Posted by: graemebird | April 12, 2009

How A Pro-DDT Expert Goes To War/Beware The Feeble Wordgames Of The Holocaust Deniers.

The DDT Holocaust deniers have about half a dozen simple but devastating tricks in which to hide tens of millions of murdered black babies under the floorboards.

On this thread I’ll name just one of them. And this is the trick which says that if you are in favour of an airforce you are against the navy, the army, and all forms of intelligence-gathering. So the implication is that if you are for the freedom to manufacture, buy and use DDT that means that you are totally against any other measures to destroy the mosquitoes.

Taking away your airforce can certainly be enough to give a decisive win to the other side. And bureaucratising DDT is a decisive blow against the humans and in favour of the Mosquitoes and the Malarial agents. But is there any truth to this charge? That those who were desperately fighting Malaria were doing so on the basis of spraying alone.

Here is a highly snipped extract from an article a committed holocaust-denier posted which went directly against his own trashing of history:

I’ve cut down the link to the points that are most relevant to how a real expert goes about destroying mosquitoes. Spraying isn’t the whole strategy. But its an essential part of strategy. Like artillery barrages. Or the use of airpower. If you cut it out your side will lose and the mosquitoes will win. And thats what did happen. We notice also from the extended quote that 1963 was the key year when things went wrong. This ought to surprise no-one.

“….Fred Soper, who ranks as one of the unsung heroes of the twentieth century. With DDT as his weapon, Soper almost saved the world from one of its most lethal afflictions.

……. Soper disagreed. Fighting malaria, he said, had very little to do with the intricacies of science and biology. The key was learning to think like the men he hired to go door-to-door and stream-to-stream, killing mosquitoes. His method was to apply motivation, discipline, organization, and zeal, in understanding human nature. Fred Soper was the General Patton of entomology.

While working in South America in 1930, Soper had enforced a rigorous protocol for inspecting houses for mosquito infestation, which involved checking cisterns and climbing along roof gutters. (He pushed himself so hard perfecting the system in the field that he lost twenty-seven pounds in three months.) He would map an area to be cleansed of mosquitoes, give each house a number, and then assign each number to a sector. A sector, in turn, would be assigned to an inspector, armed with the crude pesticides then available; the inspector’s schedule for each day was planned to the minute, in advance, and his work double-checked by a supervisor. If a supervisor found a mosquito that the inspector had missed, he received a bonus. And if the supervisor found that the inspector had deviated by more than ten minutes from his preassigned schedule the inspector was docked a day’s pay………

……..One of Soper’s greatest early victories came in Brazil, in the late nineteen-thirties, when he took on a particularly vicious strain of mosquito known as Anopheles gambiae. There are about twenty-five hundred species of mosquito in the world, each with its own habits and idiosyncrasies–some like running water, some like standing water, some bite around the ankles, some bite on the arms, some bite indoors, some bite outdoors–but only mosquitoes of the genus Anopheles are capable of carrying the human malaria parasite. And, of the sixty species of Anopheles that can transmit malaria, gambiae is the variety best adapted to spreading the disease. In California, there is a strain of Anopheles known as freeborni, which is capable of delivering a larger dose of malaria parasite than gambiae ever could. But freeborni is not a good malaria vector, because it prefers animals to people. Gambiae, by contrast, bites humans ninety-five per cent of the time. It has long legs and yellow-and-black spotted wings. It likes to breed in muddy pools of water, even in a water-filled footprint. And, unlike many mosquitoes, it is long-lived, meaning that once it has picked up the malaria parasite it can spread the protozoan to many others. Gambiae gathers in neighborhoods in the evenings, slips into houses at dusk, bites quietly and efficiently during the night, digests its “blood meal” while resting on the walls of the house, and then slips away in the morning. In epidemiology, there is a concept known as the “basic reproduction number,” or BRN, which refers to the number of people one person can infect with a contagious disease. The number for H.I.V., which is relatively difficult to transmit, is just above one. For measles, the BRN is between twelve and fourteen. But with a vector like gambiae in the picture the BRN for malaria can be more than a hundred, meaning that just one malarious person can be solely responsible for making a hundred additional people sick. The short answer to the question of why malaria is such an overwhelming problem in Africa is that gambiae is an African mosquito.

