"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 but it's still evidence building a case.

Building a case for what? You have to actually define the charges before you can build a case.

What do you expect?

I would expect you to describe to me the jewish conspiracy and what it's goals are...

Because so far you've only shown me separate conspiracies with separate goals, that had Jewish people involved.

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.

For sure... Zionism and the establishment of Israel is something people have conspired over.

But I don't understand how Gavrilo Princep being a jew has anything to do with Zionism, and I don't understand why that was the very first thing you cited as evidence.

Is there any actual evidence that the war was started for the benefit of Zionism?

What do you expect? Someone finding a confession letter of a representative of the jewish cabal admitting to it?

Seems necessary for you to even know about the conspiracy in the first place.

We have such direct confessions from members of the mafia, do we not? We have such direct confessions from Zionists don't we?

But I think this just re-iterates my point that when you actually get specific the concept of a "jewish conspiracy" evaporates.

As even with something as overtly jewish as zionism, you can't in good faith put the label of "zionist" on jews as a whole. But you could accurately put the label "zionist" on plenty of non-jews.

So even with zionism it becomes apparent that it's defined along ideological lines, not racial lines, and so I wouldn't call a zionist conspiracy a "jewish conspiracy" in good faith.

Just as I would not describe the mafia as an "Italian conspiracy" in good faith.

"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 but it's still evidence building a case.

Building a case for what? You have to actually define the charges before you can build a case.

What do you expect?

I would expect you to describe to me the jewish conspiracy and what it's goals are...

Because so far you've only shown me separate conspiracies with separate goals, that had Jewish people involved.

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.

For sure... Zionism and the establishment of Israel is something people have conspired over.

But I don't understand how Gavrilo Princep being a jew has anything to do with Zionism, and I don't understand why that was the very first thing you cited as evidence.

Is there any actual evidence that the war was started for the benefit of Zionism?

What do you expect? Someone finding a confession letter of a representative of the jewish cabal admitting to it?

Seems necessary for you to even know about the conspiracy in the first place.

We have such direct confessions with members of the mafia, do we not? We have such direct confessions from Zionists don't we?

But I think this just re-iterates my point that when you actually get specific the concept of a "jewish conspiracy" evaporates.

As even with something as overtly jewish as zionism, you can't in good faith put the label of "zionist" on jews as a whole. But you could accurately put the label "zionist" on plenty of non-jews.

So even with zionism it becomes apparent that it's defined along ideological lines, not racial lines, and so I wouldn't call a zionist conspiracy a "jewish conspiracy" in good faith.

Just as I would not describe the mafia as an "Italian conspiracy" in good faith.

"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 but it's still evidence building a case.

Building a case for what? You have to actually define the charges before you can build a case.

What do you expect?

I would expect you to describe to me the jewish conspiracy and what it's goals are...

Because so far you've only shown me separate conspiracies with separate goals, that had Jewish people involved.

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.

For sure... Zionism and the establishment of Israel is something people have conspired over.

But I don't understand how Gavrilo Princep being a jew has anything to do with Zionism, and I don't understand why that was the very first thing you cited as evidence.

Is there any actual evidence that the war was started for the benefit of Zionism?

What do you expect? Someone finding a confession letter of a representative of the jewish cabal admitting to it?

Seems necessary for you to even know about the conspiracy in the first place.

We have such direct confessions with members of the mafia, do we not? We have such direct confessions from Zionists don't we?

But I think this just re-iterates my point that when you actually get specific the concept of a "jewish conspiracy" evaporates.

As even with something as overtly jewish as zionism, you can't in good faith put the label of "zionist" on jews as a whole. But you could accurately put the label "zionist" on plenty of non-jews.

So even with zionism it becomes apparent that it's defined along ideological lines, not racial lines, and so I wouldn't call a zionist conspiracy a "jewish conspiracy" in good faith.

Just as I would not describe the mafia as an "Italian conspiracy" in good faith.

"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 but it's still evidence building a case.

Building a case for what? You have to actually define the charges before you can build a case.

What do you expect?

I would expect you to describe to me the jewish conspiracy and what it's goals are...

Because so far you've only shown me separate conspiracies with separate goals, that had Jewish people involved.

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.

For sure... Zionism and the establishment of Israel is something people have conspired over.

But I don't understand how Gavrilo Princep being a jew has anything to do with Zionism, and I don't understand why that was the very first thing you cited as evidence.

Is there any actual evidence that the war was started for the benefit of Zionism?

What do you expect? Someone finding a confession letter of a representative of the jewish cabal admitting to it?

Seems necessary for you to even know about the conspiracy in the first place.

We have such direct confessions with members of the mafia, do we not? We have such direct confessions from Zionists don't we?

But I think this just re-iterates my point that when you actually get specific the concept of a "jewish conspiracy" evaporates.

As even with something as overtly jewish as zionism, you can't in good faith put the label of "zionist" on jews as a whole. But you could accurately apply the label "zionist" to plenty of non-jews.

So even with zionism it becomes apparent that it's defined along ideological lines, not racial lines, and so I wouldn't call a zionist conspiracy a "jewish conspiracy" in good faith.

Just as I would not describe the mafia as an "Italian 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 but it's still evidence building a case.

Building a case for what? You have to actually define the charges before you can build a case.

What do you expect?

I would expect you to describe to me the jewish conspiracy and what it's goals are...

Because so far you've only shown me separate conspiracies with separate goals, that had Jewish people involved.

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.

For sure... Zionism and the establishment of Israel is something people have conspired over.

But I don't understand how Gavrilo Princep being a jew has anything to do with Zionism, and I don't understand why that was the very first thing you cited as evidence.

Is there any actual evidence that the war was started for the benefit of Zionism?

What do you expect? Someone finding a confession letter of a representative of the jewish cabal admitting to it?

Seems necessary for you to even know about the conspiracy in the first place.

We have such direct confessions with members of the mafia, do we not? We have such direct confessions from actual Zionists don't we?

But I think this just re-iterates my point that when you actually get specific the concept of a "jewish conspiracy" evaporates.

As even with something as overtly jewish as zionism, you can't in good faith put the label of "zionist" on jews as a whole. But you could accurately apply the label "zionist" to plenty of non-jews.

So even with zionism it becomes apparent that it's defined along ideological lines, not racial lines, and so I wouldn't call a zionist conspiracy a "jewish conspiracy" in good faith.

Just as I would not describe the mafia as an "Italian conspiracy".