Having lurked in this forum for the past week, there are 3 problems that I think make it irrelevant as an ideology.
One: Not all reference material is created equal. The standard response to my "Have you read Levi/Hilberg/Arendt/Sereny?" type material, is always "Have you read Cole/Revisionist" authors.
Well, maybe I should do, but then how can one compare a book which has won a dozen international awards, sold half a million copies, and been written by someone with a PhD from the Sorbonne, with a book which has sold a thousand copies and been ignored by the press?
Two: Racism. Recently on RF it was stated that Jews choose their partners based on their desire to continue their gene pool. Much of the tone of RF is pure race hatred - moderated about 1% upwards into "science." To the point where phrases like "judeo-supremacist" replace "insert racist insult".
Three: Avoiding the Big Question. Revisions have amazing references, and can quote a dozen sources on the chemical make-up of walls and the size and capacity of ovens. I can't argue with that stuff - I'm not an engineer or chemist, but either way I don't care. Examining details does not influence the bigger picture.
The Big Question is - 48,000 Jews left Kazimierz, and 2,000 came back. Or 146,000 left Budapest, and 3,000 came back. We can go through nation by nation, city by city, and the numbers add up.
Where did they go?
Relevance of Revisionism
Moderator: Moderator
Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Relevance of Revisionism
you are invited to offer your general views on revisionism
I'm not sure what the point is here; are you suggesting that hype and sales is a measure of the worth of a study? Surely not. The only assessment of any worth is to compare how the evidence is handled. The value of any scientific study is in its explanatory power: an explanation is better which explains more or all of the evidence and which leaves less questions behind. Also, a study is wortheless if it resorts to dishonesty and falsification. Compare a holocosters treatment of Kurt Gerstein's testimony with that of a Revisionist's. It will become immediately obvious that the holocosters are not being honest: c.f the now infamous Leon Poliakov-Martin Gilbert falsification of Gerstein's statement see How Historian Gilbert Falsifies and Invents by Robert Faurisson http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=742#742stevenson wrote:Well, maybe I should do, but then how can one compare a book which has won a dozen international awards, sold half a million copies, and been written by someone with a PhD from the Sorbonne, with a book which has sold a thousand copies and been ignored by the press?
Don't shoot the messenger. Jewsih ethnosupremacism was not invented by Revisionists!Two: Racism. Recently on RF it was stated that Jews choose their partners based on their desire to continue their gene pool. Much of the tone of RF is pure race hatred - moderated about 1% upwards into "science." To the point where phrases like "judeo-supremacist" replace "insert racist insult".
I'm afraid it most certainly does. If there were no homocidal gas chambers then there was no Holocaust. This is what we have grown up with - Holocaust = Auschwitz = gas chambers.Three: Avoiding the Big Question. Revisions have amazing references, and can quote a dozen sources on the chemical make-up of walls and the size and capacity of ovens. I can't argue with that stuff - I'm not an engineer or chemist, but either way I don't care. Examining details does not influence the bigger picture.
Why don't you do that so? Of course you must provide sources for such information.The Big Question is - 48,000 Jews left Kazimierz, and 2,000 came back. Or 146,000 left Budapest, and 3,000 came back. We can go through nation by nation, city by city, and the numbers add up.
The short answer: Jews went where Jews are.Where did they go?
stevenson wrote:One: Not all reference material is created equal. The standard response to my "Have you read Levi/Hilberg/Arendt/Sereny?" type material, is always "Have you read Cole/Revisionist" authors.
Well, my answer would have been "What do you find convincing with Levi/Hilberg/Arendt or Sereny?"
stevenson wrote:Three: Avoiding the Big Question. Revisions have amazing references, and can quote a dozen sources on the chemical make-up of walls and the size and capacity of ovens. I can't argue with that stuff - I'm not an engineer or chemist, but either way I don't care. Examining details does not influence the bigger picture.
Ya, right. Imagine a police officer saying "Examining the details of this case does not influence the bigger picture.", or picture this, in court where technical details are involved, the judge simply says "Why bother with these details? We have four eyewitnesses, they saw the cat transform into a dog." Usually you will be sent to jail without a chance to defend your position, since denying this historical event need laws for it's protection.
