[N.B. Forrest]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

Jones really doesn't argue. He explains the catholic position and differentiates it from the Nazi position. Jones is actually fairly leftist. Nazism = biological essentialism. If catholics can convert one in a million jews, that proves they could convert the rest, and their position is right, and blood-biology is wrong. I find Jones's approach odd. He does not anticipate and answer obvious counter arguments or objections, he simply asserts. I don't know if that is his way or the catholic way generally. He's essentially betting that people will accept his conclusion following from his data (history), and as I say, I don't think they will. No matter his intent, he and his evidence prove the racial case: jews can't change. And one in a thousand conversions proves nothing except outliers exist. Which no racialist denies. Essentially, Jones can only argue by misconstruing racialism, creating a strawman. Race is rough but real, it's not the only thing going, it's just a lot more important than catholicism or goy-leftism acknowledges. I say again: Jones's evidence does not lead to Jones's conclusions. And I believe most readers will see it that way.

Does he present a lot of new historical facts about the jew that we don't already know? Or at least put them forth in a particularly damning fashion? Why do you think he's written the greatest book about the kikes ever (and which one is that, since he's written a couple)?