I'm basing that ENTIRELY on your formatting and use of gibberish symbols...

As far as the content, I don't waste my time reading mentally ill drivel.

Whatever meds you went off of, it's time to resume them.

The fact that people like you regularly dig through my history looking for dirt you can use against me, is exactly the reason I purge my history every couple of months.

Why even ask? That should've been your 1st comment.

(citation needed)

If it's not their ancestral homeland, why were there bronze age scrolls found there written in their native language, containing fragments of the same religious scripture they follow today?

You'd have to call every war in history a genocide by that standard.

Could be AI generated and then deep fried to hide the flaws. We're at a point now where it's getting really hard to tell.

Does the architecture make sense? Are the bricks aligned in a pattern like you'd see IRL? What's in that dark void back there?

It could be investigated though... Is that a real location? What about that gun? Does it actually match up with a real gun model?

I don't "support israel" in the sense that I don't want them getting any actual material support from me.

I just don't care if they obliterate gaza, and can totally see why they would do it. I don't think they should use my money to do it. But, I'm not gonna lose sleep over the fact that it was done. Seems totally justified to me...

And as far as zionism, you guys here on this forum are what convinced me it's a justified agenda for jews to have. After all, you love to point out they've been kicked out of 109 countries throughout history. And you'd love to increase that number.

Seems like a pretty good reason to want to reconquer your ancestral homeland. I totally get it.

Again, I don't think they should get my money. But I wish them well.

Friend, It's Saturday afternoon and I don't have the time for your entire comment at the moment.

But I will say right off the bat....

Pattern recognition is the last thing I'd trust this board with.... As I'm constantly seeing people reaching to invent patterns that aren't really there.

I've had idiots use this exact screenshot to call me a jew and shill simply for disagree with them.

This doesn't teach you how to "spot" anything.... It teaches how to do these things, that are indistinguishable from things normal users do all the time.

Yeah, learn to read biased racist monologues from books with dozens of sales under their belt... And of course I'm sure you're more than willing to accept reading assignments from me, right?

I'm allowed to substitute book titles for arguments and still pretend I made a valid point, right? You're challenging me to a book-off where we just spam titles and accuse each other of not reading?

No? Only you get to do that? Strange.

And by the way, I make no apologies for not responding the entire comment that you pasted when I asked how jews are behind ww1.

The way I responded is the proper good faith way to handle a gish-gallop where someone bombards you with dozens of points and arguments at once.

You just start with the very first claim and examine it. If the first claim is horseshit then you don't need to waste your time on the rest.

I went above and beyond and looked into 2 claims from your gishgallop. Gavrilo Princep and jewish communists.....

Neither of which support your claim that jews as a race or ideology are behind anything.

If the first 2 you started with don't support your argument then I don't need to waste my time on the rest...

Just as you did not find it necessary to waste your own time writing that comment, I did not find it necessary to waste my time dissecting it.

Why does it matter if I wrote it?

Because I asked a direct question and what you pasted did not answer it..

I asked how the jews were behind ww1... Pretty fucking simple question.

And it turns out jews are behind it because of guilt by association....

Jews are guilty of being behind ww1 via their associate with Gavrilo Princep, who is a jew....

Top teir reasoning.

Why does it matter if I wrote it? Besides, didn't you notice the quote format there? When you were reading it, didn't it strike you as a text from a book and not a hastily written comment?

Honestly, I think you're stupid and lazy and don't have any arguments of your own.

You will spam me with irrelevant walls of text you didn't even write, and then act like you shouldn't have to defend or justify anything said in it because they aren't your words. Yet you're still perfectly comfortable presenting these words as supporting evidence for your argument. You just don't want to defend them.

This is dishonesty and bad faith all the way.

And this is exactly why I disregard people when they start blaming everything on jews.... Because every time I've made an effort to get to the bottom of why they think that, I find out every single time they are not capable of making a good faith argument for their position.

Why did I bother reading your first comment in this non-sense debate when you admit you didn't even write it?

"White people" is not an ethnic, religious or cultural group - it's a race

Ohh you don't like the phrase "white people"?

What if I said any other race?

Would it have changed my point at all? No.... It's still the same exact point and it's still just as valid.

It only becomes a jewish bank when jews are involved, else it's just a bank no matter who else is running it. This is the same rule you've applied to conspiracies, it's a jewish conspiracy if there are jews involved.