-haldan
Last edited by Haldan on Mon May 30, 2005 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<?php if ($Holocaust == false ) {deny_repeatedly(); } else { investigate(); } ?>
Homage to Catalin Haldan
Homage to Catalin Haldan
Stevenson:
You seem to personify 'cutzpah' and 'projection'.
It takes brass to accuse Revisionists of what is inherent in judeo-supremacist/Zionist indoctrination.
The source materials are indeed not equal. Revisionist can and have utterly undressed your writers.
Don't like those statements? Then I personally challenge you to debate, point by point, your beliefs in the 'holocau$t' as alleged. It's really simple, you either can debate and defend your beliefs, or you cannot, And that has relevance. We love debate, wanna have a go?
Talk or walk.
- Hannover
You seem to personify 'cutzpah' and 'projection'.
It takes brass to accuse Revisionists of what is inherent in judeo-supremacist/Zionist indoctrination.
The source materials are indeed not equal. Revisionist can and have utterly undressed your writers.
Don't like those statements? Then I personally challenge you to debate, point by point, your beliefs in the 'holocau$t' as alleged. It's really simple, you either can debate and defend your beliefs, or you cannot, And that has relevance. We love debate, wanna have a go?
Talk or walk.
- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.
Hannover wrote:Don't like those statements? Then I personally challenge you to debate, point by point, your beliefs in the 'holocau$t' as alleged. It's really simple, you either can debate and defend your beliefs, or you cannot, And that has relevance. We love debate, wanna have a go?
Talk or walk.
Hannover I am willing to engage in debate with you and other users but I need assurances from moderators that my posts will not be deleted as long as I abide the rules (i.e. no insults/abuse). I posted a new topic at the same time as this one, entitled "Figures" which was deleted despite it containing no abuse. I have reposted it and want to be assured it will not be deleted before spending more time engaging respected users such as you and others in debate.
you are invited to offer your general views on revisionism
-
Richard Perle
- Valuable asset
- Posts: 647
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:45 am
The moderators are tough on rule-breaking. Most of us have had posts deleted, including revisionists and including myself. Your thread probably covered too many issues and the mods don't like that. They certainly aren't afraid of your questions as you'll find the same question as yours dealt with many times before.
stevenson wrote: One: Not all reference material is created equal. The standard response to my "Have you read Levi/Hilberg/Arendt/Sereny?" type material, is always "Have you read Cole/Revisionist" authors.
Well, maybe I should do, but then how can one compare a book which has won a dozen international awards, sold half a million copies, and been written by someone with a PhD from the Sorbonne, with a book which has sold a thousand copies and been ignored by the press?
And how indeed! Writing a pro Holocaust book almost certainly will bring positive response, honors etc. This book can freely be purchased from Amazon.com or borrowed from any public library.
Writing a book skeptical of some of the Holocaust story will result in banning/burning the book and penalizing/imprisoning the author.
Two: Racism. Recently on RF it was stated that Jews choose their partners based on their desire to continue their gene pool. Much of the tone of RF is pure race hatred - moderated about 1% upwards into "science." To the point where phrases like "judeo-supremacist" replace "insert racist insult".
Is it not true then that Deborah Lipstadt advises that Jews only marry Jews? (Like Aryans should only marry Aryans, as suggested by the Nazis?)
Three: Avoiding the Big Question. Revisions have amazing references, and can quote a dozen sources on the chemical make-up of walls and the size and capacity of ovens. I can't argue with that stuff - I'm not an engineer or chemist, but either way I don't care. Examining details does not influence the bigger picture.
The Big Question is - 48,000 Jews left Kazimierz, and 2,000 came back. Or 146,000 left Budapest, and 3,000 came back. We can go through nation by nation, city by city, and the numbers add up.
Where did they go?
A revisionist is skeptical about the Holocaust claim, that there was an official government plan to exterminate all Jews under German control, mostly with poison gas. The revisionist would base his skepticism strictly on technical and scientific laws and facts, and that the documentation of such a final solution is missing.
The planned extermination mostly with gas would make the crime unique in the Jew’s eyes. And their new Holocaust religion is based on this uniqueness.
If I would say, that all these missing Jews were deported to Russia, where they may have perished from diseases, malnutrition and bad treatment, in case they did not return (similar to the millions of German POW’s and civilians who perished in the various Soviet gulags after the war and during the deportations from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Russia), this would not be accepted by Jewish Holocaust believers. As I found out during various debates.
