Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,718
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1,179:
Line 1,179: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Main Page/Archive index/199 (view source)
Revision as of 11:14, August 29, 2021
, 11:14, August 29, 2021no edit summary
There are of course financial disclosure laws for presidential candidates. But these do not require the release of tax returns. So why do candidates release them? This is often seen as a "good government" issue. But that's not actually the reason candidates do it. Back in 1973, someone at the IRS leaked Nixon's returns. Since that time, candidates have figured that they are better off releasing their returns themselves. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:13, August 1, 2021 (EDT)
There are of course financial disclosure laws for presidential candidates. But these do not require the release of tax returns. So why do candidates release them? This is often seen as a "good government" issue. But that's not actually the reason candidates do it. Back in 1973, someone at the IRS leaked Nixon's returns. Since that time, candidates have figured that they are better off releasing their returns themselves. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:13, August 1, 2021 (EDT)
== Paul Roberts Denialism ==
Why are the deranged views of Paul Roberts being promoted on the Main Page? He uses the same warped criticism of Covid vaccines as he does for holocaust denial. Is this the slippery slope Conservapedia wants to pursue? [https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/05/15/the-lies-about-world-war-ii/]
:I see Roberts is also a 9/11 Truther.[https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/01/04/9-11-finally-the-truth-comes-out/] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 15:41, August 2, 2021 (EDT)
::Roberts' record speaks for itself. He was United States Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under Reagan and helped defeat the Soviet Union and end the Cold War. He's seen the Deep State close up, and never became part of it. Does he hold some controversial views? Perhaps. Will leftist smears and MSM rot destroy him? I think not. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup>
::Roberts had a big hand in crafting the economic recovery Russia and the United States have endured since 1981, freeing both economies from the leftist totalitarian stranglehold both economies suffered from the 1930s on (and in the case of Russia, before). Roberts was Treasury Undersecretary during the Reagan defense buildup (which gave us internet, cell phones, etc., and Democrats said would never work), while the KGB's only response was [[global warming hoax]] propaganda and Marxist infiltration of American public schools. In many ways, Roberts is an architect of the modern world. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 19:36, August 2, 2021 (EDT)
::Roberts is not some punk Millenial shooting from the hip Twitter blather on public policy. Roberts speaks from experience, even before Trump, that a man can go to Washington, affect public policy and alter the disastrous course leftists have set for the planet, and remain independent, uncontaminated by Deep State bureaucrats and technocrats. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 19:49, August 2, 2021 (EDT)
::Look what Wikipedia says:
:::''Roberts has expressed skepticism at the ability of government to lower taxes and decrease regulation, positing that the personal political ambition of officeholders tends to promote meddling in the economy, a criticism he has directed even at the former Reagan administration of which he was a part.[22]
:::''Ron Hira of the Economic Policy Institute has described Roberts as '''one of the first prominent economists to "break from the orthodoxy" by opposing offshoring; Roberts believes that the practice is "lethal for America's future".[23] According to him, "a country that doesn't make anything doesn’t need a financial sector as there is nothing to finance"'''.[24] In 2004, Paul Blustein in the Washington Post described him as heretical in relation to mainstream US economics for challenging the positive impact of free trade.[25]
::Wow. Prophetic. It was the Clinton globalists who sold us out to China and [[NAFTA]]. But it was Roberts in the Reagan era who championed new technology and "high technology" before the words "high tech" came into existence. Those spinoffs to the consumer market became internet and cell phones (in the parlance of the 1980s, it was known as "Tax cuts for R & D ", which the communist Democrats and MSM called "tax cuts for business" and "tax cuts for the rich". If not for Paul Roberts, you'd still be licking postage stamps). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 20:13, August 2, 2021 (EDT)
::::Yes, Roberts has such experience. But many of his political views are absolutely horrid. Go spend some time on his website and you'll see what I (and PeterKa) are talking about.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 20:33, August 2, 2021 (EDT)
:::::Yes, I'm very familiar with it. And yes, I take umbrage with some of his historical interpretations and understanding, ''vis a vis'' American history and World War II. Coming from the field of history, however, I won't criticize him for publishing the research - that needs to be done in the field of history - it is the nature of the craft. I'm weary of arguments often that go, "this disproves this or that". History is a field that just needs compilation, and readers can take their own conclusions, IMO. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 21:01, August 2, 2021 (EDT)
::::Brief comment on Robert's essay linked above: It is an historical consensus in Germany and the West that Hitler wanted World War II to begin over the [[Sudeten crisis]]. He was robbed of his war, and knew it. Hitler knew the delay of one year only gave more time to the U.S., Soviet Union, and Great Britain to prepare for a war they all knew was inevitable. Had Hitler had his war in 1938, the outcome most certainly could have been different.
::::This leads to a discussion about what German historians call Functionalism vs. Intentionalism. Why did Hitler begin a war he knew he would lose? Intentionalism is the answer. Hitler never expected to conquer the Soviet Union, he intended to bring about the Holocaust.
