This classic article gets a new airing here, updated with pictures, captions and brief commentary by Lasha Darkmoon.
HOLOCAUST HOAXER BINJAMIN WILKOMIRSKI,
richly rewarded by the Jews with money and fame—
even after he had been outed as a hoaxer.
The story of the impostor “Binjamin Wilkomirski” has been generally well known for almost two years, but new revelations were coming out as late as last fall. I think there are some aspects of it that deserve added stress and contemplation. There is more here than the tale of a con man being nabbed.
In 1996 a book appeared, authored by Binjamin Wilkomirski, entitled Fragments: Memories of a Childhood 1939-1948. It had been published the previous year, in its original German. In this book the author related that he was born a Jew in Latvia and was separated from his parents at age three, was sent to German concentration camps, to Majdanek, then Auschwitz, where he endured a living hell. Liberated at the end of the war, he was adopted by a Swiss family named Dössekker, from which he took the name Bruno Dössekker.
His memoirs, which immediately won wide acclaim, were promoted by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and won the National Jewish Book Award for 1996. In France his book won the Prix Mémoirs de la Shoah, and in Britain the Jewish Quarterly literary prize.
Eventually his tale was supported by a woman named Laura Grabowski, who said she was also a Jewish survivor of Auschwitz and remembered Wilkomirski: “He’s my Binji, that’s all I know” she said.33 She had her own tale of suffering at Auschwitz at the hands of Josef Mengele and other Germans, and the scars to prove it. Wilkomirski and Grabowski went on lecture and concert tours individually and together.
Raul Hilberg appears to have been an early skeptic. Swiss Jewish journalist Daniel Ganzfried heard rumors that Wilkomirski’s story was not true. He investigated and determined that the Latvian Jew “Binjamin Wilkomirski” was actually a Swiss gentile, born on February 12, 1941, to an unwed Swiss mother named Yvonne Berthe Grosjean, and later adopted by the Dössekker family. He was never incarcerated at Auschwitz. Ganzfried’s expose was published in the Swiss weekly Weltwoche during August and September 1998. Wilkomirski subsequently refused to submit to a DNA comparison with Max Grosjean, Yvonne’s brother.34
Laura Grabowski was exposed as a fraud in October 1999 by the Christian magazine Cornerstone. Her real name was Laurel Rose Willson, born to Christian parents on August 14, 1941, in Washington state, and of course she was never incarcerated at Auschwitz. She had earlier written books under the name Lauren Stratford, claiming she had suffered ritual satanic abuse, citing the same scars which she later claimed were inflicted by Mengele. (The scars were apparently self-inflicted.) As such she appeared on talk shows such as Oprah to relate her ordeals. When she decided that she would also be Laura Grabowski, she transposed the stories of ritual satanic abuse to the new setting Auschwitz.35
An important observation is that the downfalls of Dössekker and Willson did not come about because their claimed experiences were determined to be phony. Though Ganzfried and others thought there was something fishy about Wilkomirski’s story in itself, for example, his claim that as a lone Jewish child, four years old, he was able to survive the “Holocaust,” they were nailed on the issue of identity. They are gentiles who were not in a German concentration camp during World War II; they only visited them years later.
They are contrasted for example to
Elie Wiesel, who cannot be discredited on the basis of identity, since he is a Jew who was actually interned at Auschwitz. Against Wiesel’s concoctions society has yet to develop an effective defense, by listening to revisionists instead of its current leaders.
Wilkomirski’s Fragments is no more or less plausible, in itself, than Wiesel’s Night. For example, Wiesel admitted in Chapter 5 that, when the Germans evacuated Auschwitz, he had the option of staying at the hospital, with his father registered as a patient, to await the Soviets. He chose rather to join the evacuation, taking his father with him, on a predictably difficult journey to another German concentration camp. That is as implausible as anything in Wilkomirski’s book if one is to believe Wiesel’s tale of the horrors inflicted by the Germans at Auschwitz.
His story also has the claim, common among the “eye witnesses,” that the crematories at Auschwitz belched fumes from the chimneys (Ch. 3). Crematories do not operate that way, and such flames are not seen on any of the aerial photos of the camp. His claim to have seen piles of children being burned by the Germans at Auschwitz is lifted from the Talmud, with the Romans replaced by the Germans.36
I could go on and on about Wiesel’s absurdities, but I won’t. I recommend reading Faurisson’s 1993 leaflet about him.37 My point right now is that Wilkomirski was discredited only on the basis of identity. We can also observe that the Wilkomirski book shows that the filthy imagination that was required to create Elie Wiesel’s Night is not unique to Jews.
What I now want to focus on is the amazing obstinacy of many people in supporting these two, especially Wilkomirski, long after they had been exposed.
After Ganzfried published his expose “he received several complaints from Jews who said that, even if Mr. Wilkomirski turns out not to be a survivor, Mr. Ganzfried is feeding the fires of those who deny the Holocaust.”
