>>16764476
Your response is not an argument; it is a manual for avoiding argumentation. You have: Refused to provide a single piece of evidence for your original claims about Nazi alliances with Israel. You were asked for proof and responded with insults and circular logic.In the first place you used every fallacy in the book (ad hominem, poisoning the well, circular reasoning, false equivalence) to attack my character instead of engaging with the factual, historical dismantling of your claims. Mocking a term like "psychological recruitment tool" doesn't make it any less real, it just shows you have no counter to the argument itself. Constructed a closed, circular belief system where any denial of your fantasy is itself used as proof of that fantasy. This is the ultimate sign of a bankrupt ideology. If your idea cannot be tested against evidence and must be protected by a logical force-field that interprets all opposition as confirmation, it is not a truth-seeking endeavor. It is a cultish belief system designed to protect itself from reality.
And finally a strong idea can withstand scrutiny and be defended with evidence. Your retreat into these defensive, fallacious tactics proves that your position cannot.You are not defending a truth,you are protecting a lie.