::::As to the Churchill/Stalin alliance that FDR used to preserve capitalist [[Imperialism]], that's another matter which Roberts, unfortunately, co-mingles with Intentionalism. That's all that I can be say on that matter. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 21:32, August 2, 2021 (EDT)
:::::So you are pro-appeasement? If the war had started in 1938, the allies would have started with the Sudeten fortresses, which would have put Hitler at a disadvantage. Hitler may have been eager for war, but his generals were ready to stage a coup to prevent it. Roberts calls neo-Nazi David Irving "without any doubt the best historian of the European part of World War II." Here is a video on Irving by Tik, my favorite WWII blogger: "[https://youtu.be/VsLW7VrOpA8 David Irving - Can you trust ANYTHING he wrote?]"
:::::When Obama made his deal with Iran, critics compared him to Chamberlain. The liberal media responded by bringing up all the old arguments for appeasement. The trick is to ignore the Sudeten fortresses and pretend that Chamberlain sacrificed nothing of value at the Munich conference. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 11:48, August 3, 2021 (EDT)
::::::I am foresquare an intentionalist. In 1938, Hitler had a chance of securing his ''Lebensraum'' in Chechoslovakia, Poland and modern Belarus in a wider war. The war may have lasted to 1950 or 1952. By 1939, it was a gamble. The war was lost by February 1942. Hitler knew it, basically everybody knew it. So the remainder of the time was used in his extermination campaign - which was his intention all along, win or lose.
::::::Appeasement, in retrospect, worked out. It became a dirty word, and was the cause of the U.S. involvement in Korea and Vietnam. In retrospect again, it was just the political rhetoric of the day. As Clausewitz said, if it is to your opponent's advantage to attack now, it is to your disadvantage to be attacked. In war, there has to be a mutual agreement to fight.
::::::The United States and most of the planet are appeasing China right now.
::::::As to Irving, never read him, but understand the jist of his argument. He's a functionalist. Yes, it is true, the British Empire went out of business 7 years after their finest hour. Basically, Hitler never understood why Britain was fighting against him. He always felt Germany and England should be natural allies, both racially and as capitalists, against Soviet communism. Bottomline: WWII cost Britain its empire, if you want to call that victory. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 17:49, August 3, 2021 (EDT)
::::::::[http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=13742 Appeasement didn't work out so well back in 2004 with the Spaniards after the Muslims conducted their terror attack, nor did it work in Vichy France]. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 20:50, August 14, 2021 (EDT)
:::::::::Much is overblown about the 1938 Appeasement because much has been written about it. A little more than 15 years later, it was critics of the [[Munich pact]] that caused the UN to draw the line at the 38th parallel in Korea - without calculating the consequences. Both sides were known to have nuclear weapons, yet that consideration doesn't seem to have entered into the decision to go to war. Let me stress again, in war, there must be a [http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Compare/OnWar1873/BK4ch08.html mutual agreement to fight].
:::::::::In the Second World War, the best illustration of this mutual understanding to fight was the war in North Africa, which accomplished little or nothing, consumed manpower and material, over territory nobody wanted. Gen. MacArthur was a huge critic of the North Africa campaign, claiming the wasted resources there should have been given to him to fight the Japanese in the Pacific. (Does anyone really believe Hitler wanted ''Lebensraum'' in Libya?)
:::::::::By the time Hitler made his January 30, 1939 Reichstag speech, he knew his chance of winning a world war was less than a coin toss, and he was daring the West (Britain and France at that time) to ''not'' appease him one more time - and ultimately trying to share the blame or the guilt for his decision to move ahead with a "Final Solution" if they declared war. That was the purpose of announcing it publicly.
:::::::::So let me be clear on my view - which I think is born out by historical facts. The 1938 Appeasement was not a standing policy. It was flexible, that could be changed in short order. Yet post-war writers and foreign policy experts treated it as if it was a policy written in stone, and forever to be avoided in the future. Why then did the West appease Xi Jinping when he just committed the same "Crimes Against Peace" and International Law last year that the Nuremberg defendants were accused of? or Putin did in 2014 in Crimea? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 01:17, August 15, 2021 (EDT)
::::::::::The United States abandoned its policy of "not appeasing aggressors" in 2004 when it granted China [[Most Favored Nation]] trade status, after the Tiananmen massacre, knowing full well that there not only were no reforms, but Uyghur concentration camps and the slaughter of [[Falun Gong]] was ongoing. How now, do we walk back such bad decisions? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 01:43, August 15, 2021 (EDT)
:::::::::::Yeah, and it was a mistake that we did that back in 2004, that much I'll agree on. However, that still doesn't change that appeasement should NEVER be embraced, not even as a temporary measure (ie, flexible and to be changed in short order), especially when we've had far too many "flexible and to be changed in short order" strategies that became permanent (case in point, the lockdowns, social distancing, and masks, also the income tax) as it is. If you ask me, we should have gone down Xi Jinping's throat. Not that I even care about International Law violations at this point since we clearly didn't go after Stalin or Mao or Ho Chi Minh or any of those guys (and if anything, international law went against US during those times). In fact, the only country that I can think of that DID have international law actually applied to them was Cambodia for Pol Pot's genocides, and that was well after the fact. I'd even argue International Law was a mistake that shouldn't exist precisely because it rarely gets enforced (heck, Sartre technically committed crimes against peace by pretty much deliberately aiding in instigating Pol Pot's genocide and they reacted with chirping crickets). Che Guevara, BTW, blatantly admitted in 1964 to committing crimes against peace and international law in 1964 with that stump speech right to the UN's face, and not only did they not arrest him, they if anything cheered for him. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 05:37, August 15, 2021 (EDT)
::::::::::::The "never appease an aggressor" stance is just playing neighborhood tuff guy and bully. It's like when your little brother comes home all beat up, and you go out and beat up whoever did it, only to discover afterward he threw a rock through their window first.
