Debunk It

[Anonymous No.16596190]

Can you debunk this?
Hardmode: no muh holocaust copouts.

[Anonymous No.16596207]

>>16596190
Debunk what?

[Anonymous No.16596218]

>>16596207
Mein kampf dumbass

[Anonymous No.16596222]

>>16596218
What is there to be debunked retard

[Anonymous No.16596231]

>>16596222
Kys

[Anonymous No.16596248]

>A great movement among many of them, especially in Vienna, sharply emphasized the special character of Jewry as a separate people: Zionism.
Only some of the Jews approved of this movement, and while the great majority condemned and even rejected the very idea, the appearance of the movement melted away in an evil fog of excuses, I could even say lies. So-called liberal Jewry rejected the Zionists as Jews who were impractical and, perhaps dangerous in their public adherence to Judaism. It made no difference; they were all still Jews. There was no real separation and they maintained their internal solidarity.

>It made no difference; they were all still Jews. There was no real separation and they maintained their internal solidarity.

A Muslim or a Christian declares the religion they adhere to but at home they do not study the religion nor do they practice it. Are they then truly of that religion or just wannabes?

We should then avoid automatically applying this thriving disease named assumptions; that every person that identifies with a religion actually practice it. You can argue it is the responsibility of the person to know what the religion entails, but the blame also falls onto the person arrogantly trusting that the religion follower has done his diligence. An overestimate of the intelligence of the lazy masses.

With context I can still somewhat respect his line of thinking.

[Anonymous No.16596265]

>>16596248
t. end of chapter 2

In the sag translation he claims the two subdivisions are the same at their core, my point is there is a third group: the ignorant.

[Anonymous No.16596266]

>>16596248
>that every person that identifies with a religion actually practice it.
that's not an underlying assumption to literally anything anyone has ever said. It's literally just a strawman for idiots.
>BUT NOT ALL?!?!?!
Okay? That has nothing to do with jewish power as an international ethnoreligious cartel that apparently you know nothing about.

[Anonymous No.16596271]

>>16596190
Hitler debunked himself while trying to debunk jews

[Anonymous No.16596275]

>>16596271
DEBUNKERED XDDDDD

[Anonymous No.16596307]

>>16596266
If you want to continue this transaction of ideas then adhere to pic.

My instincts tell me you think I am defending the zionist international cartel. I am not.

>that's not an underlying assumption to literally anything anyone has ever said. It's literally just a strawman

His argument is they're all the same at their core VS. mine which is that some say they are jewish but they have no clue what that means or demands.

>Okay? That has nothing to do with jewish power
It has everything to do with how he executed his plan which was the underlying central idea, the plan in theory vs the plans future interpretation - future slander (misconstructions).

[Anonymous No.16596318]

>>16596307
**Which was my central original argument

[Anonymous No.16596320]

>>16596307
>His argument is they're all the same at their core VS. mine which is that some say they are jewish but they have no clue what that means or demands.
It's just not an important distinction. It's enough of them to where there's a clear in-group preference playing out on a broader social context, so what exactly is it that you're pointing out that changes the fact of jewish power?