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:
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.