A Holocaust Denier Hits Manhattan (And Hearts Hitchens)
On July 18, the world's most prominent Holocaust denier, David Irving, parachuted into New York City to deliver a talk to a few dozen supporters. It was Irving's first major stateside appearance since his release from an Austrian prison where the British writer spent a year for "trivializing the Holocaust" -- a crime in that country. Irving is the author of numerous books on Hitler and the Third Reich. With support from the Southern Poverty Law Center, I produced a video about Irving's New York lecture, "Springtime For Irving," containing an exclusive interview with Irving, along with a look at his Nazi sympathizing supporters. In it, Irving issues a rousing defense of Hitler, blames Jews for their own persecution, and reveals his strange friendship with Christopher Hitchens.
See "Springtime for Irving: A Holocaust Denier Hits Manhattan"
When I reached Irving on his cellphone 15 minutes before his talk was scheduled to begin, I learned that it has been suddenly moved to the basement of a Catholic church on the Upper East Side. Irving's advance man, Michael Santamauro (owner of the New York-based roommate service roommatefinders.com) had conned the church's priest into hosting the lecture by claiming he was the leader of an anodyne "book club." "Someone made a reservation to have a discussion of a book. The name was not David Irving. We knew nothing about it. We thought it would be just something nice for the community," the visibly shaken priest, Fr. Angelo Gambatese, explained to me. "And it turns out that it was David Irving. We were completely deceived. And really we're outraged, because we do not cater to that kind of bigotry, and I'm really sorry that this happened."
Irving opened his talk with a defense of Hitler, claiming that the Fuhrer had no knowledge of the Final Solution and played no role in its implementation. "Adolph Hitler was being kept out of the loop and was probably not at all anti-Semitic by the time the war began," he insisted. Irving also claimed, "Hitler wanted a little war, but it got out of hand." Irving's outrageous views have prompted Richard Evans, professor of modern history at Cambridge University, to state, "If we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian."
In 1996, Irving filed a libel suit in England against the historian Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Books, for supposedly defaming him in her book, "Denying the Holocaust." In 1998, a court ruled that the assertion that Irving is a Holocaust denier was "substantially true." The judge, who Irving referred during the trial as "Mein Fuhrer," stated:
Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.
When I challenged Irving's twisted notions about the Holocaust and confronted him with some of the vitriolic statements he has made over the years, he struck a defiant pose. "I think the word 'Holocaust' is odious," he told me. "It's American commercialism at its worst." He reiterated past anti-Semitic remarks calling Jews as the architects of their own persecution: "I think the Jews have to ask themselves why is it that every time they arrive somewhere as pitiful refugees in a country after a few years they have to move on... They don't ask themselves what they could do to change the way that they are disliked."
While Irving heaped scorn on Jews and other minority groups, he volunteered warm words of praise for his most high-profile defender in the media, the writer Christopher Hitchens. "I can't speak for Christopher Hitchens," Irving told me, "but he's a good friend and a great man... We've been good friends since and we've been good friends after."
In an article for Vanity Fair in 1996, Hitchens called Irving a "great historian," and argued that Irving's book,, "Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich," deserved to be published by a mainstream publisher. St. Martin's Press had initially agreed to publish it, but backed out when it became a target of protests because of Irving's Holocaust denial and historical distortions. "He wrote a very, very fair account of the controversy [over "Goebbels"] in his magazine and he impressed me by his fairness," Irving said.
Then, in February 2006, after Irving was jailed in Austria, Hitchens published another defense of Irving's "free speech," this time on the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page. "It was very decent of him because it wasn't the popular thing to do," Irving told me.
"And you're still good friends with him?" I asked Irving. "You're still in touch with Christopher Hitchens?"
"Yes, I think it's fair to say that," he responded. "I really don't want to incriminate him."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Mr. Blumenthal. Hadn't realized you were one of those who seek to silence and harass historians who seek to discuss and document historical facts, as opposed to propaganda concerning the Second World War by using old ADL SPLC intimidation tactics.
