Ok, time to draw this to a close.
Can I remind you that this conversation started because you criticised a post of mine? I would not dream of starting an argument with you on your turf, but when attacked I feel entitled to respond. The article I posted identifies clear links between the behaviour of early American settlers and colonial authorities in the 19th & early 20th century and the origins of Nazi ideology, but that’s in the realms of thought & ideas so won’t count as “history” to you. That’s what my original post was about, and I really don’t think you’ve been able to counter it. Snide remarks about newspapers you don’t like do not count as rebuttal.
You have consistently posted arguments disproving things I didn’t say or imply, and imputed opinions to me that I don’t hold — mostly on the basis that “people like you always say….”. You have then found it extremely easy to demolish arguments that I never made.
You have taken small sections out of context, and misinterpreted them.
You have introduced red herrings, and then criticised me for not answering them. At the same time, you have decided that some of my arguments are off-topic, and refused to engage with them.
Thus your undoubted knowledge of history and skills as a debater have been used not to facilitate discussion but to win points, because, of course, points mean prizes.
It has been a fascinating expert tour through a rather unpleasant methodology that, while producing internally consistent results, has very little chance of influencing anyone who is not already convinced you’re right. It is not an effective means of communication across intellectual boundaries or political differences; it has too little empathetic content — it offers no way in for the outsider except abject surrender. I appreciate that that may be of little concern to you but as it happens it’s my current area of study, so thank-you for spending so much time with me.