To explicate a little further the point I made in my article about Joe Rogan and the Jews: I noted that the Bible and The Merchant of Venice both condemn the Jews for legalistic hypocrisy—they formulate strict rules and then exploit loopholes within them. This is not unique to the Jews, of course—it is also very characteristic among journalists, bureaucrats, and, of course, lawyers (a field in which the Jews excel). I could use my own article to exemplify the trend—imagine for a moment it went viral and was held as “anti-Semitic” and someone went through it with a fine tooth comb…
Now I related how a Jewish boarding school escaped Sabbath regulations by constructing a small moat around the school so as to be technically a fortified compound exempt from Sabbath rules—so there could be Saturday lessons, as with Gentile boarding schools. At first I put down “a small wall” then I changed it to a ditch because I had misremembered—the substantial point remains, a token structure was built to exploit a loophole in law; and that token structure was not a true fortified compound, not by far.
A hostile journalist would take that fact and—especially if I had misremembered the ditch, if it was some other token fortification—would chew into the article as “conspiracy theory” or “racist distortion” on the grounds the fact was not exactly the fact, even if it were true in substance. Journalists do this all the time and it is practically all journalism is. It is genuine “Pharisee” behaviour. An odd comment will be taken and used to suggest a person agrees with a point when they had made a sarcastic comment underneath. The same could apply to my article—nothing would change in the substance but through concentration on a technical loophole the entire point could invalidated (and that, in itself, proves the entire point in the article). It’s about whether you are prepared to be willing, not fixed.