If you don't believe in speaking about certain GROUPS, then you should not be doing it yourself.

I explained myself and said I could have been more clear. Now you are just being defensive and obtuse, mischaracterizing my intent even after I made myself clear. Why?

You don't really even know WHO the "Cabal" members are.

Ergo, you can't possibly know which other groups they do or do not also belong to.

I've actually written a book on who some of them are, and what other groups they belong to, specifically so that people can see the real enemy. So... ya. There is that.

YOU want to push CENSORSHIP.

Completely false.

"Don't talk about THESE people. You are ONLY allowed to talk about THOSE people."

You mistake statements of "we should focus on the real enemy" with actual actions of censorship, which means, active removal of information or ideas, burning books, passing laws to coerce, etc., or promoting any of those actual acts of censorship.

Suggesting what you are suggesting is a categorical error and an outright lie on all possible fronts. It has zero validity whatsoever.

Surely, there must be different levels to the "Cabal." Some are merely foot soldiers who only know things on a "need to know basis."

Absolutely, and all levels should be discussed, but if you talk about any one group (except the top) without also talking about the people that push them to do things and how, you miss essential context that paints a false picture. You are promoting methods of painting a false picture; the very methods pushed by the Cabal to hide behind. I am promoting not doing that.

In every case the actions of the Cabal are ESSENTIAL CONTEXT. Any removal of that context is a victory of the Cabal. Talk about anything you want, but if you don't make sure you include that context, the Cabal, and their methods, remain hidden.

most of them were drafted

Does that absolve them of their actions? In no way does this detract from the case I have made, which was the responsibility inherent in "intent" and "belief" v. "action".

FDR being among them.

FDR was an agent of the Cabal, and perhaps more important, a puppet.

So, I will talk about those types of choices just as much as the "Cabal" and all the evil they do.

Talk about whatever you want man, but if you want to make real change and help people see the real enemy it helps to focus on the real enemy and their actions, rather than use the group that The Cabal set up to act as a shield for them to hide behind.

By not including all the context of the Cabal, you pain a false picture. You commit a "context dropping" fallacy.

We only have generalizations because they TEND to be generally true in a lot of cases -- certainly, a lot more than is true of other races.

Agreed, BUT, if you do not include the context of the propaganda that leads these groups around, and the system that is created to retain compliance and mislead away from the propaganda pushers, then you paint a false picture, the exact one you are intended to paint, as designed by the Cabal.

I am trying to show you how you are doing exactly what the Cabal wants you to do by using these association fallacies, and not including the actions of the Cabal within the discussion.

You attempt to claim that ONLY the "Cabal" (whomever that is, even though you don't know) are worthy of criticism is an attempt at censorship.

I suggest you look up the word "censorship" then look up the word "argument" (presentation of evidence and logic in debate). They are quite different, yet you use them as if they were the same. Not once did I suggest nor even slightly imply you should be stopped from speaking.

By (grossly) redefining a word you seem to be suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to disagree with you... that I shouldn't be allowed to say what I am saying...

Sounds a bit like "hate speech must be censored" to me.

If you don't believe in speaking about certain GROUPS, then you should not be doing it yourself.

I explained myself and said I could have been more clear. Now you are just being defensive and obtuse, mischaracterizing my intent even after I made myself clear. Why?

You don't really even know WHO the "Cabal" members are.

Ergo, you can't possibly know which other groups they do or do not also belong to.

I've actually written a book on who some of them are, and what other groups they belong to, specifically so that people can see the real enemy. So... ya. There is that.

YOU want to push CENSORSHIP.

Completely false.

"Don't talk about THESE people. You are ONLY allowed to talk about THOSE people."

You mistake statements of "we should focus on the real enemy" with actual actions of censorship, which means, active removal of information or ideas, burning books, passing laws to coerce, etc., or promoting any of those actual acts of censorship.

Suggesting what you are suggesting is a categorical error and an outright lie on all possible fronts. It has zero validity whatsoever.

Surely, there must be different levels to the "Cabal." Some are merely foot soldiers who only know things on a "need to know basis."

Absolutely, and all levels should be discussed, but if you talk about any one group (except the top) without also talking about the people that push them to do things and how, you miss essential context that paints a false picture. You are promoting methods of painting a false picture; the very methods pushed by the Cabal to hide behind. I am promoting not doing that.

In every case the actions of the Cabal are ESSENTIAL CONTEXT. Any removal of that context is a victory of the Cabal. Talk about anything you want, but if you don't make sure you include that context, the Cabal, and their methods, remain hidden.

most of them were drafted

Does that absolve them of their actions? In no way does this detract from the case I have made, which was the responsibility inherent in "intent" and "belief" v. "action".

FDR being among them.

FDR was an agent of the Cabal, and perhaps more important, a puppet.

So, I will talk about those types of choices just as much as the "Cabal" and all the evil they do.

