I'm not sure what you're responding to specifically, but I assume it is something regarding conspiracy theories, of which I respond to many a day.

Let me explain my position more fully and perhaps you will understand where I'm coming from.

Jews are unique with regard to conspiracy theories. There is not another ethnic group of people on Earth around whom more conspiracy theories have specifically focused. For example, the fraudulent "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," which was proven fraudulent nearly 90 years ago but is still touted today as "truth," charged Jews with various crimes and with attempting to plan world domination. These theories proceed from the assumption that Jews act as a more or less unified group with at least some type of central coordination or direction. "The Jews own the banks" or "the Jews control Hollywood" are statements that play directly into this cultural viewpoint. There are still many people who believe in these theories today despite the fact that they were debunked decades ago.

No other religious or cultural group has this perceived identity. Example: at least three Presidents of the United States--Van Buren, T. Roosevelt and F.D. Roosevelt--have been of largely Dutch ancestry. But because there's no culturally accepted theory that "the Dutch control everything!" if you say, "Three of our presidents, two of whom are ranked as our most popular, were DUTCH!" people will scratch their heads and say, "Ok, yeah, so what?" Same thing as if you say, "Pieter Van Der Luyden is the CEO of Citibank and he's Dutch!" it is totally meaningless even if it's factually true. People will go, "Huh? OK, what's your point?"

But if you say, "Jonas Goldberg is the CEO of Citibank and he's a JEW!" everybody will understand exactly what you mean--that, even if this example is literally true, you are playing into the "Jews own the world" stereotype that everybody understands. If Van Der Luyden is the CEO of Citibank and you point out that he's Dutch, there's absolutely no point to it. If Goldberg is the CEO of Citibank and you point out that he's a Jew, everybody understands what you mean--and there is no reason for pointing it out other than to play into the "Jews own the world!" stereotype.

Furthermore, many modern conspiracy theories are merely re-cloaks of old anti-Semitic ones. Example: David Icke's theory that the world is secretly controlled by beings who are reptilian aliens merely pretending to be human. That theory is a modern 1990s/2000s re-cast of the old "the world is secretly controlled by the Jews" theories that were popular in the 1920s and 30s. Because a theory that posits the Jews own everything is (rightfully) regarded as racist and unacceptable by most people today, the people who still want to push this theory simply change Jews to reptilian aliens, so the theory is more acceptable by today's standards. Many of the people who believe this theory--and, surprisingly, there are many of them--are not overt anti-Semites and are not aware that what they're really doing is pushing an anti-Semitic theory. This is the problem with many conspiracy theorists today. They're pushing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories without even realizing that they're doing it. The "dancing Israelis" claim regarding 9/11 is a prime example.

This is why saying, "Roosevelts were elected President of the United States 6 times between them and they're DUTCH!" is totally different than saying "Goldberg is the CEO of Citibank and he's a JEW!" The former example is meaningless without the cultural context. There is no possible way anyone who points out that we had 3 presidents of Dutch extraction could be communicating any cognizable meaning regarding the power and influence of people of Dutch extraction, at least not without explaining what they mean. It's very different than saying "Goldberg is the CEO of Citibank and he's a JEW!" Whether the person who makes that statement is themselves an overt anti-Semite or not, the fact that they have brought it up is intended to play into anti-Semitic stereotypes. Otherwise the statement would not be made in the first place.

[Originally Muertos' replies were in blue, however that was changed and now Bishop's quotes are in purple]

ok prove to me the following...

The Jews (in my belief it's clearly the far-far-left liberals) don't "own" Hollywood.

The fact that you are even asking this question shows a profound misunderstanding of economic reality. Do you know who "owns" Hollywood? Large corporations, for the most part. Paramount Pictures is owned by Viacom. Columbia's owned by Sony Pictures Entertainment, which also controls MGM. Warner Brothers is owned by Time Warner. Who owns these companies? Their shareholders, which are often other companies--how many shareholders does Sony have? Thousands, probably, and a lot of them are Japanese, not Jewish. Furthermore, your asking this question indicates your belief that Jews somehow act as a unified group with some type of coordination. That's utter nonsense.

