LemmyCaution
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Messages
- 2,857
General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II
- Thread starter SnakeTongue
- Start date
- Status
LemmyCaution
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Messages
- 2,857
For anyone truly interested in the topic, Nick's references are invaluable. For a quick freebie on the Polish context, albeit with a few pages redacted, check out Gunnar Paulsson's "Networks" chapter linked here: http://books.google.com/books?id=zh...DIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=gunnar paulsson&f=false.
Nick Terry
Illuminator
And a follow-up to SnakeTongue/Bob
I'm pretty sure you're going to try to do one of a few things
Well, sorry, the game-playing has to stop. If you resort to any of these responses you are simply trolling, and here's why.
Firstly, you have not indicated your educational background. This is important since it seems you are unaware of how the discipline of history operates. Primary sources are introduced throughout a university education in history, but they are accompanied throughout, all the way to PhD level and beyond, by an insistence on the mastery of the secondary literature. This is a standard feature of all academic disciplines. Since it's likely that you have at least some tertiary education, you should know this.
Secondly, you have not indicated what sources and secondary literature you have already read. You are JAQing off without conveying much sense of your actual knowledge. I am quite certain I have asked you on another forum what you had actually read on the Holocaust and you refused to answer, as seems to be standard for trolls and deniers. But unless you tell us, then you are not entitled to demand answers to your endless questions.
Frankly, you come across like an absolute beginner in the study of the Holocaust. Like any other subject, learning about the Holocaust takes time. It happened as mentioned above across the territory of 25 contemporary nation-states the length and breadth of Europe, over the entire course of WWII, and involved dozens of major extermination sites (not just a couple of big death camps).
At the very least, to know anything about a subject like the Holocaust requires that you read a minimum of one conventional book about it. But that's a minimum. It doesn't entitle anyone to take part in an informed discussion and be taken seriously. First year university students doing history are expected to write essays of 1,500 words which might use a dozen books and articles. In my university, they write a long second year research project using 30-50 books and articles, and then an undergraduate dissertation using 50 or more secondary sources, in addition to primary sources. At masters' level the dissertation might require 100-200 secondary sources; a PhD might require 200-500 secondary sources. Again, in addition to primary sources.
All these figures apply irrespective of the topic, because there's just that much information out there, and because history doesn't function like a "textbook" discipline. On any subject.
If you want to stay in the shallows, then be aware that first year students aren't expected to use 'only primary sources'. The skill of reading footnotes properly to identify primary sources takes the best students two to three years to master, and some never do. Parsing footnotes and identifying follow-up sources is what research is all about. In the US, mastering research skills to PhD level takes years having started only in the final year of an undergraduate degree. In the UK, it would be a minimum five year process from final year of undergraduate to PhD, and it takes at least seven years of BA, MA and PhD to be fully qualified. Again, it doesn't matter what the student ends up specialising in.
Now, I believe you have been previously recommended six online books which cover much of the subject matter of the Holocaust that seems to interest you. These are of course:
They are all free, and they are all directly relevant to the 'revisionism' debate. It stands to reason that someone such as yourself should read and inwardly digest their contents.
You can read them in tandem with
and numerous other major databases of sources, newspaper articles from the era, testimonies and other materials.
Thirdly, it is likely you're going to try and dismiss some of the sources, web, secondary or otherwise, as biased. Uh, sorry, no you're not allowed to do that, not if you want to be taken seriously. I recommended Yad Vashem in the previous post - YV's resources provide the necessary and sufficient indicators, i.e. references, to check the provenance of all the materials. The process of checking references is what research is all about. And YV provide proper references, therefore for the sake of moving things along, they are more than adequate as a source, since the same points are made in other sources that are not run by the Israeli government; the same sources are referenced elsewhere, or scanned online by Ivy League universities like Harvard and Yale.
You're simply not going to find the sum total of historical sources for any subject online in facsimile, so please drop that particular piece of crap. Quite a large number of Holocaust-related sources are in fascimile, at the Harvard Nuremberg project, the Holocaust History Project (including Pressac), and elsewhere. There are also a load of Cold War sources scanned in facsimile on various sites, but there are also many sites which offer merely translations of documents in Russian or offer published, printed sources for download. Foreign Relations of the United States doesn't facsimile the documents.
