believing wikipedia with blind faith

Strawman, link it, quote it

is he claiming wikipedia is wrong or not

Quote from the OP; "who wrote the sources that wikipedia used"

..

More interesting than Wikipedia is the possibility that we might agree on the issue at hand: that an unbiased source might reflect the idea that jew Leo Frank tampered with and/or faked parts of his dead daughter's private diary to sell for a profit, and that this action happened to assist in perpetuating a status of victimhood among the jews, being that the resultant propaganda would be distributed to warn young white children about the horrors of white nationalism, in the context of it resulting in the Holocaust, for decades and decades.

Not that any of this necessarily implies Leo Frank's individual actions involved any collective conspiratorial intent on the part of groups who definitely not enjoy special protections on internet forums everywhere today.

Im just glad that we can speak freely and openly about it, since if people had to jump through hoops it would validate and lend credence to disgusting theories of hatred in an infinite feedback loop, perhaps even ironically dooming the group in question. Luckily that's not the case, as indicated by the clear and concise nature of this post.

believing wikipedia with blind faith

Strawman, link it, quote it

is he claiming wikipedia is wrong or not

Quote from the OP; "who wrote the sources that wikipedia used"

..

More interesting than Wikipedia is the possibility that we might agree on the issue at hand: that an unbiased source might reflect the idea that jew Leo Frank tampered with and/or faked parts of his dead daughter's private diary to sell for a profit, and that this action happened to assist in perpetuating a status of victimhood among the jews, being that the resultant propaganda would be distributed to warn young white children about the horrors of white nationalism, in the context of it resulting in the Holocaust, for decades and decades.

Not that any of this necessarily implies Leo Frank's individual actions involved any collective conspiratorial intent on the part of groups who definitely not enjoy special protections on internet forums everywhere today.

Im just glad that we can speak freely and openly about it, since if I had to jump through hoops it would validate and lend credence to disgusting theories of hatred in an infinite feedback loop, perhaps even ironically dooming the group in question. Luckily that's not the case, as indicated by the clear and concise nature of this post.

believing wikipedia with blind faith

Strawman, link it, quote it

is he claiming wikipedia is wrong or not

Quote from the OP; "who wrote the sources that wikipedia used"

..

More interesting than Wikipedia is the possibility that we might agree on the issue at hand: that an unbiased source might reflect the idea that jew Leo Frank tampered with and/or faked parts of his dead daughter's private diary to sell for a profit, and that this action happened to assist in perpetuating a status of victimhood among jews, being that the resultant propaganda that would be distributed to warn young white children about the horrors of white self esteem for decades and decades.

Not that any of this necessarily implies Leo Frank's individual actions involved any collective conspiratorial intent on the part of groups who definitely not enjoy special protections on internet forums everywhere today.

Im just glad that we can speak freely and openly about it, since if I had to jump through hoops it would validate and lend credence to disgusting theories of hatred in an infinite feedback loop, perhaps even ironically dooming the group in question. Luckily that's not the case, as indicated by the clear and concise nature of this post.

believing wikipedia with blind faith

Strawman, link it, quote it

is he claiming wikipedia is wrong or not

Quote from the OP; "who wrote the sources that wikipedia used"

..

More interesting than Wikipedia is the possibility that we might agree on the issue at hand: that an unbiased source might reflect the idea that jew Leo Frank tampered with and/or faked parts of his dead daughter's to sell for a profit, and that this action happened to assist in perpetuating a status of victimhood among jews, being that the resultant propaganda that would be distributed to warn young white children about the horrors of white self esteem for decades and decades.

Not that any of this necessarily implies Leo Frank's individual actions involved any collective conspiratorial intent on the part of groups who definitely not enjoy special protections on internet forums everywhere today.

Im just glad that we can speak freely and openly about it, since if I had to jump through hoops it would validate and lend credence to disgusting theories of hatred in an infinite feedback loop, perhaps even ironically dooming the group in question. Luckily that's not the case, as indicated by the clear and concise nature of this post.

believing wikipedia with blind faith

Strawman, link it, quote it

is he claiming wikipedia is wrong or not

Quote from the OP; "who wrote the sources that wikipedia used"

More interesting than Wikipedia is the possibility that we might agree on the issue at hand: that an unbiased source might reflect the idea that jew Leo Frank tampered with and/or faked parts of his dead daughter's to sell for a profit, and that this action happened to assist in perpetuating a status of victimhood among jews, being that the resultant propaganda that would be distributed to warn young white children about the horrors of white self esteem for decades and decades.

Not that any of this necessarily implies Leo Frank's individual actions involved any collective conspiratorial intent on the part of groups who definitely not enjoy special protections on internet forums everywhere today.

Im just glad that we can speak freely and openly about it, since if I had to jump through hoops it would validate and lend credence to disgusting theories of hatred in an infinite feedback loop, perhaps even ironically dooming the group in question. Luckily that's not the case, as indicated by the clear and concise nature of this post.

believing wikipedia with blind faith

Strawman, link it, quote it

is he claiming wikipedia is wrong or not

Quote from the OP; "who wrote the sources that wikipedia used"

But hey! It sounds almost like we might agree on the issue at hand: that an unbiased source might reflect the idea that jew Leo Frank tampered with and/or faked parts of his dead daughter's to sell for a profit, and that this action happened to assist in perpetuating a status of victimhood among jews, being that the resultant propaganda that would be distributed to warn young white children about the horrors of white self esteem for decades and decades.

Not that any of this necessarily implies Leo Frank's individual actions involved any collective conspiratorial intent on the part of groups who definitely not enjoy special protections on internet forums everywhere today.

Im just glad that we can speak freely and openly about it, since if I had to jump through hoops it would validate and lend credence to disgusting theories of hatred in an infinite feedback loop, perhaps even ironically dooming the group in question. Luckily that's not the case, as indicated by the clear and concise nature of this post.