The Jewish believer insists on the uniqueness of his misfortune, and this seems to be partly the problem.
-
Carto's Cutlass Supreme
- Valuable asset
- Posts: 2491
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
- Location: Northern California
Hi Stevensen, Here is your post with my comments in red:
Having lurked in this forum for the past week, there are 3 problems that I think make it irrelevant as an ideology.
One: Not all reference material is created equal. The standard response to my "Have you read Levi/Hilberg/Arendt/Sereny?" type material, is always "Have you read Cole/Revisionist" authors. Except that's not the standard response. We use those holocaust authors all the time. I use Hilberg all the time. I use Yitzhak Arad, Wyman and others.
Well, maybe I should do, but then how can one compare a book which has won a dozen international awards, sold half a million copies, and been written by someone with a PhD from the Sorbonne, with a book which has sold a thousand copies and been ignored by the press? Like I said, I use Hilberg, Arad, Wyman and others. But also, look at the books that have won awards? Probably that book about an Auschwitz survivor raised by wolves won awards. Misha Defonseca, who wrote it, just got 22.5 million in a settlement with the publishers. That verdict was probably based on book sales, so is it a put down if our people only sell a thousand copies?
Two: Racism. Recently on RF it was stated that Jews choose their partners based on their desire to continue their gene pool. Much of the tone of RF is pure race hatred - moderated about 1% upwards into "science." To the point where phrases like "judeo-supremacist" replace "insert racist insult". That's ridiculous. Yes, there's going to be stray posts that seem "hateful." I saw one deleted recently and then the person reposted it. The mods do the best they can. But your idea that "judeo supremist" is really a cover for a racist insult is weak. That's like saying that when the United States Congressional record states "the distinguished congressman from Kentucky" that what they're really saying is that "disgusting jerk from Kentucky." C'mon.
Three: Avoiding the Big Question. Revisions have amazing references, and can quote a dozen sources on the chemical make-up of walls and the size and capacity of ovens. What a strawman portrayal. As if that's what we're about in a nutshell.I can't argue with that stuff - I'm not an engineer or chemist, but either way I don't care. Examining details does not influence the bigger picture.
The Big Question is - 48,000 Jews left Kazimierz, and 2,000 came back. Or 146,000 left Budapest, and 3,000 came back. We can go through nation by nation, city by city, and the numbers add up.
Where did they go?
The revisionists can say some things toward that. They can say where these people didn't go. They didn't go to Treblinka, because there's no evidence of mass graves there. (You can't bury, then dig up 1.3 million people at the "Operation Reinhard Death Camps" and have no evidence of a mass grave, of disturbed dirt etc.)Then they can point out reasons why they didn't go to Auschwitz and get killed. But can revisionists say "The Kazimierz? 30,000 went to the USSR, transferring at Malkinia station, then 10,000 immigrated to Israel over the next 10 years, with another 10,000 going to the United States.." No we can't say that. We don't have the records. I know you think that because we don't have the records, then that makes revisionism worthless. But sorry, the former USSR and Israel were not willing to give us those records on a silver platter.
After seeing your false portrayal of this site, and the strawman arguments you've put forth, I'd never come to your forum.
Having lurked in this forum for the past week, there are 3 problems that I think make it irrelevant as an ideology.
One: Not all reference material is created equal. The standard response to my "Have you read Levi/Hilberg/Arendt/Sereny?" type material, is always "Have you read Cole/Revisionist" authors. Except that's not the standard response. We use those holocaust authors all the time. I use Hilberg all the time. I use Yitzhak Arad, Wyman and others.
Well, maybe I should do, but then how can one compare a book which has won a dozen international awards, sold half a million copies, and been written by someone with a PhD from the Sorbonne, with a book which has sold a thousand copies and been ignored by the press? Like I said, I use Hilberg, Arad, Wyman and others. But also, look at the books that have won awards? Probably that book about an Auschwitz survivor raised by wolves won awards. Misha Defonseca, who wrote it, just got 22.5 million in a settlement with the publishers. That verdict was probably based on book sales, so is it a put down if our people only sell a thousand copies?
