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?

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.

The point is it's your claim... you should understand the evidence well enough to present it directly without sending me to an indirect citation.

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?

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.

The point is it's your claim... you should understand the evidence well enough to present it directly without sending me to an indirect citation.

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 allergy also applies to using indirect citations like a book that you read. 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. 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?