Talk about whatever you want man, but if you want to make real change and help people see the real enemy it helps to focus on the real enemy and their actions, rather than use the group that The Cabal set up to act as a shield for them to hide behind.

By not including all the context of the Cabal, you pain a false picture. You commit a "context dropping" fallacy.

We only have generalizations because they TEND to be generally true in a lot of cases -- certainly, a lot more than is true of other races.

Agreed, BUT, if you do not include the context of the propaganda that leads these groups around, and the system that is created to retain compliance and mislead away from the propaganda pushers, then you paint a false picture, the exact one you are intended to paint, as designed by the Cabal.

You attempt to claim that ONLY the "Cabal" (whomever that is, even though you don't know) are worthy of criticism is an attempt at censorship.

I suggest you look up the word "censorship" then look up the word "argument" (presentation of evidence and logic in debate). They are quite different, yet you use them as if they were the same. Not once did I suggest nor even slightly imply you should be stopped from speaking.

By (grossly) redefining a word you seem to be suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to disagree with you... that I shouldn't be allowed to say what I am saying...

Sounds a bit like "hate speech must be censored" to me.

If you don't believe in speaking about certain GROUPS, then you should not be doing it yourself.

I explained myself and said I could have been more clear. Now you are just being defensive and obtuse, mischaracterizing my intent even after I made myself clear. Why?

You don't really even know WHO the "Cabal" members are.

Ergo, you can't possibly know which other groups they do or do not also belong to.

I've actually written a book on who some of them are, and what other groups they belong to, specifically so that people can see the real enemy. So... ya. There is that.

YOU want to push CENSORSHIP.

Completely false.

"Don't talk about THESE people. You are ONLY allowed to talk about THOSE people."

You mistake statements of "we should focus on the real enemy" with actual actions of censorship, which means, active removal of information or ideas, burning books, passing laws to coerce, etc.

Suggesting what you are suggesting is a categorical error and an outright lie on all possible fronts. It has zero validity whatsoever.

Surely, there must be different levels to the "Cabal." Some are merely foot soldiers who only know things on a "need to know basis."

Absolutely, and all levels should be discussed, but if you talk about any one group (except the top) without also talking about the people that push them to do things and how, you miss essential context that paints a false picture. You are promoting methods of painting a false picture; the very methods pushed by the Cabal to hide behind. I am promoting not doing that.

In every case the actions of the Cabal are ESSENTIAL CONTEXT. Any removal of that context is a victory of the Cabal. Talk about anything you want, but if you don't make sure you include that context, the Cabal, and their methods, remain hidden.

most of them were drafted

Does that absolve them of their actions? In no way does this detract from the case I have made, which was the responsibility inherent in "intent" and "belief" v. "action".

FDR being among them.

FDR was an agent of the Cabal, and perhaps more important, a puppet.

So, I will talk about those types of choices just as much as the "Cabal" and all the evil they do.

Talk about whatever you want man, but if you want to make real change and help people see the real enemy it helps to focus on the real enemy and their actions, rather than use the group that The Cabal set up to act as a shield for them to hide behind.

By not including all the context of the Cabal, you pain a false picture. You commit a "context dropping" fallacy.

We only have generalizations because they TEND to be generally true in a lot of cases -- certainly, a lot more than is true of other races.

Agreed, BUT, if you do not include the context of the propaganda that leads these groups around, and the system that is created to retain compliance and mislead away from the propaganda pushers, then you paint a false picture, the exact one you are intended to paint, as designed by the Cabal.

You attempt to claim that ONLY the "Cabal" (whomever that is, even though you don't know) are worthy of criticism is an attempt at censorship.

I suggest you look up the word "censorship" then look up the word "argument" (presentation of evidence and logic in debate). They are quite different, yet you use them as if they were the same. Not once did I suggest nor even slightly imply you should be stopped from speaking.

By (grossly) redefining a word you seem to be suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to disagree with you... that I shouldn't be allowed to say what I am saying...

Sounds a bit like "hate speech must be censored" to me.

If you don't believe in speaking about certain GROUPS, then you should not be doing it yourself.

I explained myself and said I could have been more clear. Now you are just being defensive and obtuse, mischaracterizing my intent even after I made myself clear. Why?

You don't really even know WHO the "Cabal" members are.

Ergo, you can't possibly know which other groups they do or do not also belong to.

I've actually written a book on who some of them are, and what other groups they belong to, specifically so that people can see the real enemy. So... ya. There is that.

YOU want to push CENSORSHIP.

Completely false.

"Don't talk about THESE people. You are ONLY allowed to talk about THOSE people."

You mistake statements of "we should focus on the real enemy" with actual actions of censorship, which means, active removal of information or ideas, burning books, passing laws to coerce, etc.

Suggesting what you are suggesting is a categorical error and an outright lie on all possible fronts. It has zero validity whatsoever.