Two: Racism. Recently on RF it was stated that Jews choose their partners based on their desire to continue their gene pool. Much of the tone of RF is pure race hatred - moderated about 1% upwards into "science." To the point where phrases like "judeo-supremacist" replace "insert racist insult". That's ridiculous. Yes, there's going to be stray posts that seem "hateful." I saw one deleted recently and then the person reposted it. The mods do the best they can. But your idea that "judeo supremist" is really a cover for a racist insult is weak. That's like saying that when the United States Congressional record states "the distinguished congressman from Kentucky" that what they're really saying is that "disgusting jerk from Kentucky." C'mon.
Three: Avoiding the Big Question. Revisions have amazing references, and can quote a dozen sources on the chemical make-up of walls and the size and capacity of ovens. What a strawman portrayal. As if that's what we're about in a nutshell.I can't argue with that stuff - I'm not an engineer or chemist, but either way I don't care. Examining details does not influence the bigger picture.
The Big Question is - 48,000 Jews left Kazimierz, and 2,000 came back. Or 146,000 left Budapest, and 3,000 came back. We can go through nation by nation, city by city, and the numbers add up.
Where did they go?
The revisionists can say some things toward that. They can say where these people didn't go. They didn't go to Treblinka, because there's no evidence of mass graves there. (You can't bury, then dig up 1.3 million people at the "Operation Reinhard Death Camps" and have no evidence of a mass grave, of disturbed dirt etc.)Then they can point out reasons why they didn't go to Auschwitz and get killed. But can revisionists say "The Kazimierz? 30,000 went to the USSR, transferring at Malkinia station, then 10,000 immigrated to Israel over the next 10 years, with another 10,000 going to the United States.." No we can't say that. We don't have the records. I know you think that because we don't have the records, then that makes revisionism worthless. But sorry, the former USSR and Israel were not willing to give us those records on a silver platter.
After seeing your false portrayal of this site, and the strawman arguments you've put forth, I'd never come to your forum.
Well, actually, it is the H authors themselves that made me realize the story is utter bull shit.Have you read Levi/Hilberg/Arendt/Sereny?
Hilberg (to use an example) is obviously not honest. He extensively quotes Gerstein in his book. Now, Gerstein is obviously not credible. But, the clear proof of this is avoided by Hilberg. That is just plain dishonest.
What about Meuller? Buckets of body part jumping about. Is that believable? I could give loads of other examples, taken straight from H authors themselves.
Well, maybe I should do, but then how can one compare a book which has won a dozen international awards, ...
Now, unless you are completely beyond being reasoned with, you must admit Elie Wiesel is either a liar or insane. There is no other possibility. I read his book Night. I won't go into details. I gave many examples in another thread here.
The point is, as I stated there, Wiesel, an obvious fraud, has won the Nobel Peace Prize (by the way, he also advocated jews hating Germans!), and is internationally recognized. So, I sincerely have to wonder, what does being positively recognized have to do with honesty, integrity, the truth, etc.?
Examining details does not influence the bigger picture.
Ok, so when all you have are "eye-witnesses:, and what they say is demonstrably proven to be impossible, that is not relevant. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
"Racism."
That's interesting. One, recall Wiesel's saying all jews should set aside a zone of healthy virile hatred for the German.
Also, we are to be ignored because some of us are 'racist'. But, when so many 'witnesses' are proven to be liars, you imply that is just a detail, not really relevant.
I have a few questions for you. Are you at least willing to admit, one of the most recognized 'survivors', Elie Wiesel, is a liar? And if so, are you then willing to admit that being internationally recognized does not necessarily mean you are credible? Further, are you willing to consider that if someone like Wiesel is indeed recognized the way he is, then something is seriously wrong?
-
Nick Danger
- Member
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 7:43 pm
Hello stevenson, welcome.
This is a gentleman’s club and you must act as such. Please focus like a laser on each point of discussion. Don't start a new thread when one already exists.
Don't segue or take the serpentine route. Stick to the topic and go for it.
I think we have all been 'deleted' at one time or another, so don't get paranoid.
With that in mind - put on your smokers jacket, pour yourself single malt, help yourself to a fine Cuban Cohiba, pull up a leather comfy chair and learn.