Deborah Lipstadt (pictured), who used Wilkomirski’s book in her course at Emory University, said that if Wilkomirski is a phony it “might complicate matters somewhat. But [the book] is still powerful” as a novel.38
— § —
LASHA DARKMOON COMMENTS
Lipstadt continued to recommend Wilkomirski’s phony book to her students at Emory University without mentioning the fact that the book had been discredited as a hoax.
I was myself shocked to see this book in the Modern History section of my local library instead of in the Fiction shelves where it belonged. At the very least, the book ought to have carried a library sticker, alerting readers to the fact that the book was a literary hoax.
When I pointed this out politely to the Chief Librarian, in front of a contingent of schoolchildren who happened to be checking out with their books at the time, she ticked me off for making a scene in public. When I persisted with my complaint in a lowered voice, making every attempt to sound supercool, I was threatened with eviction from the library for creating a disturbance and “upsetting the children.”
When I returned to the library a few months later, I discovered to my annoyance that the book was still there in the WWII History Section. Not the slightest attempt had been made to play fair with the public and tell them that the book was a literary hoax.
Seething with indignation, I then did something slightly illegal that would have got me into hot water if I’d been caught. I wrote these words in huge block capitals on the flyleaf of the book with my ballpoint pen: “THIS BOOK IS A FAKE! DON’T BELIEVE ANY OF IT!”
Before returning the book to the shelves, I was tempted to add this infamous Elie Wiesel quote, but I couldn’t remember the exact words, so I left it out: “Some events do take place but are not true; others are [true], although they never occurred.” [LD]
— § —
(Prof. Butz continues)
There was no attempt to rescind Wilkomirski’s National Jewish Book Award.
Norman Finkelstein has discussed this phenomenon recently, recalling Elie Wiesel’s earlier obstinate loyalty to Jerzy Kosinsky long after his 1965 “basic Holocaust text,” The Painted Bird, was exposed as a fraud. (Kosinsky committed suicide in 1991, perhaps because his fraud had been exposed a few years before by Polish journalist Johanna Siedlecka.)
Finkelstein noted that Yisrael Gutman, a director of the Yad Vashem center in Jerusalem, has said it isn’t important that the Wilkomirski yarn is a fraud: “Wilkomirski has written a story which he has experienced deeply; that’s for sure… he is not a fake. He is someone who lives this story very deeply in his soul. The pain is authentic.39Another Yad Vashem official who defended the Wilkomirski book when the controversy erupted was Lea Balint.40 Bear in mind that Yad Vashem holds itself to be the central and official repository of “survivor” accounts.
Willson had her devoted friend and supporter in Jennifer Rosenberg, who ran the Holocaust web site www.holocaust.about.corn as a counterweight to revisionist web sites. Grabowski-Willson befriended Rosenberg and helped her run the site. On her site Rosenberg related that, before she visited Auschwitz, Laura Grabowski gave her a pair of pink sandals to leave at the crematorium in memory of her childhood friend, Anna, who Laura said died there.
Rosenberg maintained her friendship with Laura for at least five months after Laura was exposed as a fraud, claiming that the imposture was unimportant and not being sure what to do about the posted story of the pink shoes.41
“Whether I can say this is true or not true, I would have to do my own research” Ms. Rosenberg says, and adds that she is too busy to do so. Of Laura, whom she still considers a friend, she says, “She’s a very sincere and sweet person.”
“If it isn’t real, and if Anna isn’t real, there are so many young children and babies who went through that… It really was a metaphor for the children. For Laura, it was for Anna. I did it for the children. When I did it I was obviously doing it for Anna, but seeing it there, it was also for all the children, the loss of life, what they should have had, could have had.”
“I don’t want to be involved in this… My main goal is to educate people on the Holocaust.” Ms. Rosenberg says she expends significant energy deleting messages with links to the sites of Holocaust deniers such as Mr. Irving and otherwise blocking correspondents who undermine the historical record. Postings to the bulletin board are not pre-screened, so sometimes a denier’s comments show up before she can remove them. To keep them away entirely, Ms. Rosenberg says, “I would have to have a 24-hour shift.”
Laura Grabowski knew that censoring the discussion would amount to more than a full time job (so) she said she volunteered to help Ms. Rosenberg monitor the discussion late at night, since she had insomnia. Ms. Rosenberg taught her how.
I think Rosenberg’s position is that “to educate people on the Holocaust” consists in suppressing revisionist views, and not being concerned about those views and stories that sound more or less like the usual yarns. Impostors and con-artists such as Wilkomirski and Grabowski are thus not seen as people “who undermine the historical record,” even after exposure. As for the web site, its URL has been changed to http://history1900s.about.com. On 21 April I took the “Holocaust” link there and used the site’s search function to try to find mention of the pink shoes or Laura Grabowski but I couldn’t. I assume that mention of them has been deleted, and Rosenberg has finally lost her friend.