Surely, there must be different levels to the "Cabal." Some are merely foot soldiers who only know things on a "need to know basis."

Absolutely, and all levels should be discussed, but if you talk about any one group (except the top) without also talking about the people that push them to do things and how, you miss essential context that paints a false picture. You are promoting methods of painting a false picture; the very methods pushed by the Cabal to hide behind. I am promoting not doing that.

In every case the actions of the Cabal are ESSENTIAL CONTEXT. Any removal of that context is a victory of the Cabal. Talk about anything you want, but if you don't make sure you include that context, the Cabal, and their methods, remain hidden.

most of them were drafted

Does that absolve them of their actions? In no way does this detract from the case I have made, which was the responsibility inherent in "intent" and "belief" v. "action".

FDR being among them.

FDR was an agent of the Cabal, and perhaps more important, a puppet.

So, I will talk about those types of choices just as much as the "Cabal" and all the evil they do.

Talk about whatever you want man, but if you want to make real change and help people see the real enemy it helps to focus on the real enemy and their actions, rather than use the group that The Cabal set up to act as a shield for them to hide behind.

By not including all the context of the Cabal, you pain a false picture. You commit a "context dropping" fallacy.

We only have generalizations because they TEND to be generally true in a lot of cases -- certainly, a lot more than is true of other races.

Agreed, BUT, if you do not include the context of the propaganda that leads these groups around, and the system that is created to retain compliance and mislead away from the propaganda pushers, then you paint a false picture, the exact one you are intended to paint, as designed by the Cabal.

You attempt to claim that ONLY the "Cabal" (whomever that is, even though you don't know) are worthy of criticism is an attempt at censorship.

I suggest you look up the word "censorship" then look up the word "argument" (presentation of evidence and logic in debate). They are quite different, yet you use them as if they were the same. Not once did I suggest you should be stopped from speaking.

By (grossly) redefining a word you seem to be suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to disagree with you... that I shouldn't be allowed to say what I am saying...

Sounds a bit like "hate speech must be censored" to me.

If you don't believe in speaking about certain GROUPS, then you should not be doing it yourself.

I explained myself and said I could have been more clear. Now you are just being defensive and obtuse, mischaracterizing my intent even after I made myself clear. Why?

You don't really even know WHO the "Cabal" members are.

Ergo, you can't possibly know which other groups they do or do not also belong to.

I've actually written a book on who some of them are, and what other groups they belong to, specifically so that people can see the real enemy. So... ya. There is that.

YOU want to push CENSORSHIP.

Completely false.

"Don't talk about THESE people. You are ONLY allowed to talk about THOSE people."

You mistake statements of "we should focus on the real enemy" with actual actions of censorship, which means, active removal of information or ideas, burning books, passing laws to coerce, etc.

Suggesting what you are suggesting is a categorical error and an outright lie on all possible fronts. It has zero validity whatsoever.

Surely, there must be different levels to the "Cabal." Some are merely foot soldiers who only know things on a "need to know basis."

Absolutely, and all levels should be discussed, but if you talk about any one group (except the top) without also talking about the people that push them to do things and how, you miss essential context that paints a false picture. You are promoting methods of painting a false picture; the very methods pushed by the Cabal to hide behind. I am promoting not doing that.

In every case the actions of the Cabal are ESSENTIAL CONTEXT. Any removal of that context is a victory of the Cabal. Talk about anything you want, but if you don't make sure you include that context, the Cabal, and their methods, remain hidden.

most of them were drafted

Does that absolve them of their actions? In no way does this detract from the case I have made, which was the responsibility inherent in "intent" and "belief" v. "action".

FDR being among them.

FDR was an agent of the Cabal, and perhaps more important, a puppet.

So, I will talk about those types of choices just as much as the "Cabal" and all the evil they do.

Talk about whatever you want man, but if you want to make real change and help people see the real enemy it helps to focus on the real enemy and their actions, rather than use the group that The Cabal set up to act as a shield for them to hide behind.

By not including all the context of the Cabal, you pain a false picture. You commit a "context dropping" fallacy.

We only have generalizations because they TEND to be generally true in a lot of cases -- certainly, a lot more than is true of other races.

Agreed, BUT, if you do not include the context of the propaganda that leads these groups around, and the system that is created to retain compliance and mislead away from the propaganda pushers, then you paint a false picture, the exact one you are intended to paint, as designed by the Cabal.

You attempt to claim that ONLY the "Cabal" (whomever that is, even though you don't know) are worthy of criticism is an attempt at censorship.

I suggest you look up the word "censorship" then look up the word "argument" (presentation of evidence and logic in debate). They are quite different, yet you use them as if they were the same.

By (grossly) redefining a word you seem to be suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to disagree with you... that I shouldn't be allowed to say what I am saying...

Sounds a bit like "hate speech must be censored" to me.