::::::::::::The question of International Law is interesting. Germany did not have a lot of colonies, nor was very familiar with the Law of the High Seas, and many Germans before and during both World Wars argued that there was no such thing as "international law". The failed League of Nations made the case even stronger. But the Atlantic Charter (Angelo American alliance), the Nuremberg Tribunal, and the establishment of the UN pretty well ended that debate.
::::::::::::You really have to pick your fights. Japan tried to knock out the US with one punch at Pearl Harbor. When the sleeping giant awoke, there was now a mutual agreement to fight. Midway, like Stalingrad, decided the outcome of the war for Japan. And that was only 6 months after Pearl Harbor (Midway, incidentally, I always think of as the day the U.S. became a superpower, and never looked back until now).
::::::::::::Now a friend of mine, a veteran of WWII, told me Japan's big mistake was attacking the U.S.. That Japan should have just focused on driving the Brits out of the Pacific (Hong Kong, Indonesia, Singapore). Had that happened, the outcome for Japan and Germany could have been very different.
::::::::::::As a hegemon or Superpower, you always have to be on your toes not to fall for any provocation, which both your allies and enemies are always trying to get you involved in.
::::::::::::Bottomline, nowadays we respond to aggression with "targetted sanctions" rather than direct military force. Is it effective? In the long run, probably not. These international agreements need to be reworked. I'm with Putin, we need a Yalta II Summit, and India should be given a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 06:41, August 15, 2021 (EDT)
:::::::::::::I wouldn't even say it ended the debate, especially when the UN basically became a front for the Soviet Union even with the Korean War, to say little about how they consistently aided the communists and far-left policies even after the Soviet Union fell, and conveniently turned a blind eye to, say, Nelson Mandela's terrorism. Had international law truly meant anything, they'd haul Mandela's sorry butt to Stockholm and found him guilty of war crimes and terrorism, for example. As far as never appease an aggressor, actually, that's not even close to bully talk, it's how you're supposed to deal with bullies if anything, never appease them. When you give bullies an inch, you give them a mile. In fact, what Bill Clinton did with al Qaeda during the 1990s WAS flat out appeasement, where he repeatedly turned down any attempts at dealing with Osama bin Laden, which eventually culminated in 9/11 and thus our even NEEDING to go to Afghanistan in the first place. Personally, our biggest mistake during World War II short of allying ourselves with Stalin was allying ourselves with Mao Zedong and stupidly letting him take control of China. Even New American had a huge call out on both Vinegar Joe and George Marshall for their bungling China. Had we just backed Pai Chek instead of Zedong, China probably won't be Communist to this day. Heck, we might have had a chance of averting the Yalta Conference resulting in Eastern Europe being turned communist had China avoided becoming communist. Heck, had we just assassinated Vladimir Lenin before he boarded that train in Germany, we wouldn't have either the USSR OR Nazi Germany (in fact, part of the reason why the Nazis were formed was in part due to Lenin and his antics, including his trying to do a huge invasion of Germany [yes, it was Germany he was targeting, not Poland. He was simply stopped there]). Marx's goals would have ended right then and there. All the Christian blood spilt by those commie jerks, was ultimately on us, because we failed to act decisively in stopping them, and in worse case scenario ended up if anything aiding them. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:25, August 15, 2021 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Actually, it was [[Susan Rice]] in the Clinton White House who protected bin Laden, you know, the same Susan Rice whom Ric Grenell calls the 'shadow president' today. Allen Dullas, who ran State Dept. operations in Zurich in 1917 tells a funny story how one day he had a lunch date with a girl and was getting ready to leave when his secretary told him there was a visitor asking to see him. He peaked into the waiting room, saw a bald guy, and told his secretary to tell him to come back later so he wouldn't miss his lunch date. The man never came back. Sometime shortly afterward he saw his picture in the newspaper declaring the Soviet state in Moscow. And we now know it was [[Harry Dexter White]] who lost China. The problem was, he died almost two years before Republicans got around to asking "''Who lost China?"'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 09:45, August 15, 2021 (EDT)
:::::::As to the point about the Sudeten fortresses, they are indeed valid. The war Hitler wanted in 1938 (''Hitler's War'', so to speak) would not have been a ''frische und fröhliche krieg'', as is often portrayed then and now. It would have been World War II, spilling over borders and engulfing neighboring countries. Appeasement - deciding to delay confrontation til a more opportune time, was the best decision. Political infighting in [[the West]] over such a stupid mainstream media and public relations term is what led to anti-appeasement policies, leading Washington D.C. politicians blindly into unending wars in Korea and Vietnam (so-called "Cold warriors" and "hardline hawks". Anti-appeasement sentiment is what built the military-industrial complex, which Ike himself rebelled against and Roberts has carried on the same tradition. Ironic, it is, that Ike, Trump, George Soros, and Paul Craig Roberts all see the death of America as bound up with its commitment to the military-industrial complex, U.S. hegemony, and the American empire). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 13:48, August 4, 2021 (EDT)
