|04-12-2014, 12:30 AM||#1|
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: American Dystopian Utopia
Posts: 56,062Rep Power: 50
Auschwitz: Final Solution? Or Insider-Historian incest?
Historian Christopher R. Browning, who is one of the gate keepers of the Holocaust establishment, in an entry in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, defines the Final Solution as
“the Nazis’ comprehensive program to solve their ‘Jewish question’ by murdering every Jew in Europe. Initiated by Adolf Hitler in the summer of 1941 in the euphoria of his greatest successes and his seemingly imminent victory over the Soviet Union, the ‘Final Solution’ was the culmination of a long evolution of Nazi Jewish policy—
“from Hitler’s earliest articulation of a solution to the ‘Jewish question’ in 1919, through the Nazi attempts to coerce Jewish emigration in the 1930s, to the schemes for mass expulsion after the outbreak of war, and, finally, the leap to mass murder with the Einsatzgruppen assault on the Russian Jewry in 1941.”
These assertions look nice on paper and will make bestsellers, but Browning cannot provide historical documentation proving that Hitler or the Nazis wanted to exterminate every single Jew in Europe.
In a less dogmatic tone, the United States Holocaust Museum declared that “The origin of the ‘Final Solution,’ the Nazi plan to exterminate the Jewish people, remains uncertain,” but added,
“After the beginning of World War II, anti-Jewish policy evolved into a comprehensive plan to concentrate and eventually annihilate European Jewry.”
Since the Holocaust establishment has yet to find archival documents for the “Final Solution” thesis, German historian Peter Longerich hopelessly tries to answer the historical puzzle by saying that the “Final Solution” was one those unwritten orders in the Third Reich.
In another Holocaust encyclopedia which is edited by Walter Laqueur and others, we read that
“Neither Roman Catholic nor the Protestant churches, nor even the International Red Cross, thought that they had been guilty of major sins of commission or omission as far as the murder of Jews was concerned. There was hesitation to punish the guilty and to reward those who had helped victims.”
9780300084320The sources and examples? The encyclopedia does not tell us. The reason is simple: the claim is demonstrably false. In fact, both Catholics and Protestants were in agreement when it came to protecting Jews from physical persecutions.
Speaking of some of the policies in Germany at the time, Augustine Cardinal Hlond of Poland wrote unapologetically:
“I warn against that moral stance, imported from abroad that is basically and ruthlessly anti-Jewish. It is contrary to Catholic ethics. One may love one’s own nation more, but one may not hate anyone. Not even Jews…it is forbidden to demolish a Jewish store, damage their merchandise, break windows, or throw things at their homes.
“One should stay away from the harmful moral influence of Jews, keep away from their anti-Christian culture…But it is forbidden to assault, beat up, maim, or slander Jews. One should honor Jews as human beings and neighbors…When divine mercy enlightens a Jew to sincerely accept his and our Messiah, let us greet him into our Christian ranks with joy.”
Browning, leaving history behind and embracing his own madness, declares that Hitler
“fantasized about publicly hanging every Jew in Germany and leaving the bodies dangling until they stank.”
Once again, Browning does not provide a shred of reputable evidence for this claptrap.
Jewish historian Norman F. Cantor admits that there was not a single statement from Hitler which explicitly talked about the extermination of all Jews of Europe, but explains that the reason we don’t have such a paper is because “top people in government or big corporations who are ordering underlings to do something nasty normally do not put it in writing.”
That argument suffers badly for the very reason that if no such a document exists, then there is no need to dogmatically assert that Hitler wanted to exterminate all the Jews of Europe in just about every single popular book. That certainly would not work in a court of law. If Mr. X accuses Mr. Y of stealing his wallet, then Mr. X is under the obligation to provide some convincing evidence for the claim. If Mr. X declares, “I don’t have evidence; I just have a feeling.” Would that work?
Moreover, if there is not a trace of evidence for the assertion, then one is entitled to say that the reason evidence does not exist is because there was no such order in the first place. Hitler would have been one of the dumbest leaders if his intention was to hang every single Jew in Europe or Germany and then promoted those same Jews who had proven to be brave in battle. Hitler even
“wanted Jewish Mischlinge who had proven themselves in battle and who had been discharged recalled to active duty. If they continued to prove themselves, Hitler would declare them deutschblutig…
“Moreover, Hitler had sanctioned a decree that allowed Jewish Mischlinge who had died in battle to receive the deutschblutig declarations posthumously…”
browning_140Albert S. Lindemann of the University of California seems to have put the final nail in the coffin when he declares,
“It seems to be that the evidence for a planned murder of all Jews before the eve of World War II is unpersuasive, particularly given the pervasive chaos of Nazi decision making.
“Some of those who argue that such a plan existed seem more motivated by indignation than evidence—by a desire to make the charge of premeditated, first-degree murder stick, as it were.”
Yet since no document exists for the “Final Solution” proposition, some historians try to sneak in through other means. Historian Ian Kershaw, in a book that has been highly praised by the Holocaust Looney Tunes (Deborah Lipstadt, Saul Friedlander, Christopher Browning, etc.), tries to defend the Final Solution thesis by saying that Hitler’s term “removal” may actually mean “extermination” or “annihilation.”
Once again, the thesis does not work for the very reason that if Hitler wanted to exterminate all the Jews of Europe, then it makes no sense for him to make distinctions between good Jews and bad Jews.
Furthermore, the Final Solution thesis is incompatible with archival documents and diaries. For example, in the Goebbels diaries, we see Hitler saying in 1935 that “there should be no excesses against the Jews and no persecutions of ‘non-Aryans.’” Goring likewise wrote,
“I have discussed this with the Führer himself now; we have been able to use one Jew two years longer in Vienna, and another in photographic research, because they have certain things that we need and that can be of the utmost beneﬁt to us at the present. It would be utter madness for us to say now: ‘He’ll have to go.
“He was a magnificent researcher, a fantastic brain, but his wife is Jewish, and he can’t be allowed to stay at the University,’ etc. The Führer has made similar exceptions in the arts all the way down to operetta level; he is all the more likely to make exceptions where really great projects or researchers are concerned.”
Kersaw, quoting Hitler, wrote, “The Jew [must know] that we’re the bosses here; if he behaves well, he can stay—if not, then out with him.”
This statement proves accurate since Hitler’s own family doctor, Eduard Bloch, was Jewish. Hitler even called Bloch “a noble Jew.” When Germany occupied Austria in 1938, Hitler specifically placed Bloch
“under the protection of the Gestapo, as Linz’s only Jew: Dr. and Mrs. Bloch were allowed to remain in their home undisturbed until all the formalities regarding their emigration were settled. Without interference from the authorities they could sell their large, beautiful home for a fair price, and they were allowed to keep their money—extraordinary privileges at that time.”
In 1940, Bloch moved to the United States and died in 1945 in New York.
Hitler “left several Mischlinge officers at their posts without subjecting them to any persecution.”
What is even more shocking to some is that Heinrich Himmler
“helped a Jew, Professor Fritz Pringsheim, leave a concentration camp and escape Germany. Several officials had old comrades of Jewish ancestry. They had seen the common humanity of German-Jewish soldiers who fought bravely and died in World War I.
“Moreover, many had grown up with Jews and Mischlinge and had come to view them as friends and colleagues—some were even relatives or lovers—and they valued these relationships more than they did their anti-Semitism. Hitler seemed to respect the opinions of these men when they endorsed a particular Mischlinge for an exemption.
“For example, throughout the early 1930s, several people brought the Litzmann family’s grandchildren of the famous General Karl Litzmann, Staatsrat and Nazi Party member. Litzmann had two grandsons who were quarter-Jews according to Nazi law.
“Hitler allowed their mother to stay in the Party and her children to remain officers although her husband was a Mischlinge.
“One of the grandsons, Walter Lehwe-Litzmann, attained the rank of colonel in the Luftwaffe, served as the Luftflotte 5 (Air Fleet 5) operations adjutant to General Hans-Jurgen Stumpff in Norway, and successfully flew 160 missions with the Ju-88 twin-engine medium bomber. For his accomplishments, he received the German-Cross in Gold and the Ritterkreuz.”
These facts complicate things for those who propose that Nazi Germany intended to liquidate all European Jews. That is one reason why things like that do not make it into popular books. After all, why complicate things?
It is a matter of fact that many Jews were sent to concentration camps for various reasons, and between 1943 and 1944, many Jews were being persecuted, but at the same time, many others were exempt from persecution.
Rigg documents that “Hitler took his responsibility to grant exemptions seriously.” Thousands of Mischlinge remained in the armed forces because Hitler took that step; from 1934 to 1939, Hitler “allowed several to remain at their posts.”
In addition, “between 1938 and 1939, Hitler brought several of the Mischlinge he had discharged back into the ranks, declaring them along with those Mischlinge who had remained on active duty deutschblutig,” and around the same time, he “reactivated several hundred Mischlinge officers.”
bloch-hamannEven when Germany was close to losing the war in 1945, Paul Berben, a historian who was a prisoner of war in World War II and who wrote Dachau: The Official History, noted that the Final Solution thesis could not work for several reasons:
“If the S.S. were to start using machine-guns and flame-throwers, the result would be general revolt and attack on the boundary fences, a terrible slaughter and the flight of thousands of prisoners. To gas the inhabitants in situ was not practicable, as the equipment was not adequate.
“Since the evacuation of the extermination camps in the East, there were no installations with the capacity for such a large-scale operation, and in any case it would have had to be preceded by massive convoys during which many escapes would have been unavoidable…These methods of mass-liquidation were in any case all difficult to put into operation.”
Berben went on to note that the only place where the Final Solution existed was in the mind of the prisoners who, when the war was getting closer to the end, began to think that the S.S. would eventually liquidate them.
The “Final Solution” thesis weakens further when the record shows that Hitler kept many Mischlinge scientists, pilots, engineers, and others in Nazi Germany without persecuting them. Erhard Milch, a Mischlinge,
“became one of the most powerful men in the Luftwaffe and the Third Reich. In 1933, when Hitler wanted to hire the half-Jew Milch to help build an air force, he told him, ‘Now look, I haven’t known you for very long, but you’re a man who knows his job, and we have few in the Party who know as much about the air as you.
“That’s why the choice has fallen on you. You must take the job. It’s not a question of the Party, as you seem to think—it’s a question of Germany and Germany needs you.’ Milch admitted later that this talk with Hitler convinced him to take the job.”
Historian Peter Fritzsche, falling into the Final Solution trap, writes that by 1940-1941, the Nazis aspired “to seize and murder all Jews in Europe.”
hitlers.warTo support this risible assertion, he quotes Hermann Goring, saying, “In the final analysis, [the war] is about whether the German and Aryan prevails here, or whether the Jew rules the world, and that is what we are fighting for out there.” What does that have to do with the Final Solution?
Fritzsche and others can easily prove their point by digging into the archives to find reliable sources for the Final Solution story. Yet, like many historians who believe in the story, he cites others of the same mind, with no one offering up any evidence to support the popular assertions. Fritzsche and the Holocaust establishment have fallen in to what David Irving calls “inner-historian incest”:
“For thirty years our knowledge of Hitler’s part in the atrocity had rested on inter-historian incest. Many people, particularly in Germany and Austria, had an interest in propagating the version that the order of one madman originated the entire tragedy. Precisely when this order was given was, admittedly, left vague.”
After years of desperation, historian Ian Kershaw seems to have admitted defeat. He declares that “the presumption that a single, explicit written order had ever been given had long been dismissed by most historians.”
himmlerThe sad fact is that the “Final Solution” thesis, after years of media incubation and propaganda, has reached a point where it is almost impossible to raise thoughtful questions about the issue.
David Turner of the Jerusalem Post wrote that “Hitler’s intention was to achieve a final solution to a Jewish Problem born two millennia before, with the first century Pauline and gospel texts.”
For Turner, there was a serious “effort to exterminate each and every Jew alive in the twentieth century,” which was part of the “magnitude of the Final Solution to the Jewish Problem.”
That frightening thought does seem to keep Turner up at night. (Turner is currently writing a book on this subject, and I have interacted with him before. The exchange can be found here.)
Turner continues to state that the anti-Jewish attitude in the gospels of Matthew and John culminated in the “Final Solution.” The reason for this, he argues, is that people simply hate Jews.
Turner even argues that Chrysostom’s writings provided some of the basis for Nazi Germany. He quotes Chrysostom in saying that “the synagogue is a brothel, a den of scoundrels.”
Turner is not alone in monkey business. When John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt’s book The Israel Lobby came out, neoconservative and classicist Bruce Thornton of Stanford declared that not only is the book promoting another version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but Harvard, where Walt teaches, has been indirectly promoting another final solution of the Jews!
neoconservativeSome believe this Final Solution thesis because they have seen no other alternatives and perhaps this is what they have been taught.
Sarah Gordon, an honest historian, agreed with the Final Solution thesis, but based her point on Raul Hilberg and the Holocaust establishment such as Lucy Dawidowicz.
Dawidowicz argued that Hitler made the decision to exterminate the Jews in the 1920s, but she could not provide the evidence.
Dawidowicz protested against historian Norman Davies at Stanford because he challenged the prevailing notion of the Holocaust. Davies actually upset the Holocaust status quo by saying,
“The western democracies never actually fought the USSR and Stalin could never compete in the popular mind with Hitler as ‘the evil enemy.’ For example, the Jewish Holocaust was barely discussed for two decades after the war but made enormous inroads into western consciousness from the 1960s exactly because it fitted so snugly into the existing scheme. It has rightly become an emblematic episode of inhumanity but it also confirms our preference for one, supremely evil enemy.
“In some countries, Holocaust denial is a criminal offence yet Gulag denial is not even on the agenda. The British War Crimes Act applies exclusively to crimes committed ‘by Germans or on German-occupied territory.’
“And the European parliament, when recently asked to grant a minute’s silence in honour of 22,000 allied officers shot by the NKVD (the communist secret police), refused.
“And all historians would agree that the Third Reich was defeated by the effective co-operation of East and West. Yet nobody shows much enthusiasm to quantify relative contributions or anything more precise than ‘Soviet forces inflicted more German losses than the western armies combined.’
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
“German sources, however, are more forthcoming. They state unequivocally that 75-80% of Germany’s losses were incurred on the eastern front. The implication is that all other contributions added up to a maximum of 20-25%.
“Of this, the Americans might claim 15%, and the British 10% Western apologists argue that the Soviet Union received enormous logistical supplies from the West, that the Red Army was helped by the western bombing offensive and the war at sea, and that other aspects, from industrial production to intelligence, should not be overlooked.
“Yet the fact remains: fighting is the essential activity in war. And as an adversary the Red Army greatly excelled all its western counterparts. Suffice it to say that in one single operation in 1944, when demolishing the Army Group Mitte in Byelorussia, Marshal Rokossovsky destroyed a collection of Wehrmacht divisions equivalent to the entire German deployment on the western front.
“In fact the D-Day landings would be the sole operation fought by western armies that might scrape into the war’s top 10 battles. Not surprisingly, both military and civilian casualties in eastern Europe reached a similar titanic scale. Here one must beware of the notoriously false slogan of ‘20 [million] Russian war dead.’
“The accepted figure is 27 [million] not 20 [million], it refers to ‘Soviet citizens’ not to Russians, and includes millions of victims killed by the Stalinist regime during and after the war. Even so, the levels were staggering. The Red Army lost up to 13m, and still managed to prevail…
“In reality, Soviet communism was as hostile to western democracy as it was to fascism. Stalinist practices, however, undermine the entire moral framework within which the allied cause is perceived. It is not possible to maintain that the allies were fighting for untrammeled good if the largest of their members was habitually given to mass murder.
“Before 1941, enough was known about Stalin’s concentration camps, purges, show trials and state terror that western leaders had no excuse for ignorance. Yet such was the desperate need for Soviet military assistance that all western suspicions were suspended.
“During the war, there were thousands in London and Washington who had witnessed Stalin’s camps and murders. But they were effectively silenced by war censorship, and sometimes by military discipline.
“Officers caught discussing what they had heard about Stalin’s crimes were threatened with courts martial. Even Churchill, who had been a strident anti-Bolshevik and who admitted to ‘supping with the devil,’ warmed to the blandishments of success.