All the sources and websites you might be tempted to dismiss as 'biased' reference their sources. Van Pelt has footnotes, the HC critique has footnotes, Yad Vashem say where the document can be found, et cetera. You are not entitled to dismiss a source or the evidence contained in the source just because you don't like it.
What you may do is criticise the secondary sources and websites for their interpretations. Those criticisms have to be of course informed and reasoned, and not ad hominem.
Fourthly and finally, your gambit of offloading the entire burden of proof onto the opposition, and JAQing off, or engaging in Gish Galloping, is about the least effective method of online debate there is. These are tired tactics, which simply result in people dismissing you as a crank with an axe to grind, and an ignorant crank at that.
Asking questions like 'how did the SS identify the Jews' which are dealt with in literally thousands of primary and secondary sources and then feigning indignance because nobody wanted to jump through all your hoops to your apparent satisfaction, is basically like painting 'I AM KLUELESS' on your forehead. If you seriously think that hasn't been answered then you are quite mad. So the issue is, why do you raise that question on here, in this thread, in that manner. The answer is, you're trolling. There is no third alternative - either you are trolling or you are massively ignorant. If you are trolling, then you can sod off; if you are ignorant, then it is up to you to rectify this deficiency if the question actually matters to you.
Online etiquette has evolved over the past two decades, and there is of course a local etiquette at JREF. It is easy enough to find many examples of someone asking a polite question of other people on the net and being given prompt answers. What is the best hotel? How do I contact customer service? Can anyone recommend me a really good book on this subject? When it comes to the Holocaust and Nazi war crimes, the place for asking such polite questions is Axis History Forum, just as the place to ask about hotels is a forum for hotel reviews.
What you're doing is no different to a zillion other trolls who JAQ off to annoy people. But as you have seen, you are invariably given answers. You just don't like them, and move the goalposts, or start demanding ever more precise evidence from your discussion partners. Well, either this is an online discussion forum, which implies verbal discussion not a Habilitation viva, or you are going to play by the rules of scholarship in the relevant discipline. And you won't like those rules, since they dictate that both parties have to be informed, if you are debating with equals. If you are posing as a student, then you have your reading list, and you can sod off.
It's pretty unlikely you're trolling for the sake of it, since very few people pick the Holocaust without some motivation. You clearly believe in some form of revisionism. You probably even think you're getting one over some people here. It's my sad duty to inform you that if you have any serious motivation on revisionist or political or intellectual lines, then you are failing hopelessly and simply discrediting your cause. You are behaving like just another denier troll. And everyone knows it.
I'm pretty sure you're going to try to do one of a few things
- dismiss sources because of who they are, eg because I recommended Yad Vashem
- demand primary sources in some kind of weird fetishistic ritual, since you have done that before
- insist that other people source and reference their arguments using only primary sources and dismiss everything said otherwise.
Well, sorry, the game-playing has to stop. If you resort to any of these responses you are simply trolling, and here's why.
Firstly, you have not indicated your educational background. This is important since it seems you are unaware of how the discipline of history operates. Primary sources are introduced throughout a university education in history, but they are accompanied throughout, all the way to PhD level and beyond, by an insistence on the mastery of the secondary literature. This is a standard feature of all academic disciplines. Since it's likely that you have at least some tertiary education, you should know this.
Secondly, you have not indicated what sources and secondary literature you have already read. You are JAQing off without conveying much sense of your actual knowledge. I am quite certain I have asked you on another forum what you had actually read on the Holocaust and you refused to answer, as seems to be standard for trolls and deniers. But unless you tell us, then you are not entitled to demand answers to your endless questions.
Frankly, you come across like an absolute beginner in the study of the Holocaust. Like any other subject, learning about the Holocaust takes time. It happened as mentioned above across the territory of 25 contemporary nation-states the length and breadth of Europe, over the entire course of WWII, and involved dozens of major extermination sites (not just a couple of big death camps).