………..Soper told Brazilian officials to open the dykes damming the tidal flats, because salt water from the ocean would destroy the gambiae breeding spots. The government refused. Over the next few years, there were a number of small yet worrisome outbreaks of malaria, followed by a few years of drought, which kept the problem in check. Then, in 1938, the worst malaria epidemic in the history of the Americas broke out. Gambiae had spread a hundred and fifty miles along the coast and inland, infecting a hundred thousand people and killing as many as twenty thousand.

Soper was called in. This was several years before the arrival of DDT, so he brought with him the only tools malariologists had in those years: diesel oil and an arsenic-based mixture called Paris green, both of which were spread on the pools of water where gambiae larvae bred; and pyrethrum, a natural pesticide made from a variety of chrysanthemum, which was used to fumigate buildings. Four thousand men were put at his disposal.

He drew maps and divided up his troops. The men wore uniforms, and carried flags to mark where they were working, and they left detailed written records of their actions, to be reviewed later by supervisors. When Soper discovered twelve gambiae in a car leaving an infected area, he set up thirty de-insectization posts along the roads, spraying the interiors of cars and trucks; seven more posts on the rail lines; and defumigation posts at the ports and airports. ………………….. His goal was to eliminate gambiae from every inch of the region of Brazil that they had colonized–an area covering some eighteen thousand square miles.

It was an impossible task. Soper did it in twenty-two months.

……..
Soper’s diary records a growing fascination with this new weapon. July 25, 1943: “Lunch with L.L. Williams and Justin Andrews. L.L. reports that he has ordered 10,000 lbs of Neocid [DDT]and that Barber reports it to be far superior to [Paris Green]for mosquitoes.” February 25, 1944: “Knipling visits laboratory. Malaria results [for DDT]ARE FANTASTIC.” When Rome fell, in mid-1944, Soper declared that he wanted to test DDT in Sardinia, the most malarious part of Italy. In 1947, he got his wish. He pulled out his old organization charts from Brazil. The island–a rocky, mountainous region the size of New Hampshire, with few roads–was mapped and divided up hierarchically, the smallest unit being the area that could be covered by a sprayer in a week. Thirty-three thousand people were hired. More than two hundred and eighty-six tons of DDT were acquired. Three hundred and thirty-seven thousand buildings were sprayed.

The target Anopheles was labranchiae, which flourishes not just in open water but also in the thick weeds that surround the streams and ponds and marshes of Sardinia. Vegetation was cut back, and a hundred thousand acres of swampland were drained. Labranchiae larvae were painstakingly collected and counted and shipped to a central laboratory, where precise records were kept of the status of the target vector. In 1946, before the campaign started, there were seventy-five thousand malaria cases on the island. In 1951, after the campaign finished, there were nine.

“The locals regarded this as the best thing that had ever happened to them,” Thomas Aitken says. He had signed on with the Rockefeller Foundation after the war, and was one of the leaders of the Sardinian effort. “The fact that malaria was gone was welcome,” he went on. “But also the DDT got rid of the houseflies. Sardinian houses were made of stone. The wires for the lights ran along the walls near the ceiling. And if you looked up at the wires they were black with housefly droppings from over the years. And suddenly the flies disappeared.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You see all along it is implied in the holocaust-denying story of Quiggin, Lambert, Bug Girl and others…. the idea that the pro-spraying crowd needed to be lectured by the holocaust-perpetraters on matters to do with non-spraying combat of mosquitoes.

From the above we see that nothing could be further from the truth. And this implication that comes across like a relentless rolling thunder of implied-lying is just one of the several tricks of the leftist anti-science history-trashing holocaust-deniers.

A fair and balanced assessment of the DDT-Bureaucratisation-Holocaust. Its off the top of his head and you can quibble with one or two of the concrete facts he says. But thats not the real point of the issue.

Supposing it is fullscale war and you are evenly matched with the enemy. And the news came through that your air-power was less effective then you thought. That it was killing too many civilians, that the enemy had a new class of anti-aircraft resistance weapons coming out of the factories. That some of the bombs were effectively being exploded in midair and that this percentage was set to increase.

Do you work on targeting better and beefing up you non-air warfighting? Or do you scrap your airforce on the grounds that the enemy may adapt to it even a little bit more.

The answer is you adapt but you never throw whole classes of weapons away.