Irving has never denied the fact that Jews died In German Labor Camps and were also murdered in Eastern Europe after Operation Barbarossa. during the Second World war, as did some 60 million other people. But the fact that you used the canard "Holocaust denial" instead of the proper term "Holocaust Revisionism" and your seeking out Morris Dees of "The Southern Poverty Law Center" to suppress free speech speaks volumes about your bias and ignorance on the subject. .
I'm 67 and after far too many decades of seeing scientific discussion of the Holocaust facts suppressed, and Historians who seek the truth being silenced and in many cases actually beaten and physically attacked because of their writings;
Young people today want facts, and not myth and the Holocaust as a Religion. Anyone can now view the thousands of Youtube videos on the Holocaust which challenge the Holocaust myths. David Irving along with Institute for Historical Review, CODOH and hundreds of other Holocaust Revisionist sites now get over 200,000 hits per month from visitors world wide who seek to discuss the truth.
This is a surprise that Huffpo allowed this entry. It is time that people realize the smear campaigns from the press are not in our best interest. I am 62 and I would like just 15 minutes of peace from this horror. Who cares if David Irving gives a speech in a basement to 12 people. This is not news. Why crucify the Church for giving them space? Why the attacks and smears on people who do not follow the mainstream storyline??? Let people think for themselves.
Why did they have to lie to get the space? Why did they deceive the priest and feel that they had to. I don't blame the church at all.
I once had this vision of Irving reaching the Pearly Gates and finding it guarded by a very, very large Hasidic Jew.
Ok, here's a fact: the Holocaust happened. Every respectable historian will agree. Anything else?
Nerp. Said it all, coolmaiden.
are you kidding me? So revisionism is better than denial? The guy's at worst a creep, at best a nut. The Holocaust was a fact. A horrific one. It's disturbing that somebody would spend a lifetime trying to either deny or excuse it. There can be no moral relativism about genocide. The "reasons" for it are irrelevant except to understand what kinds of factors lead societies to engage in genocide.
Please tell me what "truth" these revisionists are seeking? From what I can tell, they are merely apologists for the Holocaust, not honest seekers of objective truth.
I am a liberal in many ways, but I do think there are some things which are categorically morally wrong, that there can be no spin on the relative truth about. Genocide is one. Sure he has a right to his free speech or opinion -- that is a core American value. BUt when you are in another country, you must respect their laws. If he chose to break them, oh well, too bad for him.
Max B. --- needless to say, you are a total genius and a true American hero. I rank you on the same historical level as Michael Moore, Jane Smiley, Keith Olbermann, Barbara Ehrenreich, etc --- real Americans who aren't afraid to shine the light into & expose the darkest experiences in contemporary America.
Americans may presently idolize all these celebrities (politicians like Obama come to mind). However, it is ordinary folks like you that challenge our conscience with your work that really make America a great country. More grease to your elbow.
Yep, Max B's respect for the 1st Amendment really shines through.
I recall the protests when the Nazi party wanted to march in Skoike. I thought the effort to stop them was misdirected. A better solution would have been for Skoike citizens to each buy two white sheets, mount them on frames, and hold them on the street curbs. Picture two 12 foot walls of white lining the entire path of the march on both sides. All the marchers would have seen were walls of white.
Though I don't think he should be imprisoned for holding these opinions, David Irving disgusts every grain of my being.
Max Blumenthal here employs the technique of the "smear" or "defamation" that appears to be a growing phenomenon in talk radio and in discourse involving the "national interest" of Judaism - that is right-wing Judaism. The balance of Jews seem to be excessively identified with the cult and are thus unable to denounce these smear artists - exception: Norman Finkelstein.
Open debate about the Holocaust is supressed. That alone among all of the open questions of history, like the assassinations of Lincoln, the Kennedys, Rev. King, the ethnic cleansing of the native Americans, Pearl Harbor. Come to think of it; we also must not talk in straight terms about the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
There is nothing to debate about the Holocaust, despite what you seem to believe. Debating the Holocaust makes as much sense as a debate about the earth being the center of the universe. The Holocaust happened, I lost family members in the camps. I never had the opportunity to know my grandfather because he was killed by the Germans in a camp.
You thoughts about Jews are made clear by the last sentence in your pitiful posting. I imagine your idea on how to solve the problem in the Middle east is simple, destroy Israel and everything will be OK.