And this rule is what allows you to pretend that all these separate historical events are all connected somehow.... And of course the connection is jews.

And that's stupid because if we applied that standard consistently to all groups the undeniable conclusion would have to be that white people and white financial interests are controlling history far more than the jews.

I pasted a chapter of a book about WWI and it logically starts with the assassination of Franz Joseph.

Well that explains why what I read contained absolutely no relevant answers to my question... Because it wasn't written in response to my question at all, and instead you just lazily grabbed some random ass text tangentially related to the topic, written by someone who agrees with you, and who's main argument was to imply guilt by association.

So let's just be clear here.... If you can not even take the time to write your own responses then you are in no position to chide me for not fully responding to each and every point written in them.

That is actually incredibly dishonest and bad faith.

A bank run by jews maybe?

Ok.... I think I get it now.

If white people run a bank, it's just a bank. But when jews run a bank it's a "jewish bank".

Kind of like how when Italians have a criminal organization with 100% Italian members, it's just a conspiracy.

Yet when bolsheviks have 90% jewish membership (citation needed) it becomes a "jewish conspiracy".

So I guess the rule is that jews seem to imprint their race onto anything they are involved with and those things become jewish as a result.

And that is the basis of claiming jews are behind 400 years of historical events, wars, conspiracies, and political changes. Some jews were involved at some point and imprinted their race onto all of those events.

It's literally just based on double standards not applied to any other race.

I addressed that already. I posted a couple of paragraphs, but you decided to reduce it all to the first statement, taking it out of the context of the whole and ignoring the rest and thus strawmaning the argument

You're supposed to open with your strongest arguments, and Gavrilo Princep and Leon Trotsky being jewish was your opening argument for why WW1 was a jewish conspiracy.

Now making you actually back that up is somehow a strawman? You shouldn't have said it if you didn't wanna justify it's relevancy.

90% of the bolsheviks were jewish and were financed by jewish banks

So far I've spent 3 days trying to get you to define what makes a "jewish conspiracy" and you haven't. So forgive me I'm skeptical as to what makes a bank a "jewish bank".

No. The mafia does not hold a nationalistic agenda - as I said they are a criminal secret society originating from Italy

Then why bring up serbian nationalism and communism as jewish conspiracies when neither of those hold a nationalistic agenda for jews?

And as I said before, Zionism is not a conspiracy. Neither was Serbian nationalism or communism for that matter.

So what exactly is the standard for being a "jewish conspiracy" and how does Serbian nationalism and communism fit that standard?

As for Trotsky, it is definitely significant that he was jewish considering 90% of the bolsheviks were jewish

And yet the membership of the mafia is 100% Italian and you just told me that doesn't count as an "Italian conspiracy"....

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

I'm sure I did in my initial comment. You wanted me to provide evidence for that claim, remember?

Here was your claim though... "That jewish financial and zionist interests were behind much of what transpired throughout modern history (1600's onwards)"

But when asked for specifics to support your claim you brought up that Gavrilo Princep was a jew, Leon Trotsky was a jew, and mentioned zionism.

Do you see the problem there?

You presented three separate and distinct ideologies (Serbian Nationalism, Communism, and Zionism) as if they are connected parts of a greater whole.

And you're acting like it supports your claim of jews controlling history simply because some jews were adherents to each of those ideologies.

Nothing you have presented so far has supported the idea of there being a jewish conspiracy to lie and reshape 400+ years of history for their own ends.

Zionism IS the conspiracy

Zionism is not a conspiracy... People have conspired in favor of it, but it has always been public knowledge and argued for in the open, which means zionism itself is not a conspiracy.

I'd say zionism is not just about the establishment of the state of Israel. It's about the establishment of a jewish kingdom that would rule over the world

I've never heard them say that.... And I don't think Gavrilo Princep or Leon Trotsky being a jew supports that claim.

Ok.... I got one question I think it's really important for you to answer as it will shed light on some philosophical differences we might have.

Is it accurate and fair to describe the mafia as "An Italian conspiracy to rule New York"? Why or why not?

"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.

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.

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?

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 it's curious that your comment simultaneously makes a claim without elaborating on what that claim is.

Isn't it curious that a mere hundred years ago this was common knowledge

What exactly was common knowledge?

"The Jews are responsible for everything bad in the world...Also anyone anyone who says or does something I don't like is a Jew."