Doing less spraying wasn’t the answer. The answer was doubling and tripling the efforts in other areas. And then one fine day you might find that you only need to spray every few years.

The fact is we can win against Malaria and the mosquitoes. But not if liberty is compromised or if environmentalists are in any way given authority or involved.

I’ll give you are paradoxical example. The Cod. We fished Cod for 100’s of years. And it looked like we would always be able to fish Cod. The amount of Cod we pulled from the water from 1400 to 1900 must have been truly stunning and a marvel. And if you take the Cod the Cods own food supply is enhanced. Hence more Cod. And if you take the Cod the Cods predators are diminished. Hence more Cod.

But we broke the back of the Cod population just the same. And by overfishing ruined one of the most valuable industries in all of history.

Likewise we can destroy Malaria and all of the more serious mosquito-born diseases. Its not an easy undertaking. And it may await hyper-federalism and hard money in Africa since it probably cannot be done by aid alone. But it can be done. The main thing is that restrictions to the weaponry needed to achieve this must be both voluntary and local. Because if you centralise anything the environmentalists will repeat this (still ongoing) murder and this you can count on.

You can see what went wrong can’t you? DDT was so effective that it was overused. Not in the sense that too much of it was sprayed necessarily. But in the sense that it was cheap an easy to spray and not do the follow-up hard yards like Soper had done in the old days.

The answer was not to restrict DDT. But go overkill on the other activities such that you find sooner or later that the DDT is piling up in local storage.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. NOT AT ALL. UNDER FREE ENTERPRISE WE COULD RELY ON VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS. NO ITS THE TAKING AWAY OF THE ABILITY TO MANUFACTURE AND SELL DDT AND OTHER PESTICIDES THAT WAS THE PROBLEM.

    AND WERE IT UP TO ME I WOULD ANNOUNCE FAR AND WIDE THAT THE MANUFACTURE OF DDT IN AUSTRALIA WAS A TAX EXEMPT ACTIVITY. AND FASTRACK ANYONE WHO WAS WILLING OR ABLE TO DO THIS THROUGH IMMIGRATION.

    THIS IS FREE TRADE JASON. HAVING THE COMMUNISTS NATIONALISE OUR RESOURCES AND STRATEGIC ASSETS IS NOT FREE TRADE.

    BUT BEING ABLE TO MANUFACTURE PESTICIDES, INCLUDING DDT, IS FREE TRADE. FROM THERE IF GOVERNMENT SPENDING WAS LOW, DONATIONS IN MONEY AND DDT WOULD COME THICK AND FAST FOR SPONSORED AREAS.

  2. Thats a pretty standard argument with hard leftists Jason. Its very much reminds me of people suddenly putting on the isolationist hat with the Stalin-Mao capture of China.

    You see Marshalls office made their ally sit on his hands when he could have destroyed Mao. But just when Chiang was himself in trouble they pulled aid so Mao could take over. And one supposes that people like you would have suddenly put on the libertarian-isolationist hat the minute the aid question came up. Like there was no history to the situation at all.

    We have to get to a situation of almost no foreign aid. But we don’t do so on the basis of giving leftists and holocaust-enablers strategic wins all over the place.

  3. FACE IT JASON SOON. YOU REALLY ARE BOTH AN IDIOT AND A LEFTIST.

  4. 5 DAYS TO END A STANDOFF IS NOT PROOF OF POWERFUL DECISIVENESS.

    THE SITUATION MERELY REQUIRED PUTTING ENOUGH SHIPS IN THE AREA SO THE SNIPERS COULD HIT THEM FROM ALL SIDES SIMULTANEOUSLY.

    THEY COULD HAVE TRIED IT ON DAY 1 BUT YOU WOULD GO AHEAD WHEN THERE WAS THE MINIMUM RISK TO THE HOSTAGE.

  5. What it does go to show is that we have to be able to deliver snipers anywhere in the world and we need to have the technology to co-ordinate them from all angles.

    Not that the negotiators are unnecessary. After all they buy time to put the snipers in place. And also after folks calm down there is the chance of a prison sentence if there is some reason to believe that some of them really did not wish to harm others.

    But basically you are wanting to put people in place at all angles.