After exhaustive research, the government of Poland recently changed the sign at Auschwitz
from stating that 4 million had died there to stating that the number was 1.5 million, a reduction of 2.5 MILLION Objectively, much is still not known about the holocaust.
How about the fact that the original figure of 4 million as claimed by camp commandant Hoss at the Nurembeg trials was obtained under torture? Historical fact; let's see if this comment is allowed by our friendly moderators.
This sort of historical revisionism is sad and dishonest. Anyone who would make such a statement is a despicable person who deserves to be pitied.
Hey genius, it's spelled Hoess. And if you knew anything about anything you'd know that Hoess openly and freely told anybody who would listen all about Auschwitz.
Jospeh Stalin said that when one one family dies it's a tragedy but when a million people die it's a statistic.
You appear to agree.
where's your proof of that? i'm not taking that on your word. and by the way, would 1 and half MILLION somehow make the holocaust more acceptable to you?
The desire for the State to step in and silence the speech of another is born of the anxiety that the recipients of that speech will reach the 'wrong' conclusions. Well, folks, people reach ill-informed conclusions all the time. How else would we have found our way into such a puerile, materialistic culture ruled by superstition, fear and wishful thinking?
However, empowering the State to protect us from naughty words or vile concepts merely infantalizes us all the more. As for my own politics, I'm an old-fashioned anarchist; I believe folks should be encouraged to stand up on their hind legs.
At least Hitchens was not being a hypocrite on this issue. If you believe him to be an anti-Semite, you've not read him closely.
If people "read closely" we wouldn't have the insanity of the Bush administration ruling America for 8 long destructive years. Few people ever read closely, most are either too busy, too unconcerned or too partisan to read closely. Stop deceiving yourself that we live in a culture, a corporate culture, that encourages anyone to read closely. The sellers of stuff don't want you reading the fine print. It's time we made the fine print readable to everyone and damn the liars like Irving and others of his ilk. Hear me Limbaugh? Hannity? Savage?
Billydog, awesome post. Very clear, eloquent, and to the point.
You TELL it Billydog!
Hitchens may not be anti-Semitic, but reading his wrok closely does prove him to be an idiot and a person of few good qualities.
"At least Hitchens was not being a hypocrite on this issue. If you believe him to be an anti-Semite, you've not read him closely."
Agreed. To hear Hitch hold forth on the Muslim religion which he pretty much believes to be insane, will let you know that he supports Israel, its right to exist and protect itself etc. Google up Hitch talking about his book "God is not great" and debates on the subject.
azyuwish,
Hitchens does not support Israel or a religious state of any kind, not even a Jewish one and he's a very loud opponent of Israeli treatment of Palestinians.
He is also vocal about the insanity of using Judaism to justify murder, nation stealing and military occupation.
Hitchens thinks all religion is insane, I agree with him.
I would like to point out that while Hitchens defended the Danish newspaper for exercising their right to print the Mohammed cartoons, much of the Left was silent or worse. I am well aware of the fact that many of those who rallied to that cause were using the 'right to free speech ' as a fig-leaf for their animosity against Muslims, but I decline to allow the disingenuous to determine what position I'll take on a matter of principle. I myself went to a rally in support of the Danish newspaper and spoke with the folks there, explained to them that I without reservation affirmed the right to free speech without qualification, and mentioned Irving as well, as he was also in the news at that time (Jan. 2006). "It's rank hypocrisy to take one position on these Mohammed cartoons and another on Irving's pronouncements," I told a conservative who had 'explained' to me that Irving's statements were not 'speech' but 'actions,' and so should be subject to muzzling by the Austrian state. "And when will the people of Austria be judged mature enough to hear these words, when will they be considered adult enough to come to their own conclusions?" I asked him.
David Irving
"It [the Holocaust] is something like a religion.... The Intellectual Adventure is that we are reversing this entire trend within the space of one generation -- that in a few years time no one will believe this particular legend anymore. They will say, as I do, that atrocities were committed. Yes, hundreds of thousands of people were killed, but there were no factories of death. All that is a blood libel against the German people."