However, be fully prepared to take your position through various levels of abstraction. In addition, these guys are very astute and can spot sesquipedalian responses posthaste.
Good luck.
This is a gentleman’s club and you must act as such. Please focus like a laser on each point of discussion. Don't start a new thread when one already exists.
Don't segue or take the serpentine route. Stick to the topic and go for it.
I think we have all been 'deleted' at one time or another, so don't get paranoid.
With that in mind - put on your smokers jacket, pour yourself single malt, help yourself to a fine Cuban Cohiba, pull up a leather comfy chair and learn.
However, be fully prepared to take your position through various levels of abstraction. In addition, these guys are very astute and can spot sesquipedalian responses posthaste.
Good luck.
-
Hotzenplotz
- Valued contributor
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Hi Stevenson,
I'm not going to say much else than the others already did, but from the perspective of a relative newbie.
You see the people here on this forum are well informed and some of them must have put years into revisionism. Perhaps you can understand that trying to brush away the whole of revisionism with the remark that it's irrelevant is somewhat offensive. You say they've got to the see the big picture... but of course, that's what everyone is trying to do here. It's simply not that easy. We've all had a preconception of the holocaust as it is presented by the media at one point, and it is no surprise you have adopted that picture as well. But the contention is that the media doesn't know what happened either. The guys here are not stupid. They know the media say it's all totally obvious and that so-and-so many Jews disappeared from certain areas.
Revisionists claim the "big picture" as usually presented is utterly wrong. The only way to find out is to go into the details. That's tedious, and I can understand if you decide not to for lack of time. But if you want to discuss with the people here, you should.
When I started discussing with revisionists not too long ago I asked quite similar questions. I think it's a process everyone has to go through. You think if 6m people simply went to some other place it would have to be well known, but if you actually try to give a proof they didn't you'll find it's not that easy. It's always like that, and if you make the effort to try to prove the traditional storyline to TRF, you will often have to realize that the evidence is shockingly scarce. If you do it, you will start to ask yourself how an event that big can be so hard to prove. And perhaps you will ask yourself why the lobby claims it's totally obvious if you, presumably a well-educated person, can't find those proofs.
I hope you will keep posting to this forum. I really would appreciate if you gave us hard evidence for the storyline. I'm not a fanatic. I'm looking for a proof all the time. If I find it, well, then I'll leave as quickly as I came and forget about revisionism. No need to spoil my time on a lost cause. But so far, I simply can't see it.
If people attack white-supremacists it is appreciated by everyone as a righteous attack against racists. If people criticize judeo-supremacists, it's the critics who are the racists. You may claim there is a good reason Jews are treated differently (namely, the big H), but then again, the people of this forum don't believe in the holocaust. If you want to accuse them of racism, first prove to us it happened.
Hotzenplotz
I'm not going to say much else than the others already did, but from the perspective of a relative newbie.
You see the people here on this forum are well informed and some of them must have put years into revisionism. Perhaps you can understand that trying to brush away the whole of revisionism with the remark that it's irrelevant is somewhat offensive. You say they've got to the see the big picture... but of course, that's what everyone is trying to do here. It's simply not that easy. We've all had a preconception of the holocaust as it is presented by the media at one point, and it is no surprise you have adopted that picture as well. But the contention is that the media doesn't know what happened either. The guys here are not stupid. They know the media say it's all totally obvious and that so-and-so many Jews disappeared from certain areas.
Revisionists claim the "big picture" as usually presented is utterly wrong. The only way to find out is to go into the details. That's tedious, and I can understand if you decide not to for lack of time. But if you want to discuss with the people here, you should.
When I started discussing with revisionists not too long ago I asked quite similar questions. I think it's a process everyone has to go through. You think if 6m people simply went to some other place it would have to be well known, but if you actually try to give a proof they didn't you'll find it's not that easy. It's always like that, and if you make the effort to try to prove the traditional storyline to TRF, you will often have to realize that the evidence is shockingly scarce. If you do it, you will start to ask yourself how an event that big can be so hard to prove. And perhaps you will ask yourself why the lobby claims it's totally obvious if you, presumably a well-educated person, can't find those proofs.
I hope you will keep posting to this forum. I really would appreciate if you gave us hard evidence for the storyline. I'm not a fanatic. I'm looking for a proof all the time. If I find it, well, then I'll leave as quickly as I came and forget about revisionism. No need to spoil my time on a lost cause. But so far, I simply can't see it.