  6. DAMN RIGHT WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL. SNIPERS ARE FOR REGIME LEADERSHIP AND HOSTAGE SITUATIONS, AS WELL AS FOR SITUATIONS OF FULL-SCALE WAR. IN ALL CASES WE ARE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AS SOON AS IT IS SAFE FOR US TO DO SO AND NEVER LET CONSPIRACY THEORIES HAVE REASON TO ARISE.

    ANY CLANDESTINE SNIPERS…. ANY GOVERNMENT SNIPERS WHOSE ACTIVITIES ARE NOT AN OPEN BOOK, ANYTHING LIKE THAT IS A FULL FRONTAL ASSAULT ON LIBERTY EVERYWHERE.

    THAT YOU CAN POTENTIALLY HAVE A SNIPER BREAK PATTONS NECK AND THAT THIS COULD STILL BE AN OFFICIAL SECRET OR A SECRET EVEN 3 YEARS LATER IS A GRAVE THREAT TO LIBERTY EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD.

    AND IF THERE IS THE POTENTIAL FOR THE SAME TYPE OF SECRECY IN OUR OWN COUNTRY AND WITH OUR OWN SNIPERS WE HAVE TO END THAT AS A FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS.

    IF WE ARE NOT OUT AND PROUD AND READY TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR AN ASSASINATION THEN IT OUGHT NOT GO AHEAD. THAT PUTS A VERY HIGH BAR ON ASSASINATIONS AND THATS A GOOD THING.

  7. RIGHT. HE BROKE HIS NECK ON THE CUSHION OF THE FRONT SEAT. NO OTHER INJURIES. HO HO. NO-ONE IN THE FRONT SEAT HURT. GOOD ONE. AND NOT LONG BEFORE HIS SON WIPED OUT IN A CAR ACCIDENT. I SUPPOSE YOU FIND THIS ALL FUNNY.

    THE SNIPER WHO BROKE HIS NECK CONFESSED. AND HE DIDN’T DIE IN AN ACCIDENT. HE WENT TO HOSPITAL AND HE GOT BETTER. THEN HE DIED.

  8. This is of the utmost importance. If I was running things and putting together a team of snipers and the ability to deploy them….. if I thought for even one minute that they could be used and a cloud of secrecy brought down on what they did for more than 10 years then I would cancel the program, disperse the team, and advise Australians to stay at home.

    Snipers plus secrecy is the most incredible danger imagineable. To this day we don’t know for sure who killed Martin and others. Not for sure we don’t.

    We know that Oswald killed Kennedy. We just don’t know if he was given any encouragement at the Cuban embassy in Mexico City. Or if there was backup in Dallas that day.

  9. Of course the snipers identity THEMSELVES would need 30 year protection. But the people who make the decision to use them have to take responsibility and put their faith in internal security for the rest of their lives.

    The Usurper has taken responsibility for the decision. And if he were President that would be how it ought to be.

    If we put out a hunting season on regime leadership then whatever happens we need to take responsibility. But once hunting season is over even people we hate need to know that opportunistic killings are not our fault. And we will take the responsibility for our actions.

    That way we can turn the fear on. But we can turn it off also. And even a superior power will realise that it is better to

    Leave Laconic Australia Alone.
    Her Word is Good, And Carved In Stone…

    Cheap doggerel but good foreign policy.

  10. HE GOT BETTER. THEN HE DIED. POISONED NO DOUBT. CLEARLY POISONED IF THEY WEREN’T LOOKING FOR AND SUSPECTING IT AND IF THEY DIDN’T CHECK IT TO THE NTH DEGREE.

    YOU DON’T DIE OF SHIT LIKE THAT FROM TRAUMA TO THE NECK DOCTOR DUMBASS.

  11. Fisk makes sense. Rockwell has gone off his rocker. Obama should just nuke the Somali coast next time though

    http://www.catallaxyfiles.com/blog/?p=4567#comment-125488

  12. Proof that you really hate black people. I know that you are a closet eugenicist and you cannot hide from me. Even though you are weak on socialism its the closet eugenicist in you that is the motivation.

    For starters Obama is a usurper and lacks the authority to nuke anyone. For a criminal on the fly he did what he had to do with the hostage takers. But a valid Chief Executive could pull out of Afghanistan now and at the same time punish regime leadership in Saudi Arabia or Somalia if it is the case that they are behind the piracy. An authentic Commander-In-Chief might punish them by a number of measures if he could make the link or better still a FACTION within regime leadership.