::::::::Roberts does have valid points regarding American imperialism and its resulting crimes, yes. In that regard, he and I are very similar (ironic, given your obviously very different opinions of him and I). But what really turns me off about him is not just his reprehensible positions on WWII and the Holocaust, but also his many foreign policy advisories to countries like China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Venezuela, and on at least one occasion ISIS. His disdain for American imperialism has mutated into hatred for the US itself, and now he's actively rooting for the other side to take retaliatory measures against the US, whatever the cost.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 12:04, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
:::::::::For further clarification, here's the difference between him and I when if comes to opposing American imperialism. I'm the person who would go from "no war" to either "end the war" or "win the war" when a cold conflict becomes hot. He's the person who would go from "no war" to "I hope we lose" and "death to America" when a cold conflict becomes hot. Sometimes, the less prominent differences matter.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 12:04, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
::::::::::So, in other words, from what you say, Roberts is exactly like [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv9Jq_mCJEo George Lucas] when he modeled the Rebel Alliance after the Vietcong and made no secret in wanting America to lose the Vietnam War? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:04, August 6, 2021 (EDT)
::::::::::You have no idea what his "position" on the Holocaust is. In fact, you have no idea what David Irvings's "position" on the Holocaust is, either. 16:09, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
::::::::::Roberts is an economist, not a political commentator. He's in his 80s now, and sometimes, rarely, he comments on contemporary events. He writes occasional essays or reviews on historical publications. His basic philosophy comes thru, that government is a bad thing, not a good thing, and the modern world is insane for adopting the 20th century view, under Karl Marx and later the New Deal, that government is benevolent. It is precisely this view that led idiots (Dr. Fauci, for example) to trust in the benevolence of the [[PLA]] and the Communist slave masters. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 16:19, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
:::::::::::I'll grant you Fauci as well as the New Deal bit regarding viewing government as inherently benevolent and being stupid as a result, but Marx NEVER viewed government as benevolent, he viewed it as something to be destroyed alongside any class distinctions. Let's not forget, he advocated for a classless, '''stateless''' society, and last I checked, government IS the state. It's why those who are for the expansion of government are called "statists." Heck, he wanted an even gorier reenactment of the reign of terror by Robespierre, and it's unlikely he wouldn't have known about, say [https://web.archive.org/web/20050309031846/https://culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/parricide.html Grignon's orders at the Vendee] due to his explicit admission he wanted revolutionary terror and didn't care if he was viewed as a monster after the fact. To sum it all up, Marx was not for government at all, he if anything was closer to an anarchist like Bakunin, with the only difference being HOW to implement it (it's the same difference as Hillary Clinton's infiltration style of revolution over Alinsky's more overt take down of society). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:02, August 6, 2021 (EDT)
::::::::::::You're right. I overstated the point. But you'll probably agree there are few people who can articulate Marx's vision as clearly as you did, let alone understand it. And virtually everybody, beginning with socialists themselves, all claim Socialism has never been achieved anywhere (witnesses the denials that the USSR was neither Socialist or Communist). Better than 95% of the people who wear or have worn the label of socialist are not really seeking a classless society, they want a sugar daddy to take care of them. 08:47, August 6, 2021 (EDT)
:::::::::::::It's also the reason why I absolutely refuse to buy the claim that anarchists are right-wing, fitting as well as Nazis (in fact, I'd even argue that totalitarianism and anarchism are two sides of the exact same coin). And I wouldn't be too sure about that claim about their motives. I've heard of a few socialists who outright advocate murdering their own daddies as part of the revolution, making it extremely unlikely they'd want sugar daddies. Case in point, Bill Ayers. And I'd argue their motivations are in fact closer to what [https://youtu.be/NWcUKpePyf0?t=37 Joker tried to do in Injustice 2's Joker ending], not simply having a sugar daddy. The closest thing to a truly accurate picture of right vs. left in my view is more like pure secular government (if government is even to be considered on both sides, otherwise just stick with society) with absolutely no god on the left, and theocratic government ruled directly by God and Jesus alone on the right. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 05:48, August 15, 2021 (EDT)
::::::::::::::That's a very clear and astute observation about totalitarianism/anarchism, and I thank you for it. My only reservation is that totalitarianism can be more enduring, whereas anarchism generally is only a temporary state. As to the theocratic vs. secular argument, I'd have to think about that a bit more (Note: when I told User:Conservative that [[desecularization]] is what's happening in Afghanistan right now, he's been a little more quiet on the subject). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 07:31, August 15, 2021 (EDT)
:::::::::::Perhaps you should read this [https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05/13/the-lies-about-world-war-ii/ article] of Roberts', then.
:::::::::::Here, he not only contends that there was no written order issued by ''anybody'', much less Hitler, to exterminate the Jews (as if Hitler's [https://www.ushmm.org/learn/timeline-of-events/1939-1941/hitler-speech-to-german-parliament speech] to the Reichstag on January 30, 1939 wasn't enough evidence in itself), he also contends that there were no death camps of any kind and that the gas chambers are a hoax. Oh, he also implies that the war itself was started by a Jewish conspiracy and that the pogroms in occupied Russia were justified because "Jews caused the Holodomor."--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 17:30, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
::::::::::::::You are recycling more crap. That is not what any of that says. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 18:23, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
::::::::::::::I will not sit here and listen to criticism of Irving being applied to Roberts. Period. If you wanna discuss David Irving, discuss Irving. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 18:26, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
::::::::::::::And I will give you one warning on this matter, your misrepresentations border on trolling. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 18:27, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::My criticisms of Roberts also apply to David Irving. Like Roberts, Irving also denies that there were gas chambers.[https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irving-says-auschwitz-had-no-gas-chambers-1.233455] He wasn't always that way; he acknowledged their existence in the original 1977 edition of ''Hitler's War,'' only to remove them in a 1991 re-issue.[http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/Class%20Readings/History/Evans/Trial%20Report.pdf] Meanwhile, just because Roberts borrows his talking points on this issue from Irving (and likely others) doesn't make them any less reprehensible.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 19:26, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
::::::::::::I don't give a rot what commies say about Roberts.
::::::::::::Update: Roberts speaks for himself. [https://usawatchdog.com/they-killed-people-for-vaccine-profits-paul-craig-roberts/ They Killed People for Vaccine Profits]. He calls 'em as he sees 'em. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 18:22, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Actually, some (or perhaps a lot of) commies love Roberts. Why else do you think he's promoted on sites like [https://www.counterpunch.org/author/pcg/ Counterpunch] and [https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/CIA-Behind-France-Attacks-Says-Ex-White-House-Official-20150111-0010.html Telesur]? Oh, and here's an [https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/04/08/where-are-marx-and-lenin-when-we-need-them-paul-craig-roberts/ article] where he praises both Marx ''and'' Lenin, and cites a site called "marxist.com" to back his talking points.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 19:26, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Looks like historical research to me. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 19:40, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::There's research, and then there's conclusions.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 20:01, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::That's right. And your lame efforts to impugn Roberts as a holocaust denier is a faulty conclusion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 20:21, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::How is denying the existence of the gas chambers not Holocaust denial?--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 20:34, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::You will get blocked for trolling if you persist. Give one piece of evidence, right now, that Paul Craig Roberts ever said the gas chambers used in the Holocaust did not, or do not exist. Are these instructions clear? Roberts. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 20:45, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
===Irving===
In this [https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05/13/the-lies-about-world-war-ii/ article], Roberts restates what he believes are Irving's conclusions and does nothing to refute them, while also commending him as someone who is being persecuted for telling the truth. These conclusions include strong implications that the gas chambers did not exist.
Then, in [https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/12/08/the-holocaust-2/ another article] published several months later, Roberts responds to criticism of the previous one by condemning the Holocaust story as a "dogma" that is "inconsistent with free society;" and at the end he links to an article by Ron Unz, who appears to be even more adamant in his Holocaust denial than Irving. Meanwhile, in the same article Roberts makes no effort whatsoever to clarify his own position, instead saying that what matters is that the Holocaust be a subject of debate, while also saying that the 'Zionist's refusal to allow debate' is a sign that the 'official story' is indeed a hoax. I don't know about you, but my conclusion here is that all of this points to Roberts either being a Holocaust denier himself, or just being really, ''really'' bad at conveying his opinion on "dogmas."--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 22:14, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
One more thing. Even if we were to ignore his positions on WWII and the Holocaust, I'm puzzled that you admire Roberts despite his positions on modern geopolitics being much more radical than my own.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 22:28, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
:I am running out of patience with your wikipedia crap. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 22:34, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
:A person who points out the plain historical fact that there does not exist a piece of paper, that survived the war, with Hitler's signature on it ordering the extermination of the Jews, is not a neo-Nazi. 22:38, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
:Even in the United States, we have such laws guarding presidential prerogatives and classified information. Under U.S. law, a president must issue a [[Presidential Finding]] to initiate covert activity. The Finding can be given orally, however the [[National Security Advisor]] must reduce it to paper within 24 hours. Again, there is no prohibition on the National Security Advisor from destroying his written Presidential Finding later. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 22:44, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
:Presidential Findings are virtually always on matters of life and death, under the president's sworn responsibility to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." In the recent Anwar al-Awlaki case, the courts have ruled that an American citizen can be executed witout trial, arrest, counsel, a even a Miranda warning. [https://cornellilj.org/2013/12/19/through-a-drone-darkly/] That [[due process]] is served by a Presidential Finding, even if it remains classified, it was given orally, or no paper trail exists.
:Now, this in no way is any sort of argument or justification saying that Hitler's orders were legal. The point being made is simply that it is virtually impossible to find a written paper trail linking Obama to the death of Anwar al-Awlaki.
:With Irving, the definition of "holocaust denier" was stretched from its original meaning assigned to Arthur Butz when ''Hoax of the 20th Century'' appeared in 1976, to say anyone who wasn't satisfied with the written documentation Lucy Dawidowicz unearthed in her ''Holocaust Reader'', including Goering's Commission to Hyderich, the Minutes of the Wannsee Conference, coupled with the ''Borman Notes'' (also known as ''Table Talk''), all point to one irredeemable conclusion: Hitler ordered the extermination of the Jews.
:History is essentially concerned with written documentation. The sources cited in the above paragraph supply that written documentation. Even oral history must be written down at some point. Anything other than written documentation about the past, belongs to the fields of Archeology or Anthropology. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 23:20, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
::I did not at any point call anybody a neo-Nazi. I called some people Holocaust deniers, but I did not call them neo-Nazis. Indeed, you don't have to be a neo-Nazi to be a Holocaust denier. [https://www.timesofisrael.com/ahmadinejad-says-holocaust-denial-was-his-major-achievement/ Just ask Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]. And I honestly couldn't care less about the existence of a written order for genocide, or the lack thereof. Written order or no written order, it's clear that Hitler wanted the Holocaust to happen, given his [https://www.ushmm.org/learn/timeline-of-events/1939-1941/hitler-speech-to-german-parliament speech] to the Reichstag on January 30, 1939.
::Meanwhile, that specific issue is not even among the reasons I concluded that Irving, Roberts, and Unz are all Holocaust deniers. I concluded Irving is a Holocaust denial because of his explicit statements denying the existence of gas chambers, and his removal of all references to the Holocaust from later editions of ''Hitler's War.'' I concluded that Roberts is a Holocaust denier because of his general endorsement of Irving's work, his repeated refusal to rebut any of Irving's claims, and his linking to Unz's article. And I concluded that Unz is a Holocaust denier because he flat out stated in his article that he wouldn't be surprised if the "official story" was entirely false.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 23:25, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
:::Well, the only evidence you produced for that statement on Irving (which you are attempting to smear Roberts with), is the ''Irish Times''. I'd need to see the trial transcript.
:::As to the ''Irish Times'', we can apply a very simple test:
:::*Has the ''Irish Times'' at anytime in the past 5 years implied anything about [[Trump-Russia collusion]]?
:::*Has the ''Irish Times'' in the past 18 months implied anything about the [[coronavirus]] coming from people eating bats?
:::If so, I say take the ''Irish Times'' and stick it where the sun don't shine, which I'd advise against cause there are rectal receptors that can absorb poisons into the bloodstream. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 23:39, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
::::First off, I provided a second source regarding Irving. I'll re-post the [http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/Class%20Readings/History/Evans/Trial%20Report.pdf link] here.
::::And second, the ''Irish Times'' article was published in 2000. If you want to assess the credibility of that article, then you need to assess the credibility of the ''Irish Times'' circa 2000, not circa 2016-21.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 23:48, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
:::::Okay, I leafed through enough of the 355-page report see that it is allegations. I'd need to see pages 162 and 179 of Irving's 1977 book.
:::::The ''Irish Times'' is no substitute for Irvings own words at trial. Especially if you want to leave the ''Times'' unqualified. 23:57, August 5, 2021 (EDT)
:::::Here's an even simpler test: Has the ''Irish Times'' republished anything from ''NYT'', ''WaPo'', or the ''AP'' in the past 6 years? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 00:00, August 6, 2021 (EDT)
:::::All you've done thus far is present a sort of ''Steele dossier'' as evidence, whereas, where are the damning passages in Irving's own words? I've never read Irving, don't care to, and have no reason or need to. Roberts put great stock in him cause Irving evidently has studied more primary source material than either me or Roberts. It's no secret the Germans tried to keep the Holocaust secret, which is ''NYT'''s defense now. But I've never seen any direct excerpts from Irving's text for the 20-odd years this controversy has been ongoing. And Irving himself has been canceled so he can't defend himself. So all I'm left with is allegations from many sources, without the direct text, from critics who many themselves are questionable.
:::::So Roberts, like Chomsky and Finkelstein, criticizes Zionists, which of course is all the rage now from Bernie Sanders, AOC, and the Biden State Department. Does that make them neo-Nazi holocaust deniers, too? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 00:16, August 6, 2021 (EDT)
::::::I don't know which source you looked at, but I looked at the actual transcript of the trial, and its content confirms what is in the ''Irish Times'' report. The link to the transcript is [https://www.hdot.org/day02/# here]. The most damning parts are (1) Pages 229 line 17 through 230 line 5; and Page 237 lines 7 through 11. Note that the page numbers are at the ''bottom'' of the pages; if you find the page numbers and then scroll down rather than up you ''will'' get lost.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 13:49, August 6, 2021 (EDT)
<-----
Okay, I read a little bit more starting around the point you suggested and beyond, enough to gain the context. And yes, I am familiar with the historiographic context under discussion. The word "holocaust" did not enter the historiographic lexicon until after 1976, assigned to events 30 years prior. The words "Final Solution" is what appears in the primary source documents.
The Nuremberg Indictment, which appeared some eight months after V-E Day, estimated some 5,710,000 or 5,720,000 murdered from all parts of Europe, as far away as Ukraine. Over the next 30 years, this figure was rounded up in common parlance to 6 million. Some dispute remained that figure was too low, and may not have included the actions of Einsatzgruppen, for example. The ''New York Times'' reported on the liberation of Auschwitz before the war's end, quoting Russian Generals as saying possibly 1 or 2 million perished at Auschwitz. Recently I read somewhere that 1.1 million were murdered at Auschwitz ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp Wikipedia: 1.1 million]), which surprised me cause I thought the number may have been too low. That is what is being discussed at p. 235 line 23 to p. 236 line 2, "The millions in gas chambers".
Here's the full context:
:23 Q. [Mr Rampton]: Let us get back to the present. Which of those elements
:24 in that statement “factories”, plural, “of death with gas
:25 chambers”, plural, “in which they liquidated millions”,
:26 plural, “of their opponents”, which of those elements do
P-236
:1 you still deny
:2 A. [Mr Irving]: The millions in gas chambers
So, by this definition, Wikipedia and all its editors of the Auschwitz article are holocaust deniers.
Now, the "factories of death", Sobibor, Treblinka, etc., many did not have gas chambers, and the few that did have much smaller gas chambers than Auschwitz, could not have made up the difference of 700k to 900k to bring total of 2 million (plural) for the statement "millions perished in gas chambers".
Wikipedia is either corroborating David Irving, or using David Irving as a source.
Back to the point about the number cited in the Nuremberg Indictment. That figure has been researched thoroughly and considered amazingly accurate, given the short time Nuremberg prosecutors had, and under the conditions at the time.
Obviously, much more can be said on this subject. The problem basically is, for historiographic purposes, imposing a lexicon written 30 years after the fact which doesn't appear in the primary source documents. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 22:26, August 6, 2021 (EDT)
:What about this section [https://www.hdot.org/day02/ here]?
::13 Q. [Mr Rampton]: We have touched upon Mr Liechter. We are going to grapple
::14 with him much more extensively next week. We have touched
::15 upon Mr Liechter and it has led you to this conclusion
::16 that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, is it not?
::17 I use the historic present. It was Mr Liechter’s report
::18 and the bit about the laboratory tests which converted you
::19 into disbelief that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz,
::20 is that right
::21 A. [Mr Irving]: That is correct
::22 Q. [Mr Rampton]: Is that is correct. As a consequence of that, you have
::23 come to believe, perhaps it was a matter of protest,
::24 perhaps not, I do not know, that the Nazis did not use gas
::25 chambers for the extermination of Jews let alone millions
::26 of Jews
::
:::P-255
::1 A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, I have become very sceptical of that element of the
::2 story
::
:::P-256
::
:In this section, Irving confirms that he is a skeptic about the existence of any kind of gas chambers at Auschwitz, citing the "Leuchter Report" (more info on that [http://auschwitz.org/en/history/holocaust-denial/leuchter-report here]).--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 17:15, August 7, 2021 (EDT)
::Even Hugh Trevor Roper was hoaxed by the ''Hitler Diaries'' circa the same time (1982?), which was just your everyday run-of-the-mill mainstream media hoax. The Leuchter Report was "current scholarship" in 1991 when Irving removed the phrase from his book. The fact that ten years later he remained "very skeptical" I have no explanation for.
::So now we're into degrees of denialism. What is the difference between being very skeptical and outright denialism? Is there a midground like "Holocaust agnosticism"? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup>
:::Now ''that'' is an interesting question. Not just in the context of the Holocaust but also in the context of other topics (namely religion). Personally, I do consider agnostics to be deniers, in both contexts.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 18:38, August 7, 2021 (EDT)
Now, let me restate a fact about Intentionalism: after the defeat at Stalingrad and the German armies were in full retreat, trains were used for transport of Jews to death camps, and not to facilitate the retreat of soldiers. What does Irving say about this? That, it seems to me, would be the issue with Irving, not the lame barking up the wrong tree, parsing of post-1976 historiography versus the original primary source documents. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 22:51, August 6, 2021 (EDT)
::I can't find his position on that subjet in the trial transcripts. Feel free to double-check for me, if you have a browser with a word-searcher like I do.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 17:15, August 7, 2021 (EDT)
:::Yes, probably because it was never asked. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 17:52, August 7, 2021 (EDT)
:::Let's return to the timeline. Quoted below it says, "the first death camps became operational in late 1941". The surrender at Stalingrad was February 10, 1942. From that point on the extermination campaign became priority. It was not incidental to the war and occupation in the East. For the entirety of 1942 and 1943 (the period usually referred to in many histories and videos as the period of "Total War"), trains were expedited for transport of Jews from ghetto collection points to death camps, and not for the evacuation of soldiers, many of them on foot, from the East.
:::This is the cap and the seal on Intentionalism, along with all the other evidence, beginning with the January 30, 1939 Reichstag speech. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 18:26, August 7, 2021 (EDT)
:::Let me summarize and simplify this incredibly complex subject in as few of my own words as possible. World War II, the "Total War", and Holocaust was basically a hostage situation where all the hostages were killed. Beginning with the January 30, 1939 speech, Hitler was saying, "If I don't get my way, I'm going to kill all the hostages." When war broke out in Sept 1939, Hitler remained true to his pledge (the so-called "Holocaust by bullet"). When Hitler lost the war at Stalingrad, he accelerated the program which became more efficient after 2 1/2 years already.
:::This even explains Hitler's inexplicable decision to declare war in the United States in December 1941; Hitler knew he was losing the war, and was going to lose the war. He declared war on the U.S. to bring about a truly overall World War and state of confusion, to hide his actions and motives in the fog of war.