At the very least, to know anything about a subject like the Holocaust requires that you read a minimum of one conventional book about it. But that's a minimum. It doesn't entitle anyone to take part in an informed discussion and be taken seriously. First year university students doing history are expected to write essays of 1,500 words which might use a dozen books and articles. In my university, they write a long second year research project using 30-50 books and articles, and then an undergraduate dissertation using 50 or more secondary sources, in addition to primary sources. At masters' level the dissertation might require 100-200 secondary sources; a PhD might require 200-500 secondary sources. Again, in addition to primary sources.
All these figures apply irrespective of the topic, because there's just that much information out there, and because history doesn't function like a "textbook" discipline. On any subject.
If you want to stay in the shallows, then be aware that first year students aren't expected to use 'only primary sources'. The skill of reading footnotes properly to identify primary sources takes the best students two to three years to master, and some never do. Parsing footnotes and identifying follow-up sources is what research is all about. In the US, mastering research skills to PhD level takes years having started only in the final year of an undergraduate degree. In the UK, it would be a minimum five year process from final year of undergraduate to PhD, and it takes at least seven years of BA, MA and PhD to be fully qualified. Again, it doesn't matter what the student ends up specialising in.
Now, I believe you have been previously recommended six online books which cover much of the subject matter of the Holocaust that seems to interest you. These are of course:
- the reports of Browning, Longerich, Van Pelt and Evans for the Irving trial, online at hdot.org
- Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, online at the Holocaust History Project
- the Holocaust Controversies critique of Holocaust deniers on the Operation Reinhard camps, which also includes a lengthy chapter on Nazi policy overall and the Holocaust in the Soviet Union, linked to in my signature
They are all free, and they are all directly relevant to the 'revisionism' debate. It stands to reason that someone such as yourself should read and inwardly digest their contents.
You can read them in tandem with
- the IMT transcript and documents, online at the Library of Congress and Yale's Avalon site
- the twelve succesor NMT trials, online at the Library of Congress
- the Eichmann trial, online at Nizkor, and the documents, online as scanned facsimiles at the Israeli Ministry of Justice (link in the introduction to the HC critique)
and numerous other major databases of sources, newspaper articles from the era, testimonies and other materials.
Thirdly, it is likely you're going to try and dismiss some of the sources, web, secondary or otherwise, as biased. Uh, sorry, no you're not allowed to do that, not if you want to be taken seriously. I recommended Yad Vashem in the previous post - YV's resources provide the necessary and sufficient indicators, i.e. references, to check the provenance of all the materials. The process of checking references is what research is all about. And YV provide proper references, therefore for the sake of moving things along, they are more than adequate as a source, since the same points are made in other sources that are not run by the Israeli government; the same sources are referenced elsewhere, or scanned online by Ivy League universities like Harvard and Yale.
You're simply not going to find the sum total of historical sources for any subject online in facsimile, so please drop that particular piece of crap. Quite a large number of Holocaust-related sources are in fascimile, at the Harvard Nuremberg project, the Holocaust History Project (including Pressac), and elsewhere. There are also a load of Cold War sources scanned in facsimile on various sites, but there are also many sites which offer merely translations of documents in Russian or offer published, printed sources for download. Foreign Relations of the United States doesn't facsimile the documents.
All the sources and websites you might be tempted to dismiss as 'biased' reference their sources. Van Pelt has footnotes, the HC critique has footnotes, Yad Vashem say where the document can be found, et cetera. You are not entitled to dismiss a source or the evidence contained in the source just because you don't like it.
What you may do is criticise the secondary sources and websites for their interpretations. Those criticisms have to be of course informed and reasoned, and not ad hominem.
Fourthly and finally, your gambit of offloading the entire burden of proof onto the opposition, and JAQing off, or engaging in Gish Galloping, is about the least effective method of online debate there is. These are tired tactics, which simply result in people dismissing you as a crank with an axe to grind, and an ignorant crank at that.
Asking questions like 'how did the SS identify the Jews' which are dealt with in literally thousands of primary and secondary sources and then feigning indignance because nobody wanted to jump through all your hoops to your apparent satisfaction, is basically like painting 'I AM KLUELESS' on your forehead. If you seriously think that hasn't been answered then you are quite mad. So the issue is, why do you raise that question on here, in this thread, in that manner. The answer is, you're trolling. There is no third alternative - either you are trolling or you are massively ignorant. If you are trolling, then you can sod off; if you are ignorant, then it is up to you to rectify this deficiency if the question actually matters to you.
Online etiquette has evolved over the past two decades, and there is of course a local etiquette at JREF. It is easy enough to find many examples of someone asking a polite question of other people on the net and being given prompt answers. What is the best hotel? How do I contact customer service? Can anyone recommend me a really good book on this subject? When it comes to the Holocaust and Nazi war crimes, the place for asking such polite questions is Axis History Forum, just as the place to ask about hotels is a forum for hotel reviews.
What you're doing is no different to a zillion other trolls who JAQ off to annoy people. But as you have seen, you are invariably given answers. You just don't like them, and move the goalposts, or start demanding ever more precise evidence from your discussion partners. Well, either this is an online discussion forum, which implies verbal discussion not a Habilitation viva, or you are going to play by the rules of scholarship in the relevant discipline. And you won't like those rules, since they dictate that both parties have to be informed, if you are debating with equals. If you are posing as a student, then you have your reading list, and you can sod off.
It's pretty unlikely you're trolling for the sake of it, since very few people pick the Holocaust without some motivation. You clearly believe in some form of revisionism. You probably even think you're getting one over some people here. It's my sad duty to inform you that if you have any serious motivation on revisionist or political or intellectual lines, then you are failing hopelessly and simply discrediting your cause. You are behaving like just another denier troll. And everyone knows it.
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
There you go. 1583 words of verbose nonsense about Holocaust scholarship when all you need is common sense. Much can be gleaned from the fact that all these posters guard the Holycaust 24/7 as if it were the Holy Grail. Certainly "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."
They're hiding/protecting something of great value that's for sure.
Multivac
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 2,121
Yes. It's called the truth.
LemmyCaution
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Messages
- 2,857
Clayton seems to think that the discipline of history is part of a vast conspiracy.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
We're all 'in on it'?
BaaBaa
Semi-literate hench-person
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2010
- Messages
- 1,466
"I'd say between pretending they believe the Holocaust myth and that 9/11 wasn't an inside job they may explode trying to believe even one more fabrication."
Pretty much.
Chaos
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2003
- Messages
- 10,611
Judging from the way you screech, I´d say Nick hit a nerve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library
The Danes were indeed hiding/protecting something of great value. Human lives. Not surprisingly, some Nazi sympathizers would find that to be rotten.
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
Wroclaw
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,500
Yes, and that was the mid-19th century. Give me something from 1933 and we'll have something to discuss.
Clue: Orthodox Judaism in Germany was largely a reaction to Reform Judaism, whereas in other countries, Orthodox Judaism had been and remained the norm.
Wroclaw
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,500
Good God, you people are lazy AND cheap!
Wroclaw
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,500
Yeah, scale is always a nice thing to supply:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Ausch...więcimia,+Oświęcim,+Polonia&radius=15000&z=14
See the scale at the lower left? Going east to west, Birkenau was 2,000 ft wide, or more than six football fields. Going north to south it was even larger. Call it 2,500 ft for argument's sake.
Pretty big, wouldn't you say? I mean, big enough that you can see the place several thousand feet in the area — even today?
Last edited by a moderator:
Based on past experience predict he's most likely going to just ignore the matter entirely, or wait until someone changes the subject.
And it looks like SnakeTongue has graciously provided such a diversion.
By which you mean "can I read and quote-mine them on the Internet instead of actually having to go through any significant amount of effort to see them, like checking my local libraries?"
Ignoring evidence your opponent presents because you are too lazy or unwilling to seek it out is the height of laziness. It is only marginally better than Clay's "off-topic", which is a transparent and nonsensical rationalization. The fact that you don't even know whether you have to buy the books or not is clearly an excuse.
I always love it when people who can't even acknowledge their minor mistakes claim to be able to see the truth of something much more complicated.
Yes, that's right, dismiss all the other evidence in favor of the few pieces you insist is incorrect/lying. Totally not a straw man. Ironic that you accuse others of posting "off-topic" when they provide you with the very evidence you asked for (even after you moved the goalposts), but you are telling others to look up evidence not relevant to the claim in question.