    You don’t just nuke people on the ground who are our friends and brothers. Don’t hide behind the shorthand language of Fisk though he has the best judgement on Catallaxy CL alone excepted, he is talking without caveats and broadbrush no doubt.

  13. HO HO DOCTOR FATTY. MB AKA DH IS A MEDICAL DOCTOR ALL OF A SUDDEN. AND IN FATTIES PROFESSIONAL OPINION TRAUMA TO THE NECK IS LIKE SOME SORT OF DELAYED DEATH BLOW LIKE SOME SECRET KUNG FU DELAYED DEATH BLOW THAT ONLY TWO CHINAMEN KNOW ABOUT BECAUSE THEY CAME DOWN FROM THE MOUNTAINS AFTER BEING TRAINED SIXTY YEARS APART BY THE MANDARINS OF SHANGRILA…. WHOSE PRESENCE IS ONLY APPARENT TO A YOUNG PERSON, 10 YEARS OF AGE TO BE EXACT, WHO LOSES HIMSELF IN THE MOUNTAINS BUT ONLY IN THE YEAR OF THE FIRE HORSE.

    AND SO ONLY TWO LIVING CHINAMEN KNOW THE DELAYED DEATH BLOW THAT HURTS THE NECK. THEN THE PATIENT GETS BETTER. AND JUST AS HE IS GOOD AND FINE THE ANCIENT SECRET FROM SHANGRILA KICKS IN AND THE DELAYED DEATH BLOW CAUSES A SHITRAIN OF PHYSICAL COMPLICATIONS.

    LOOK YOU FUCKING DUMMY. ONCE YOU ARE RECOVERING FROM SPINAL TRAUMA THEN THE ONLY PROBLEM COMES WITH PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH BEING BEDRIDDEN.

    NO-ONES SENDING YOU AN HONORARY DEGREE IN MEDICINE ANYTIME SOON MB/DH YOU STUPID FAT FUCKING CUNT.

  14. Now that I checked it out Fisk was advocating no such thing but was having a gentlemanly disagreement with Rockwell. Who after all is a good Christian. And Rockwell is not deeply conclusive about it. Rockwell isn’t being strident about it.

    Yes Rockwell is wrong. 5 days is long enough. A good Christians charity ought to have run out on the third day and we pay no amount of money that could possibly nourish a network.

    But that just goes to show that even our greatest friends can be wrong. Friedman can be wrong. Codevilla and Reisman can be wrong and will you let me know if that ever happens because I’ve not busted them yet. But Rand and Rothbard can be wrong. Even Sowell can be wrong though not very bloody often. McCarthy was never wrong about who he supoenead. But he can drink to much. Shoot off at the mouth. Be hung over and tired towards the end of his questioning. He was seldom wrong but he can be wrong. Newton can be wrong. Einstein can be wrong and was wrong often though it looked for a few decades like everything he said in physics was almost miraculous if illogical.

    You see we must escape this cult of personality. And you would have backed down on operation keelhaul 2 years ago had you escaped this cult of personality.

    Fisk may be upset. But he’s a smart enough bloke to know that Lew Rockwell is a good man. And he’ll calm down and realise that Lew is allowed to be wrong once in awhile and he is still our good friend. And when he’s not wrong outright the tendency would be to follow his strategy. Clearly Lew is way too harsh on Reagan. And clearly Lew used to be too harsh on Friedman. But he’s come good on that score lately.

    The last thing Lew would want us to do is make some sort of cult figure out of him. He is only going with his good Christian instincts.

  15. Your arguement is not entirely clear, are you saying that we should bring back DDT to kill off all mosquitoes, Ignoring the immense damage it causes to the ecology?

    WHAT DAMAGE WOULD THAT BE? BEAR IN MIND THAT THE PEOPLE WHO KILLED TENS OF MILLIONS ARE GOING TO MAKE A BIG SONG AND DANCE AS FAR AS EXCUSES ARE CONCERNED.

  16. FATTY YOU QUEER BASTARD. CAN YOU FOR ONE MINUTE RESIST GOING ONTO THE INTERNET IN DRAG.

  17. No-one had any right to ban DDT in the first place. Putting DDT under centralised control increased its costs and also increased the resistance to it by putting a time delay between a breakout and the usage of DDT.

