Attack of the Straw Man
(Note: for some reason Minds blog is refusing to display BitChute videos, as a videos. So it exists as a hyperlink instead. Currently YouTube has Condell's original video in naughty mode [restricted], so I'll be posting a YouTube Mirror. I am however providing the link to Condell's BitChute location, so you can confirm the YouTube mirror is identical to the original video. I'm using the YouTube mirror so it displays as a video in this minds blog. This way I can't be accused of pulling any tricks, I am responding to the original video and have provided the original as posted on BitChute by Mr Condell after his original was censored on YouTube.)
BitChute location posted by Mr Condell himself:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Z8Hu2-uZCE4/
YouTube Mirror of Mr Condell's video:
So this video's been popping up a bit as of late. Watch if you would like: the gentleman in question is pulling a "dindunuffin" narrative while arguing against a straw man. Doesn't go into any details, doesn't refute specific arguments, doesn't refute assemblages of evidence.
The one time, and I do mean one example and one example only, that he brings up a specific piece of video evidence he doesn't actually refute the argument that singular piece of evidence is part of: he only discounts that one piece of evidence. Rather than going into the argument that X number of people are jews and they hold R number of top positions with the EU and all universally advocate for open borders and the bringing in of migrants.
No, doesn't go into details about that, of course not. Doesn't investigate all of those persons involved to exclaim Yes, these are the movers and shakers of open borders advocacy, but these people aren't Jews." That would rely on empirical evidence to confront an argument: and unfortunately - he wouldn't be able to make that claim because many of the most powerful, most influential, most well funded lobbyists and advocates for open borders policies are in fact Jews. People like George Sorors and Angela Merkel. So instead, he takes just one example out of the list - and claims she's an outlier: WITHOUT mentioning any of the other accompanying people who are part of the list.
That, is the only time, in this entire video: that the gentleman actually addresses any evidence, of any kind, at all. So, again, watch the video if you care to do so - it's a straw man argument and nothing but. The gentleman's argument is, that all anti jew materials are fake and false and it's all racism and nothing but racism. That is his argument, as he has presented it, and unlike him who puts out a strawman video where he actually links to or addresses no argumentation with citation to same: I'm responding while providing you his video. So you can see me directly respond TO the original source, rather than just presenting a caricature (strawman) of the argument that I can confronting.
It doesn't help out jews when jews pretend to be white while putting out anti-white propaganda. That is not a good way to stem the tide of antisemitism.
https://www.minds.com/blog/view/889805827764563968
It also doesn't help jews, as a whole, when whites can easily find out that the whole "white privilege" shtick is mainly fabricated anti-white racism being produced and pushed through academia by jews.
It also doesn't improve white people's opinions of Jews when if a white person says "Jews are in control of the media, Hollywood and academia, and are systematically putting out anti-white propaganda" will get a white person labeled "antisemitic", but Jews when talking among themselves will actively claim that America is a "Jewish Experiment".
Do you think, possibly, a person may in fact, develop a negative opinion of Jews: based purely, and only, on their observations of jews? Could their opinion POSSIBLY be the result of their direct observations of jewish behavior, not of simply racism? Is that a possibility?
-I present the original citation of the argument which I am confronting: something he didn't do.
-The audience gets to see what my oppositions argument actually is: and they can directly tell whether or not I am fighting my own strawman because they actually GET TO SEE if I have misrepresented my opposition: something he didn't do.
-I am attacking both the premise of my opposition's argument and the tactics employed with examination and factual evidence rather than assertions absent of evidence: something he didn't do.
I have provided my examination of this video, complete with analysis of the video and evidence to the contrary of the premise under which his argument operates. More over, unlike him: I actually provided the audience with the opposition's own video so that the audience can certify that I have not misrepresented my opposition.
This video from Mr Condell is verifiably nothing but a strawman attack in support of a dindunuffin narrative. He is literally, non-figuratively, ignoring all evidence, all argumentation and strawmaning it as "das wacist."
That is what this video amounts to. Look at the title for example: "O come all ye Jew haters" - you can't possibly be telling the truth when you point out that the people involving in political movement Q responsible for pushing policies R happen to be group S, you can't possibly be forming judgements based on observable, factual, verifiable reality: u juth wacist.
The entire video boils down to "das wacist."
Again, unlike my opposition: I actually provide the video - to prove it. I'm not attacking a strawman, or misrepresenting my opposition's argument. I'm attacking it directly - and providing you, the audience, with the evidence of exactly what my opposition's argument was. Unlike the strawman attack which Mr Condell pulled.
Also, no, Mr Condell, I'm not going to call you a "race traitor" - I'm going to call you what the Chinese call you. I'm going to call you "Baizuo".