:::Functionalists do not have a leg to stand on. Hitler was denied his war in 1938 (which not having read Irving, presumably is what Irving references as ''Hitler's War'', which never was fought). The war after September 1939, when Britain and France declared war, was a hostage situation that Hitler used to take his revenge, having been cheated out of his designs to secure permanent ''Lebensraum'' in 1938. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 23:16, August 7, 2021 (EDT)
::Let's continue this analysis of intentionalism briefly. What Hitler wanted to happen in 1938 and 1939 is the opposite of what actually did happen. In 1938, when Hitler moved into the Sudetenland, Hitler wanted Britain, France, and the USSR (or some combination) to declare war. In 1939, he hoped they would appease and sit idle, and the division of Poland would be peaceful like a year earlier in Czechoslovakia. These two events were interspersed with his January 30, 1939 threat to kill all the hostages if he wasn't appeased again. The takeover of Poland, accomplished as quickly as Czechoslovakia, was followed by the Sitzkrieg or Phony War, where some didn't even believe that there would be any fighting in 1940.
::So, if you flip the events of 1938 and 1939 in your mind's eye, you see what some now call ''Hitler's War'' or Hitler's strategy. Whether Hitler intended to implement a "Final Solution" at the time of the Sudeten Crisis is a matter of speculation. Personally, I think not, but likely some other form of forced removal and possibly ultimately pogroms. But having been robbed of his war in 1938, in January of 1939 he made up his mind (intentionalism) to move forward with a "Final Solution" if the Brits & French declared war. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 20:04, August 14, 2021 (EDT)
:::Much of this analysis is important today in viewing Hong Kong and Taiwan and the similarities to Czechoslovakia and Poland. Now, you may say 'I don't see the parallels.' Fine. You may not see it, but I assure you military planners the world over are making the same calculations the Nazis, British, French, Soviet, and American military strategists and planners were making between 1938 and 1939. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 20:18, August 14, 2021 (EDT)
===Irving, part 2===
Now, here's an excerpted transcript from a popular Youtube video with 5 million hits: [https://youtu.be/RR0R7zsd7D8?t=154]
{{quotebox|"When most people think of the Holocaust, the first thing that comes to mind are the horrors of Nazi extermination camps like Auschwitz and Treblinka, where millions of European Jews were systematically murdered in specially designed gas chambers and crematoria. However, there are many more stages and elements to the Holocaust than just the Nazi death camps. In fact, by the time the first death camps became operational in late 1941, the Holocaust had already been occurring for at least three years and an estimated '''two to four million people''' had already been killed in what is referred to by historians as the Holocaust by bullet.}}
Question: Is this denialism? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 05:31, August 7, 2021 (EDT)
:No, it's not. It's very easy to reconcile this statement with the facts regarding what occured post-1941 (especially if you use the lower number of pre-1942 deaths).--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 17:15, August 7, 2021 (EDT)
::Let's not allow this discussion to wander all over the map. So far it's been very positive. Let me be clear, I am not attempting to defend Irving. But I think both of us are familiar enough with the core issues to answer this question:
::Is the statement, "6 million Jews were killed in gas chambers" a true or false statement? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 17:57, August 7, 2021 (EDT)
:::Of course that's a false statement. 6 million Jews did die in the Holocaust, and many of them did die in gas chambers, but not ''all'' of them died in gas chambers. The Nazis employed several other ways to kill them, as we all know.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 18:38, August 7, 2021 (EDT)
::::Okay. That's the whole point with Irving, in my humble speculation. His 1977 book appeared at the time that the historiographic consensus came to be replacing the offensive term, "Final Solution", with "Holocaust" ("History is written by the victors.") His 1977 book incorporated the revised term, "holocaust". His 1991 reissue expunged the term "holocaust." Between 1976 and 1991, much Holocaust literature, and even Holocaust Studies at the University level were teaching "6 million Jews died in gas chambers."
::::Those, I assume to be facts. And I would further speculate that Irving, like Finkelstein and Chomsky, rebelled against the so-called "holocaust industry" that grew up between 1976 and 1991. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 19:13, August 7, 2021 (EDT)
===Global elites===
Roberts rages against global elites. It was the diplomats, not the military, that caused World War I and loss of 5 million lives. That's why Wilson proposed the League of Nations as a reform measure, so global elites could keep talking 24/7 round the clock and get to know each other better. Hitler was excluded from the Club, and never invited to Paris or any summit, which only increased his suspicion of a conspiracy against Germany.
A word on "denialism": there are two types, (1) denial that the Holocaust occurred or was technologically feasible (originally articulated by Herman Goering at Nuremberg), and (2) denial that Hitler ordered it. Most people who toss the term around today have no idea what Functionalism is. A so-called "denier" can say yes, the Holocaust occurred, but we can't find a paper trail linking Hitler to it (which is essentially Irving and the school of Functionalism's argument). The timeline of events, and the conversations recorded in ''Hitler's Table Talk'' in July 1942 (after the defeat at Stalingrad) however, provide the missing "paper trail" that Functionalists or so-called "deniers" claim is missing, and corroborate the Intent to commit genocide. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 09:59, August 4, 2021 (EDT)
So, having dealt with that question, let's move on to a more relevant question regarding Roberts. After having destroyed the Soviet Union, and ending the Cold War by securing tax cuts for the rich to develop new technologies with consumer spin-offs, why does Roberts rage so much against the [[military industrial complex]]? And what is his relationship with Russian ''Atlantacists'' and elites? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 10:39, August 4, 2021 (EDT)