    One of the way that adaptation is enhanced is by pumping-holocaust. If you let the numbers build up and then knock them down laying off everytime before the job is done. Thats the ideal way to allow the mosquitoes to develop resistance. As you would know from your doctor telling you to finish your course of anti-biotics even after you no longer feel sick. Dead insects aren’t resistant to much.

    So whereas overuse or inappropriate use may have been expected to lead to some resistance, centralized control was much worse on that score. And the historical record backs me up on this matter.

    So they had no right to take any action on DDT at all. Save trying to persuade people to narrow its use to only where infectious diseases were concerned. And also there ought to have been more persuasion to do more things on top of merely just spraying. The spraying was good. But there was probably not enough follow-up work.

  18. Well, knocking out insects is one thing that damages the ecosystem when you knock out a species, let alone a phylum, in a food web all the animals and a bunch of plants suffer and die.

    One of the other issues with ddt is that it takes a very very long time to be removed from said food web. It bioaccumulates, meaning that if a bird eats ten ddt treated insects it now has ten times the amount of ddt the insects were first treated with. DDT gets stored in fatty tissue, so if you are put under stress it gets released, if you are a mammal thats not so bad but its deadly to reptile and bird species. That bird with ten times the amount of ddt in its system is eaten by a hawk, this hawk then eat nine other simillar birds, it now has 100 times the initial dose. This becomes a problem as ddt causes thin shells in eggs, causing many eggs to be destroyed even as the mother tries to care for it.

    When you take hawks and alegators out of the food web you get and explosion of the numbers in the smaller species which are normally kept in check. this starts destroying all the plants that are over grased by these smaller birds.

  19. What plants suffer from DDT use?

    You appear to be talking only in the general here. And it seems to be a no-mosquito-left-behind welfare program you have in mind. No black babies need apply for a long life.

    Keep going.

  20. Supposing you spray mortein flyspray and let the froth settle to straight liquid in to a cup. Suppose you get insects to eat it. Then some birds, then some mammals, then humans.

    Now suppose we do the same with rat poison.

    Finally we do likewise with DDT.

    Which pesticide has a greater ratio of damage to the insects IN COMPARISON with the birds and mammals? Clearly expressed as a ratio DDT is more damaging to the insects in comparison to the rest of the environment then other pesticides that we are familiar with.

    Are you in fact claiming that in our response to Dengue fever and Malaria we swear some sort of blood oath not to harm the blessed mosquito?

    If so, are you not rather confirming the way of thinking that caused the mass murder of black children and that is still killing them as we speak?

    You would agree that a lot of people do think like you and take your general point of view do you not? And you would agree that it was your type of thinking that lead to bureaucratisation and rationing of DDT would you not?

  21. “One of the other issues with ddt is that it takes a very very long time to be removed from said food web. It bioaccumulates, meaning that if a bird eats ten ddt treated insects it now has ten times the amount of ddt the insects were first treated with. DDT gets stored in fatty tissue, so if you are put under stress it gets released, ”

    This is coming straight from Silent Spring with no intervening thought involved at all. She outlined a horrorshow of dioxins building up so in the end the shark or the human was just a walking depository of DDT.

    All crap. DDT is just like any other pesticide.

  22. http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/ddt-nutcases/#comment-70827

    Let me link to this incompetent history teacher. Ed is a liar. A holocaust-denier. And a trasher of history. He’s a science incompetent and that doesn’t help his historical interpretation either.

    Basically its as if David Irving hadn’t even so much as written a book to argue for his case. This holocaust-denier Ed refuses to put up a case for his alternate history.

    So thats what leftists do. They refuse to argue a case and then when you argue the case for authentic known history they simply put on their David Hume Super-Skeptic hat and implicitly use the Bart Simpson excuse. “YOU CAN’T PROVE ANYTHING” is what Ed is saying. Tens of millions of black kids dead and out comes the Hume-Nuke. You cannot prove anything. They would have died anyway. No we are not giving the liberty back for people to deal with their problems. But this mountainload of dead people would have died anyhow.

    This is the grave damage government involvement in the education process has caused. About the only thing an idiot holocaust-denier like Ed learns is the one-sided Hume-nuke. I mean the fellow is just a nazi pig when it comes down to it. With his crude nazi version of science and his lying about history. Like any good nazi would.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: