elected, we might have had no Federal Reserve Act, and WWI could have been avoided. The European nations had been led to maintain large standing armies as the policy of the central banks which dictated their governmental decisions. There are many moving parts here and if you want get into the nitty-gritty you'd have to read the books. People like Carol Quigley, Anthony Sutton, Archibald Ramsey and Eustace Mullins did an amazing job researching the jewish financial elite and their central banking.
I suggest we move to the Bolshevik revolution and the USSR next, because there's a treasure trove of evidence there.
Or to simplify my point....
When you get into specifics it stops sounding like the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was a jewish conspiracy to serve jewish interests, and starts sounding more like it was a conspiracy for Serbian nationalism and communist interests, done by a jew.
Seems like the concept of a jewish conspiracy evaporates when generalities are no longer used, and events are described in specific terms.
Or at the very least it's laid bare that a "jewish conspiracy" is broadly defined as any conspiracy involving any jew.
So just right off the bat... If Gavrilo Princip was jewish that is enough of a connection to support the claim that jews are behind the war?
And Trotsky being a jew.... That too is enough of a connection to support the claim?
I'm just trying to figure out if the claim is that some jewish people were involved in the starting of the war, or is the claim that the war was started for the purposes of fulfilling a conspiracy to serve jewish interests?
As those are entirely different claims that will require different evidence.
I guess the point I'm making is that I could go through any historical event and draw connections to other ethnic groups in the same way... In fact it's the same thing wokies do when they claim white people run everything for the benefit of white people.
Yes. you can show countless examples of people who are white in power... But that doesn't validate the conspiracy claim.
Or another example... We could say that there is a conspiracy of Germans to rule the united states, and as evidence we could list every president, senator, governor, mayor, and political leader that has German ancestry, which there will be TONS of them.
But yet we don't consider that as evidence that the Germans are coordinating a conspiracy to everyone else's detriment.
The point is if there is conspiracy to serve jewish interests, I want to see the object directly, not just the shadows on the wall. I need someone to explain to me what are "jewish interests", and tell me how the jews coordinate to achieve them.
Simply identifying historical figures as jewish is not enough to support the conspiracy claim. If they aren't actually coordinating to achieve the same ends, then it's not an actual conspiracy.
"So the fact I have eyes and a mouth makes me a human?" - that's called reductionism, dude. No, him being jewish is not sufficient evidence by itself but it's still evidence building a case. What do you expect? Someone finding a signed confession letter of a representative of the jewish cabal admitting to it? Well, in some cases such confessions exist like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or the letters between the Sindarin and Oliver Cromwell, but their legitimacy is disputed.
There was an obvious example of this in the text. The establishment of the state of Israel in Palestine is a jewish zionist interest that was served by their agents in the British parliament lord Rothschild and lord Balfour.
Because wokies are dumb retards with no knowledge of history. There's no such historical grouping of "white people". White people conceived of themselves as followers of some religion in this case Christianity, then they were divided in different denominations that slaughtered each other and belonged to kingdoms and nation states. The problem with jews is that they partake in the government of other countries which they are supposed to be citizens of, and yet their loyalties lie elsewhere - with their ethnic group and state. This makes them foreign agents in those countries and ultimately makes them internationalists.
I'm not here to convince you of anything and I don't care what your opinion is. But we share ideas and information here and if you're interested you can check the sources I gave you, see how they make their cases and judge for yourself - I'm sure you don't need my interpretation of them.