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.

That jewish financial and zionist interests were behind much of what transpired

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.

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.

That jewish financial and zionist interests were behind much of what transpired

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 and that you guys never specify which you are talking about 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.

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.

That jewish financial and zionist interests were behind much of what transpired

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.

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.

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.

That jewish financial and zionist interests were behind much of what transpired

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 I'm also a bit confused as to what counts as a "jewish financial interest"... Like is it any financial institution ran by jews? Or does it have to actually act on a certain agenda? If an institution ran by non-jews acts for that agenda does it become a jewish financial interest?

Not trying to be a smart ass here, but the only way I've ever heard this idea explained is with such massive sweeping generalizations that it's basically pure abstraction, not anything specific or definable.

And the fact that "jew" is both an ideology and an ethnicity and the two are not mutually exclusive just adds to the ambiguity in language.

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.