“When victory finally came, very few were willing to count the political and moral cost. At the Nuremberg trials, three categories of criminal conduct were established: crimes against peace (i.e., wars of aggression); war crimes and crimes against humanity. By any reckoning, Stalin’s regime deserved to stand trial on all counts.
“It had been expelled from the League of Nations for crimes against peace. While defeating the Wehrmacht, its forces had perpetrated numberless atrocities. And in pursuing policies of mass murder, mass deportation, repressions and ethnic cleansing the Soviet state had manifestly entered the realm of crimes against humanity.
“Yet in the victory euphoria, they need not have feared a public reprimand, let alone a formal accusation. When German defence lawyers at Nuremberg protested on this score, they were cut short by the chairman, Sir Geoffrey Lawrence. ‘We are here to judge major war criminals,’ he reminded the court, ‘not to try the prosecuting powers.’”
Davies, who is not an obscure historian, was certainly asking for trouble. Dawidowicz and another Jewish historian by the name of Abraham Brumberg were mobilized to get him fired. Davies eventually moved to England, where he taught history at the University of London and later became a fellow at Oxford.
Dawidowicz and Brumberg were able to attack Davies precisely because they are the big boss in the Holocaust industry. They do not have to produce historical scholarship. They just have to denounce or dismiss or sometimes attack virtually any individual who does not subscribe to the Holocaust industry.
Albert S. Lindemann declares that Dawidowicz’s War Against the Jews “must be faulted for the dubious tenor and simplistic nature of its background chapters.”
Moreover, though the chapters of her book “may be considered effective” to some, “as scholarship, where balance and insight are the ideals, they fall short.” In short, Dawidowicz certainly falls into the category of Jewish historians who tend to exaggerate in order to support an ideology.
Where does she get her ideology? Let us hear from Dawidowicz herself:
“Our sense of being Jews and therefore being different from non-Jews were nurtured in me and my sister from infancy. We were raised to know that the world was divided into two irreconcilable groups: We and They. They were the non-Jews, who hated us and wished to destroy us. But We will prevail, largely because of our moral virtues and mental endowments.”
There is a striking parallel between Dawidowicz and Rabbi Menachem Schneerson. Rabbi Schneerson postulated before he passed away:
“the soul of the Jew is different than the soul of the non-Jew…The difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish person stems from the common expression: ‘Let us differentiate.’
“Thus, we do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather, we have a case of ‘let us differentiate’ between totally different species.
“This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world … The difference in the inner quality between Jews and non-Jews is “so great that the bodies should be considered as completely different species.
“An even greater difference exists in regard to the soul. Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness.
“As has been explained, an embryo is called a human being, because it has both body and soul. Thus, the difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish embryo can be understood.…
“the general difference between Jews and non-Jews: A Jew was not createdas a means for some [other] purpose; he himself is the purpose, since the substance of all [divine] emanations was created only to serve the Jews.
“The important things are the Jews, because they do not exist for any [other] aim; they themselves are [the divine] aim. The entire creation [of a non-Jew] exists only for the sake of the Jews.”
What we are seeing here is that both Dawidowicz and Schneerson drink from the same Talmudic well. It also proves that Dawidowicz was acting as an intellectual Talmudist. Yet she never seemed to think that this “We and They” thesis could be the cause of anti-Jewish reaction throughout the centuries.
This “We and They” dichotomy is pronounced quite vividly in the theological text as well—the Talmud—where the goyim are referred to as sub-human, and the “We” referred to as God’s favorite.
How is it that Dawidowicz, who believes that Hitler intended to exterminate all the Jews of the world, never saw that that conflict could may well lie at the feet of the Talmudic reasoning? The answer, of course, is not that difficult.
Historian Richard B. Bosworth of the University of Western Australia said that Dawidowicz was a staunch Zionist who ended up writing for neoconservative magazines such as Commentary and “acting as a spokesperson for conservative and patriotic Jewish-American and Israeli causes.”