If people attack white-supremacists it is appreciated by everyone as a righteous attack against racists. If people criticize judeo-supremacists, it's the critics who are the racists. You may claim there is a good reason Jews are treated differently (namely, the big H), but then again, the people of this forum don't believe in the holocaust. If you want to accuse them of racism, first prove to us it happened.
Hotzenplotz
"Repetition reinforces the primary messages of the religion in participants’ minds."
-Michael C. Howard, Contemporary Cultural Anthropology
-Michael C. Howard, Contemporary Cultural Anthropology
Welcome Stevenson. You are correct that the promoters of "the Holocaust, standard version" get all the air time, honors, publications, etc.
But surely you are aware of the cultural and political censorship, de jure and de facto, which confronts revisionists? Even in "free America" their views are denied publication; they are denied a hearing in the academic world and the media. All this is excused on the grounds that their is no merit to their arguments when, if you pursue this board for any time you will quickly learn that there is strong support for revisionism on scientific and historic bases. In many other countries their views are punished legally under thought control laws which would be laughed out of existence if applied to any other subject. They are smeared as "anti-Semites" for daring to doubt the often ludicrous claims of the "Holocaust Industry" to use Norman Finkelstein's descriptive name. This is disgraceful in a free society. Surely you are aware of these things? If not, welcome and learn!
But surely you are aware of the cultural and political censorship, de jure and de facto, which confronts revisionists? Even in "free America" their views are denied publication; they are denied a hearing in the academic world and the media. All this is excused on the grounds that their is no merit to their arguments when, if you pursue this board for any time you will quickly learn that there is strong support for revisionism on scientific and historic bases. In many other countries their views are punished legally under thought control laws which would be laughed out of existence if applied to any other subject. They are smeared as "anti-Semites" for daring to doubt the often ludicrous claims of the "Holocaust Industry" to use Norman Finkelstein's descriptive name. This is disgraceful in a free society. Surely you are aware of these things? If not, welcome and learn!
stevenson wrote:Two: Racism. Recently on RF it was stated that Jews choose their partners based on their desire to continue their gene pool. Much of the tone of RF is pure race hatred - moderated about 1% upwards into "science." To the point where phrases like "judeo-supremacist" replace "insert racist insult".
Well, just use these searchwords together on google: jews intermarriage, and you will find LOTS of jewish pages like these:
http://judaism.about.com/od/interfaithf ... rr_jew.htm
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ ... istics.htm
http://www.mnemotrix.com/heights/schur16.html
http://www.askmoses.com/qa_list.html?h=542
http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/b ... riage.html
http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/191/Q1/
A couple of quotes from the jewish scholars from these pages:
"There are many liquids that don't mix because one of them keeps rising to the top. Its not that non-Jews are inferior. A Jew was created with extra tasks, a higher soul with the ability to fix things in the world. The partner chosen from on high is and always will be a fellow Jew."
"We realize that intermarriage is digging a pit in the heart of Jewish existence." "Throughout Jewish history, far more Jews have succumbed to the blandishment of assimilation through mixed marriages, than have been victims of all Holocaust executions, expulsions, and progroms combined. Persecutions notwithstanding, were it not for mixed marriages and assimilation, there would be today well over one hundred million Jews in the world, not twelve million."
"Intermarriage is a betrayal of our task and of our "choseness." It is also a guarantee against Jewish continuity."
"Six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, 12 million were left afterwards. Today there are only 13 million Jews in the world. Where are the rest that by natural increase should number close to 20 million? The answer is that the silent holocaust of assimilation has caused them to disappear as Jews."
Basicaly, there is nothing bad when a group of people is trying to " continue
it's gene pool".
That's what evolution is all about.
But who brandished this as a fascist , nazi and "nationalist " abomination?
(While at the time being,continued to do exactly what they preached against?)
Who managed to make science stand on her head?
it's gene pool".
That's what evolution is all about.
But who brandished this as a fascist , nazi and "nationalist " abomination?
(While at the time being,continued to do exactly what they preached against?)
Who managed to make science stand on her head?
-
Hotzenplotz
- Valued contributor
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”
