Anonymous #2 1d

No, they don’t?

2

Anonymous #3 1d

It 100% is, look at Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes, etc.

1

Anonymous #4 1d

None of those people are mainstream. They’re fringe right-wing conspiracy theorists. If you’re active in politics you’ve heard of them, but the average person has not.

10

Anonymous #4 1d

yeah we totally wouldn’t just be nuked into the next stone age if we refused to do their bidding

-1

Anonymous #1 1d

Yeah I don’t think that would necessarily happen

0

Anonymous #4 1d

it’s been pretty explicitly said they would nuke us if they fell, irregardless if we were the ones to cause their downfall or not. we have a stake in ensuring their continued existence, and our entire approach to foreign interactions has changed since the start of them totally not having nukes. this is in reference to the French totally not just handing them nukes in the 50s bc they thought they were doing a good thing, and the totally subtle proclamations of the “Sampson Option” following

0

Anonymous #1 1d

Samson Option is for if it’s physical existence was threatened by invading forces, not if we cut off diplomatic support

1

Anonymous #4 1d

and in case you’re unaware, Israel first didn’t get access to nukes in the 50s from the French, which totally doesn’t line up with our abrupt change in foreign policy and the Korean war, which totally didn’t involve us and the French going out of our way to be aggressive against aggressive towards a foreign country but ig if you want. you could argue “communism” as the reason

-1

Anonymous #1 1d

lol, we never had aggressive foreign policy before the Korean War? What about the Spanish American war lmfao

1

Anonymous #4 1d

are you under the impression its physical existence wouldn’t be threatened if they ever gave a hint of instability? we took a pretty staunch isolationist stance going into the 20th century. we very much did not get involved in either WW until we got added to the death toll charts while doing nothing. we did not have an involved foreign policy. people say the Lusitania was the reason we got involved WWI and it took a full 2 years following that incident before we did a single thing

-1

Anonymous #1 1d

So you think our foreign policy changed because Jews run our government? I forgot I’m trying to have a good faith argument with a Neo-Nazi lol, that’s my mistake

0

Anonymous #4 1d

i forgot i’m trying to have a good faith conversation with someone referring to me as a neo nazi and denying the existence of the sun simply because it is night. good luck, kid.

-1

Anonymous #1 1d

Dawg, you think Jews control the U.S. government? How is that not neo-Nazism by definition?

1

Anonymous #4 1d

so idk if you’ve ever heard what the nazis believed in, or what they did, but they weren’t particularly huge on anyone of jewish faith holding office to say the least. personally, i’m rather indifferent to that idea as a whole. being aware of a power dynamic doesn’t attach a connotation to it one way or the other.

-1

Anonymous #1 1d

But the idea that Jews “control” is antisemitic tho bc that’s just not true

5

Anonymous #4 1d

sure it’s not 🤷🏽‍♂️

-1

Anonymous #1 1d

Brother you’re falling for centuries-old propaganda

8