Chatting With a Jew-Obsessive in 2016

Going through my old Facebook files, I came across this rather typical chat with a Jew obsessive. The person is a relatively well-known figure on the fringes of British nationalism, but there's no need to put his name out there. It's not that I care about "doxxing" him or not, it's just that my main interest here is to show an argumentation style.

The chat, which was all typed, took place between the 1st and 2nd of December 2016. The starting point was a picture I posted of the new Treasury Secretary's wife.

ME: Why Trump is thinking of appointing Steven Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary. He's paired up with a hot blonde.

JO: Steve Mnuchin is a Jew though isn't he? ... And worked for Goldman Sachs, didn't he? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Mnuchin#Early_life

ME: It's unrealistic to expect no Jews at all in financial appointments, but Trump should be judged on how much he manages to dial Jewish over-representation back.

JO: To expect a man, four of whose five children are either married to or dating Jews, to dial back Jewish over-representation, would appear to be somewhat over optimistic.

ME: Barron will stay pure!

JO: The odds are stacked against it however, as the Trumps have a history of being philo-semitic

ME: A Jew who is happy to "blend his or her essence" with a Goyim Trump has a less than total commitment to Jewish ethnocentrism.

JO: Unless of course their Jewishness is not based upon race, but based upon membership of an hereditary masonic community.

ME: I prefer to think their Jewishness is based upon their affinity for chicken soup and stand-up comedy...

JO: It's no[t] how you view their Jewishness that counts however, it's how they view it.

ME: My view of their Jewishness includes how they view their Jewishness so checkmate!

JO: However, your view of their Jewishness appears not to understand the nature of Jewishness and therefore your view on this occasion is invalid, and in need of some serious rethinking.

ME: My view of their Jewishness also includes how others appear to view my apparent view of their Jewishness, so checkmate again.

JO: However, your view of others views of your view of Jewishness is distinctly smelly and someone should wipe a bogey on your shirt!

ME: Now, you've just gone and soiled your incontinence pants, which is a pity, [name deleted], as I've always liked you despite your flinty nature.

JO: No, not me, I only wear incontinents pants when I go abroad. You won't catch me knapping with your jibes about my flinty nature!

As you can see, the key point for the Jew obsessive is to always protect his theory that Jewishness represents some kind of undilutable "essence of evil." In doing so he will frequently back over the recently discarded corpses of his previous arguments to get to his new arguments -- see how he rapidly, and without any apparent shame, flips from a "blood" argument to a "membership of a masonic community" argument for what Jewishness supposedly means. Also, note how he switches from an attempted "evidence-based" approach to an "arcane knowledge of secret Jewish intentions" approach:

"It's not how you view their Jewishness that counts however, it's how they view it."

The irony here is that he would have to be a Jew himself to make that work.