Virtually no historian of good reputation was able to meet Dawidoicz’s standard. A. J. P. Taylor, David Irving, “all Polish historiography, and even Hannah Arendt (for claiming in Eichmann in Jerusalem that some Jews collaborated)—none of these met her standards….In the face of Israel’s history, all other nations are mere pretenders.”
To sum up, the historical point is still on the table: if a person claims that there was a document showing that it was Hitler’s intention to exterminate all the Jews, then that document must be presented. The burden of proof is on the person making the statement.
No one should be harassed or arrested for asking for evidence. What is so disheartening is that Jewish revolutionaries jam multiculturalism down your throat but when you try to bring some diversity of opinion into their camps by saying things like, “can I see some evidence for your extraordinary assertion?”, you get to be told that you are a wicked person and ought to be put behind bars.
neocons_group_If there is really a final solution, then we must consider what the neoconservatives/neo-Bolsheviks/Zionists have done in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and now in the Ukraine—and they do not think they owe the world any explanation. When Thomas Friedman of the New York Times realized that the world actually knew that Bush went to war on a false pretense, he then went to his ideological platform and said,
“As far as I’m concerned, we do not need to find any weapons of mass destruction to justify this war…. Mr. Bush doesn’t owe the world any explanation for missing chemical weapons.”
How genius! A war that will cost the American people at least six trillion dollars does not need explanation. A war that has already cost thousands upon thousands of lives both in the Middle and elsewhere need no further investigation.
But if Friedman is able to say things like that because our government has been flooded with “Trotsky’s orphans.” Jewish historian Murray Friedman wrote:
“When Congress formed the National Endowment for Democracy to spearhead the ideological war against the Soviet Union, Reagan selected Carl Gershman, an ex-leader of the Young People Socialist League (YPLS), to direct it.
“Although it would shortly adopt a hard line in international and national defense matters, The New Republic complained that ‘Trotsky’s orphans’ were taking over the government.”
Are those Trotsky’s orphans still with us? The answer is a resounding yes. As K. R. Bolton put it in 2010:
“Trotskyism provided the ideological basis for U.S. foreign policy, orientating U.S. foreign policy as a development from Wilsonian global liberal-democracy to what has become America’s ‘world revolutionary mission…’
From the neo-Trotskyist perspective, dialectically, capitalism became preferable to Stalinism. Capitalism represented a stage towards socialism; Stalinism was an aberration historically.
“Trotskyists readily joined with the CIA during the Cold War, and in the post-Cold War world have continued to have an influence, in particular ideologically, as it is now expressed by non-Trotskyists from Ledeen to Reagan and Bush. The ideology has not been repudiated by Obama.
“The permanent revolution has been substituted for ‘constant conflict,’ and ‘creative destruction;’ Stalinism has been substituted for Islamofascism; Russia has been replaced by the USA as the ‘one truly revolutionary country in the world;’ and the ‘world proletarian revolution’ has metamorphosed into the ‘global democratic revolution.’” 
Richard Perle wrote in USA Today right after the Iraq war, “Relax, celebrate victory.” Friedman later discovered that the war indeed turned out to be more disastrous than predicted. Yet instead of blaming the people who proposed perpetual war in the first place, Friedman put the blame on America:
“America broke Iraq; now America owns Iraq, and it owns the primary responsibility for normalizing it. If the water doesn’t flow, if the food doesn’t arrive, if the rains don’t come and if the sun doesn’t shine, it’s now America’s fault. We’d better get used to it, we’d better make things right, we’d better do it soon, and we’d better get all the help we can get.”
Yes, America is an accomplice, but who are the real culprit? Pat Buchanan? Ron Paul? Why didn’t Friedman repeat what he had said back in 2003? Friedman told Haaretz in 2003 that the Iraq war
“was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals, people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history.”
Right after the war, the media was already manipulating the average American.
“Robert Collier, a San Francisco Chronicle reporter, ‘filed a dispatch that noted a small number of Iraqis at Firdos, many of whom were not enthusiastic. When he woke up the next day, he found that his editors had recast the story.’
“The published version said that ‘a jubilant crowd roared its approval’ as onlookers shouted, ‘We are free! Thank you, President Bush!’”
The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals. Lysander Spooner
History is written by tyrants that hanged heroes.
|Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)|