Speech in Portland, OR. September 18, 1996. (posted on Internet)
hundreds of thousands?
Oh Dave, I wonder where did the Jewish communities of Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Poland, Romania, Italy, Austria and Germany disappear to?
Did they immigrate to Mars? hmm.....
Have you sir have no decency? Hint (No)....
"Although I vehemently disagree with what you say I defend to the death your right to say it". -patriot
His imprisonment was wrong. So what if he is.
It was Voltaire who said that - not a "patriot"
And the law in Austria prescribes a prison presence for what he did. Andere Laender, andere Sitten.
If you're going to break the law in another country, you're not going to be tried under the law of YOUR country.
why was it wrong? If he had been imprisoned in this country, I'd agree with you because it would be unlawful constitutionally. But in when you are in another country, you are taking a risk if you break their laws. And you get what you deserve if you do.
Correction: the Jewish community of Romania did not disappear as the Romanian government repeatedly refused Hitler's requests to deport Jews to concentration camps. No Romanian Jew was harmed during WWII. However, hundreds of thousands of Jews were deported from northern Transylvania by the occupying fascist Hungarians.
First, great job Max! You will go on to be a better Micheal Moore. As to the posts on this thread:
First there are limits to everything, including speech. I can't go into a crowded night club and yell fire, and I can't go out on a street corner incouraging the assissation of the President. This is because these actions are a direct threat on the saftey of other people. Austrians are taking this to the next stage, by ignoring or worse reshaping a critical part of their history, it could be argued that something like the Holocaust could happen (the likelyhood is not up for discussion, it's not relevant--only its possibility is). Let me ask this question, playing Devil's advocate, "Was slavery all that bad? Afterall slaves were provided for and sometimes the masters let them free." Anyone who thinks that I should be encourged to ask such a despicable and moronic question needs to reexamine how intellectual debate works. When an idea is 99% dismissed (1% of diehards), the opposing side doesn't need to be heard. This is the case of the Holocaust, it happened, and it was horrific.
BTW: Israel was formed because of the Holocaust, but today's problems are not because of its formation directly, just the actions of its government.
"but today's problems are not because of its formation directly, just the actions of its government."
And so it has nothing at all to do with the Palestinians firing almost 8000 rockets into Israeli cities over the last few years, or the Hamas charter that specifically calls for the murder of every Jew and the destruction of Israel, or the fact that Mahmoud Abbas rejects the notion of Israel as a "Jewish State which was the exact reason fro its creation by the world community via the United Nations ?
Just curious
the usa has basically inherited what was once the british empire.
Well the civilized world and enlightened humanity would outright reject the notion of a "Jewish state" as much as it would reject the notion of America being a "white Christian" state. Ethnic states are doomed to failure, as went apartheid South Africa so too will go Zionist Israel.
It would be useful to see a breakdown of the religious affiliation of the military defending the USA against terrorists, a comparative chart showing of the overall population vs their religion of those in actual military service to our Nation.
GZlives
the charter you are talking about dates from the 80s. Im sure you have missed Hamas accepting the 1967 Borders , and having a long term cease fire , and they dont call for the murder of every Jew , nonsense ! (unless it is for self defense ) the rockets are simply retataliation for the real Deadly Missiles that the US media keeps from you . it only tells you about the rockets and wont tell you what has happened before those rockets were fired . (israel so far has provoked the Palestinian Every single day , while taking more and more Dunums to build their settlments and walls .
The Likud Platform by the way does not recognize the freedom of Palestinian at all .
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Politics/likud.html
Germany and Austria have these special Holocaust denial laws because of their historical involvement in the Holocaust. If it became popular to deny that America's eradication of Native Americans never happened we would have special hate crime laws like this too. This isn't merely "freedom of speech". This is hate speech. The type that spurred the Rwanda genocide.
I still hold the people who did the killing in Rwanda to blame not the radio guy's inflammatory speech. Why do we blame ideas and their communication?
You've heard, we hope, of "fighting words", yes?
Speech can be so powerful, that it is, indeed, regulated.
But you know this, right? You wouldn't willy-nilly post something about speech without consciously knowing this, right?
just asking.
Such a law, in the United States, would violate our Constitution.
Yeah, well Austria and Germany are not the United States. And their laws are valid within their borders.
"This is hate speech."
Everybody favors freedom of speech for people who say things we like or approve of. The test of freedom of speech is whether it is granted to people who state points of view we abhor. What happened in Austria failed this test.
As usual you have no idea what you are talking about in your posting. Free speech is limited in this nation. NO one can shout fire in a theater. No one can make derogatory and demostrably false statements about someone without fear of a libel charge being brought. Free speech is not as free as you seem to believe.
Given the price Austria and other European nations paid for WW II it is only natural to limit speeches that seek to glorify the criminals who caused the war and the Holocaust. The rules limit speech concerning Nazis and Hitler, not just the Holocaust.
I lost family in the camps. I lost family in the War of Independence in 1948. I lost friends and comrades as we fought on the Golan in 1973. And I have learned that some hate speech is cleverly disguised as postings by some folks of limited intellectual capabilities.
Let's all ask ourselves this. For those of us who are crying about Irving's right to free speech, are we as quick to defend the free speech rights of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage when they mock people with Parkinsons' and autistic children? Where are their defenders on HuffPost? C'mon, guys, who will speak up for their right to express their views?
And what about Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilley? I hear very little in the way of wailing about free speech when it comes to this crowd. In fact, I'll bet most of us would be really happy if they were tossed off the air.
Where then is our committment free speech if we wish to silence these people? Where is our noble defense of those we do not personally agree with?
It's not that I think Irving should be put in prison for his views, but I smell a strong whiff of hypocricy in this thread when I look at the some of those crying crocodile tears over Irving, and see they are the same folks who have a very different take on the free speech of their own pet villains.
Just sayin'
Well put!
In 1990, Israel's official Yad Vashem Holocaust center “rewrote history" by admitting that the soap story was not true. "Historians have concluded that soap was not made from human fat. When so many people deny the Holocaust ever happened, why give them something to use against the truth?," said Yad Vashem official Shmuel Krakowski. Extermination Policy?
Is someone a "Holocaust denier" if he says that there was no order by Hitler to exterminate Europe's Jews?
There was a time when the answer would have been yes. Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg, for example, wrote in the 1961 edition of his study, The Destruction of the European Jews, that there were two Hitler orders for the destruction of Europe's Jews: the first given in the spring of 1941, and the second shortly thereafter. But Hilberg removed mention of any such order from the revised, three-volume edition of his book published in 1985.
As Holocaust historian Christopher Browning has noted: “In the new edition, all references in the text to a Hitler decision or Hitler order for the `Final Solution’ have been systematically excised. Buried at the bottom of a single footnote stands the solitary reference: `Chronology and circumstances point to a Hitler decision before the summer ended.’ In the new edition, decisions were not made and orders were not given.”
So tell more people about the holocaust. Don't imprison someone for views you don't agree with.
The Shoah was not a cottage industry/small business. It wasn't four or five "bad apples" purusing their murderous ways out of their garage.
It was highly organized operation with the erection of multiple death camps and their staffing, the organized forcible collecdtion and transport of people to the camps, the placing of orders for the manufacture of Giftgas, its delivery on a regular basis to the camps, the construction of facilities for the gassing of the inmates and the subsequent destruction of their bodies, etc. etc etc
Clearly, given the scale involved, a central point was required to efficiently organize this activity. And the diversion of resources from the war effort would not have escaped detecction.
If we assume that Der Fuehrer was really a fun loving but misunderstood guy, then given the internal rivalries within the Nazi state, someone would have stepped up and informed him.
That seems rather a stretch to put in mildly.
No written order may have been discovered at yet with his signature.
But I think there's pretty strong circumstantial case that he gave the order.
He had a clear history of virulent anti-Semitism, his party pushed through various laws persecuting Jews, and this sort of widespread activity is not a rogue operation.
Who the hell thinks any of the people mentioned should be arrested, imprisoned or barred from communicating? This is protection against GOVERNMENT interference with the communication. Which is why you should be able to use profanity on the public airwaves without a fine.
Who the hell thinks any of the people mentioned should be arrested, imprisoned or barred from communicating?