We are? I just enjoy calling intellectually dishonest sophists out on their nonsense. You're the one who dismisses the very evidence you asked for as "off-topic" and then refuses to elaborate or respond to further posts on the matter. If all you can do is dismiss Nick's entire post out of hand, without addressing its actual content, all I can say is "Too thin, Clayton, too thin!"
True Grit is a great movie, by the way.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
You're supposed to do this "verification" before posting about it. That's why your initial "analysis" was simply parroting what Alvarez said, and you had to "spend time" over the last few weeks figuring out a way to make what you unthinkingly repeated sound plausible.
Too bad you failed.
"S-IV D-5o5/42g-451" isn't the office code of that document, SnakeTongue. That's the filing code for the document under whose regulatory authority this document is being promulgated. The office code part of that filing code indicates the previous document being referenced came from IV D, Besetzte Gebiete, which was the Gestapo office responsible for criminal cases involving foreign laborers.
That's why the filing code includes the note "ausl.Arb.", which is found on the other IV D documents dealing with foreign workers (see, for example, Nuremberg document NO-1384, Kaltenbrunner's letter of 1 August 1943 about abortions for pregnant Polish and other Eastern European workers).
The agency title is given on this document, "Der Reichsfuhrer SS und Chef der Deutschen Polizei", but there's no department title or office code. The filing code is handwritten in the stamped area showing the date the document was received, and is "3/43g".
Did you even read the page you found that document at?
This is merely a missive detailing the planned program for Heydrich's state funeral, sent by the Chief of the Ordnungspolizei to the various Orpo personnel (none of whom, as far as I can tell, were also members of the SS - Orpo personnel who held ranks in both organizational structures, like our old friend Friedrich Pradel, were usually described in documents by both ranks, with the SS rank taking precedence, which is why Pradel's insistence on being addressed by his Orpo rank of "major" was so unusual and memorable to his contemporaries).
Since the Orpo was not part of the RSHA, and thus would not have used any code or formatting for an RSHA office in a strictly internal Orpo document, I have no idea why you think this document is relevant when interpreting a document with an RSHA office code.
This is also not an RSHA document. For one thing, Aemter in the RSHA were always described with Roman numerals, not the standard numerals in this document (in cases where the Roman numerals couldn't be used, like in the telegrams I showed you before, the abbreviation "Roem" for "Roman" was used to indicate that). Plus, even if this were supposed to be a document sent from a section of Amt II, there was no "II F".
Secondly, the circled part is neither an office code nor a filing code for this document. It's the subject of this document. That's why it's in the section labeled "Betrifft" - the same way the "Betrifft" of your "document 2" up there is new security procedures regarding groups of foreign laborers, and the "Betrifft" of "document 3" is the transport of the body of and state funeral for Heydrich.
This is just a document sent by the Generalkommissar in Riga to his subordinate in charge of labor management, regarding "Ostarbeiter", the Eastern European foreign forced laborers, and has nothing to do with RSHA office codes.
Finally, a document that matches the format used on Rauff's letter. Unfortunately, your interpretation is, shall we say, flawed.
And, again, did you read the site where you found this document? If you're trying to prove the Holocaust never happened, you probably shouldn't cite as things you accept as authentic documents that prove the Holocaust happened.
No, that's not how things worked. The rest of the German governmental bureaucracy operated according to standards first issued during the Wiemar Republic, in September 1926. The formatting of RSHA documents, however, was done according to a specific version of those standards, issued on June 1, 1940, by the head of the personnel office, Amt I: SS-Brigadefuehrer Bruno Streckenbach.
In Streckenbach's RSHA-specific standards, the office code has nothing to do with the subject, but with the sending office. Specifically, it was the office code associated with what was called the "referent": the head of the department under whose authority the document was being sent (which was usually, though not always, the department that originated the document). In other words, since the March 26, 1942 letter was being sent out under Rauff's name and with his signature, it bore his office code (which is properly called an "institutional symbol"). This is especially important because the letter involves two other RSHA departments, which was Rauff's area of authority. Pradel himself, as the referent of II D 3a, had no authority when dealing with other departments - he was only the midlevel managerial conduit between the motor pool and the department head. So, a document sent under the authority of his Referat, II D 3a, was meaningless anywhere outside II D itself. That's why Rauff's authority as overall department head was needed, and why the document bears his signature.