That the zionist don't have a hand in the media that is displayed or responsible for the overwhelming bias that you see over there. In reguards to civilwar and terrorism.

Can you prove that they do?

What bias are you referring to? The media's coverage of terrorism? Biased how, exactly?

Which "civilwar" are you referring to? The one that ended in 1865? That's a pretty dead issue. The South lost. Get over it.

Why Bill Cooper can't be debunked like others.

Bill Cooper has been debunked many times. His main theories from his 1991 book Behold a Pale Horse involved UFO conspiracies, JFK assassination, the New World Order and the Apollo moon hoax. Here's one forum discussion that presents and links a number of things about him: http://ufocasebook.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=towers&action=display&num=1190488053

UFO conspiracies? Not a shred of evidence to support it.
JFK? If you want a thorough debunking of all JFK theories, I suggest you read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-History-Assassination-President-Kennedy/dp/0393045250/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274649069&sr=1-1

Cooper's main claim in this regard was that JFK was killed by the limo driver. Why, then, did no eyewitnesses report that, why did the bullets found match Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world, and why is there zero physical evidence to prove Cooper's theory?
New World Order? That's really your main ax to grind, isn't it? Again, not a single shred of evidence to support the existence of this group:

http://www.debunker.com/conspiracy.html
http://www.skepdic.com/illuminati.html
Apollo moon landings a hoax? Ehh, sorry, no:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23Feb_2.htm
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
http://www.skepdic.com/apollo.html

If the "conspiracy" stuff isn't true...then where do these people come up with these ideals? Surely not to just pull them out of there ass, just to make money and scare people.

Um, yeah, actually they do just pull them out of their asses, just to make money and scare people and for other reasons. Alex Jones is certainly making a fine living promoting these theories. Some people really do believe them, or, like David Icke, promote the theories regardless of belief because they want to vilify a specific group (usually Jews) or promote some other political or social agenda. Peter Joseph Merola, for example, promotes conspiracy theories to advance "the Venus Project." Dylan Avery made Loose Change so he could get some notoriety as a filmmaker. Some want to be cult leaders. There are a lot of reasons, but it doesn't make any of these theories more likely to be true.

That the coming 2012 date of doom isn't going to happend.

The world is not going to end in 2012.
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/myth_of_nibiru_and_the_end_of_the_world_in_2012/
http://www.rationalresponders.com/2012_apocalypse_not
http://www.skepdic.com/maya.html
http://astronomyspace.suite101.com/article.cfm/astronomy_fallacies_2012_doomsday_prediction

The overwhelming evidence of our police militarizing themselves to the teeth as documented in various Alex Jones videos and other things on various video sharing sites.

What "overwhelming evidence"? Evidence that police officers carry guns? They've been doing that for a very long time. What's your evidence that police are more "militarized" now than they were 15 years ago? Alex Jones is not a reliable source on anything. You can see a long and ever-evolving list of Alex Jones's ridiculous claims here along with discussion on why he is wrong on each of them: http://leavingalexjonestown.blogspot.com/

How Jay-z, lady gaga and others truly aren't slaves to the devil/illuminati/freemasons.

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding. What on earth would lead you to believe that these entertainers are "slaves" to anyone? Oh, let me guess..."Illuminati symbols" in Lady Gaga videos. Conspiracy theorists love to point out symbols, but they never explain why, if these symbols mean what they claim they mean, these people would advertise these symbols so freely. I mean, even if the Illuminati exists--which clearly it does not, because there's no evidence of it--and if Lady Gaga was a member of it, why would she show her allegiance to this allegedly "secret" group by advertising it in a music video seen by millions of people? Do you not see how unbelievably silly that idea is, and why it simply cannot be true?

[ No reply ]

[ This guy sent a related email to Edward. ]