________________________________________________________
I do not believe Irving should be jailed or barred from communicating. If you read my entire post you'd get this is not the point I'm making.
The point is that a lot of the same screen names rushing to defend Irving's right to speak are the same ones that cheer when Don Imus is tossed off the air for saying something they find offensive. This criticism is directed as much at my own occasional behavior as it is at the behavior of other HuffPosters.
I am simply asking all of us to take a long, hard look at our own actions before we go all "holier than thou."
"are we as quick to defend the free speech rights of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage when they mock people with Parkinsons' and autistic children?"
The First Amendment gives them the right to say those things. But it does not say that others cannot criticise them for saying it. On the contrary, the way for a democratic society to deal with people who state views that we abhorr is precisely to criticise and refute them.
"Free speech" is simply what the majority believe.
starboy,
You said:
And what about Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilley? I hear very little in the way of wailing about free speech when it comes to this crowd. In fact, I'll bet most of us would be really happy if they were tossed off the air.
You bet, "tossed off the air". I'd love it. But imprisoned for their speech???? Come on.
That is the issue.
Being tossed off the air does not limit someone's freedom of speech. There is no constitutional protection for being on air when sharing one's speech. Those who try to equate the two are wrong.
After reading this article and the comments I have come to two conclusions. First we are lucky we live in a country with the 1st amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. Secondly many of the comments in this thread come very close to anti-Semitism. Those commentators, and they know who they are, should consider how fortunate they are living in the United States instead of Europe. They would be in jail by now.
Gosh thanks. I'm counting my blessings. So what if things kind of suck? Bush might not be that bad a guy. We could be living under Mugabe.... Hey, if you know that I know who I am, do you know who I am? Please don't watch me so closely...I really promise I'll behave.
The Holocaust happened of course, but what a biased piece.
Some of the people interviewed made some good points. Of course if there was no Holocaust there would no Israel, and of course there would be no talk of a war against Iran. I don't support David Irving's views but we should all stand up for his right to free speech. It's an absurdity that anyone in the 21st century should be locked up for holding a different view.
"Of course if there was no Holocaust there would no Israel, and of course there would be no talk of a war against Iran"
Really ... and you know this because your crystal ball told you so?
Google "Balfour Declaration" and you will find:
Balfour Declaration of 1917 (dated November 2, 1917) was a classified formal statement of policy by the British government stating that the British government "view with favour" the establishment in Palestine of "a national home for the Jewish people" on the conditions that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" or "the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I'm well aware of the Balfour Deceleration, but in no way does that contradict the point that Israel was created from the ashes of the Holocaust. I don't say this critically, I'm glad Israel was created, but let's not kid ourselves, had there been no Holocaust there would have a Palestine from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean.
And the fact that you didn't respond to the point about Iran is very telling.
Bravo - Max shows how you can have a point of view and still be a responsible journalist at the same time. Just like the Hagee video, Max makes his points by basically letting tape roll. He asks confrontational questions after researching for incriminating quotes, but fully lets the subjects defend themselves. This reminds me of Jesus Camp in how it portrays radical points of view with minimal commentary to give viewers enough intellectual credit to make up their own minds.
There is a scary side to this, however. We see in both this video and 'Rapture Ready' how Hagee or Irving can eloquently argue the fine lines between past quotes and current positions. But the followers of these men show quite clearly their racism, historical ignorance, cockamamie reasoning skills and vitriol. As delicate points get lost in translation, the whole message gets distorted.
I would like to hear a Hagee or Irving representative comment on the views of these followers as interviewed by Max, asking whether they are aware these views are prevalent. If so, it shows the whole think is a "dog whistle" operation - coded messages in public but lots of bigotry going on behind the scenes.
this guy is the Saul/Paul of his time.
he's talking about someone he could not possibly have met as if he knew him intimately, and with a passion that in a more fear-based society than ours could gain quite a following.
just saying....
St. Paul definitely met Jesus disciples and, as he states in his writings, checked with them whether his doctrines were consistent with Jesus' teachings. This is why the Christ myth doctrine is such complete nonesense.
and bush confirmed his sources when claiming saddam was seeking uranium from niger.
it's all about who writes the history.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