[EDIT: Streckenbach's standards established three forms of signatures: a Referent or department head signing for themselves, a subordinate one rank below signing for his superior im Vertretung, or "iV", and a subordinate of other ranks signing im Auftrag, or "iA". Someone signing "iV" did not need permission from their superior, but "iA" was only ever used when the superior directed a subordinate to write a letter that the superior would then sign. In Yaacov Lozowick's study of the RSHA's bureaucratic system, he noted that Streckenbach was vague in his instructions about the department name ("office code"), and subordinates writing under their superiors' signatures would often not include their own (ie, the subordinate's) office code. This means that the March 26, 1942 document was probably written by one of Rauff's subordinates (possibly even below Pradel) but that it was written under the specific instructions of Rauff, and under the authority of Rauff's position as department head, not the position or office of the subordinate writing the letter.]
No it's not, since Heydrich's interaction with Eichmann's IV B 4 was entirely atypical of the RSHA bureaucratic structure. Heydrich, as head of the RSHA itself, had no Referent code himself. And Adolf Eichmann's office, unlike all the other Referaten in the RSHA, reported directly to Heydrich - Pradel, as head of II D 3a, had to go up through Rauff at II D and Nockemann at II before reaching Heydrich's level, but Eichmann at IV B 4 bypassed Hartl at IV B and Mueller at IV completely.
In addition, Heydrich generally assigned Eichmann to write directives for him, something he did not do with any other subordinate in the RSHA. He particularly did this for tasks and instructions regarding the Final Solution, which is why all the invitation letters to the Wannsee Conference and the document sent out with the minutes and protocol from the Conference were sent from Eichmann's office under Heydrich's signature.
It's not a "serial identification", it's a filing code. And, as I noted, your "document 2" also has a handwritten filing code (and your "document 5" has two filing codes - 847/41 typed on it from when it was sent, and 380/41 half-handwritten and half-stamped in the received stamp - Eichmann's IV B 4 had a file numbering system completely separate from the rest of the RSHA's file numbering system).
The filing code was applied by a clerk which was responsible for organizing incoming and outgoing mail for each department, filing it, and sending it on to the correct recipient. This clerk, called a Verteiler (distributor), would look over each letter he received, number it, file it in an existing file, and if necessary open a new file if the document didn't belong in any existing file. Often (if he was located close enough to the office drafting the document) the Verteiler could be consulted and the filing and numbering could be done on the spot. Otherwise, the filing and numbering was done when the document was received instead of when it was sent - this is particularly the case when letters were sent to or from outside the RSHA.
The Verteiler also had a constantly-updated list of the proper forms of address used by and for everyone, which is why Rauff (or anyone else) didn't have to remember that Friedrich Pradel liked to be addressed as "Major" - there was staff to do the remembering for them.
False, since the Orpo document only has a "Secret" stamp on it, and does not have a receiving stamp.
No, he doesn't. He lies in one statement, and you're papering over those lies by taking parts of his other statement. The two statements are directly contradictory, which is why you have to do that.
"I was chief of this technical section from February 1940 until March 1940. From May 1940 to May 1941 I was in the German navy. From September 1941 to May 1942 I was in Prague. I then became chief of the section again from May 1942 to June 1942."
He quite clearly is saying he was only head of the RSHA's technical department for 1-2 months in early 1940, and then wasn't head of the department (and he implies he had nothing to do with the department at all) until 1-2 months in mid 1942.
And, as all the statements of his contemporaries, available documentation, and his own 1972 deposition reveal, is not true.
Something you utterly failed in your attempt to prove.
Last edited:
Good Riddance Rudolf. Hope your relatives did not have to suffer too much for your crimes.
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
Well, someone has to step in and take over Saggy's grand global Jewish conspiracy which controls the media, academia, and everything else position since Saggy himself hasn't been around to do so.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