The most significant of all these obstinate friends is, I believe, the American Orthopsychiatric Association (the “Ortho”), an organization of psychiatrists who specialize in various forms of abuse and persecution, especially of children. In March 1999, about six months after Ganzfried’s expose, the Ortho announced that at its April 10 meeting it would honor Binjamin Wilkomirski with its Max A. Hayman award “to celebrate work done to increase our understanding of genocide and the Holocaust.”
Naturally there was great controversy on the appropriateness of this award, both inside and outside the Ortho. Wilkomirski had the support of psychiatry professor Dori Laub, a scholar long associated with Yale’s Holocaust-testimony video archive. Laub argued that the award “re-establishes the priority of human experience and memory” over the written documentation preferred by historians, though the award leaves open the question of the authenticity of Wilkomirski’s account. There is no doubt that Wilkomirski’s work was “being taken seriously among therapists who treat Holocaust survivors,” and in fact Wilkomirski has worked “with Israeli psychiatrist Elitsur Bernstein in developing ‘an interdisciplinary therapy’ to treat such child survivors”; a paper by Wilkomirski and Bernstein was well received at a 1998 Holocaust conference at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana.
Ortho member Harvey Peskin, identified as “a Holocaust scholar and psychotherapist,” argued that Wilkomirski’s account can be accepted as true because it is “consistent with the memories of other child survivors and with the historical record.”
Though Peskin conceded that Wilkomirski could be a phony he argued, and I think I am summarizing him right on this, that denunciation or rejection of Wilkomirski could discourage real Holocaust survivors from coming forward, and would be hurtful to them in any case. He wrote “such disparagement of witness gives comfort to a new revisionism that no longer attacks the truth of the Holocaust itself but only individual claims of survival” and Wilkomirski [is] then not only disbelieved, but [his] cause cannot be left standing:… to urge the child survivor’s recovery of forfeited personal identity through raveling a daunting trail of unforfeited Holocaust memory.42
Wilkomirski accepted the award at the April 10 meeting, to the standing applause of the attendees, the gist of whose reactions being that his memoirs are essentially true.
Lea Balint of the Yad Vashem, an enthusiastic supporter from the beginning and faithful to the end, e-mailed Wilkomirski that “You deserve this award.”43 I apologize for repeating that Yad Vashem holds itself to be the central and official repository of “survivor” accounts, but the point is important, in view of the crucial role such testimonies play in supporting the legend. This was not the first time Yad Vashem got mud in its eye for publicly backing a phony, as it vouched for the witnesses who in 1987 testified in Israel to John Demjanjuk operating a gas chamber at Treblinka. Demjanjuk was later proved to have not been at Treblinka, and released in l993.44
Cynthia Ozick, a New York writer who has authored an anti-revisionist Holocaust play, The Shawl, which was not well received by critics,45 reacted to the award by declaring “If Mr. Wilkomirski is indeed a fabricator then to laud him is to take a stand — politically — on the side of those who insist that the Holocaust is a fabrication.”46 There is a partial truth in this. I accept the core of the analysis of the psychiatrists who supported the award, in the sense of agreeing that Wilkomirski’s account does indeed sound a lot like those of the “survivors” who have testified to atrocious German cruelties in the camps, though I would prefer to turn that around: the accounts of those survivors sound a lot like Wilkomirski’s. Because of the Ortho award, you now have that evaluation from a group of professional psychiatrists. Where that leaves the Holocaust peddlers, whose foundation is the accounts of “eye witnesses,” is obvious.
— § —
That is the first lesson to draw from the Wilkomirski episode that goes beyond a “tale of a con man being nabbed.” The second lesson relates to a question that I raised at the Adelaide conference in 1998. The immediate occasion was some remarks about Deborah Lipstadt that had been made earlier.47
Earlier today we heard of a concern from their camp that I have heard many times before.
This time it was expressed by Deborah Lipstadt: the “survivors” are now dying off at such an alarming rate that it will soon be difficult to confound the revisionists.
Such a view can only be advanced in hysteria, because of what it tacitly admits. No sane person would fear that, because all those alive at the time of the US Civil War are now dead, it will be difficult to confound those who might deny it happened. The defenders of the hoax have quite lost their grip on historical reality, and on what it means for something to happen in real time and real space.
Lipstadt has many times expressed the view of which I spoke.48 As there have been others, an example being Deborah Dwork, co-author with Van Pelt of a book on the history of Auschwitz and head of the Holocaust studies program at Clark University in Massachusetts.49 A related view was expressed by Berenbaum; his argument, that the Holocaust obviously happened, appeals only to well known events of the 90s. I classify these as related views because they imagine the “Holocaust” as something that exists more substantially in the present rather than the past. The Wilkomirski episode forces my thoughts to return to this point. Does our dispute with the defenders of the entrenched legend arise not over what happened, but over what it means for something to “happen”? Is the dispute metaphysical rather than historical? Or is it neither?
My question is urgently practical. If I must try to express in comprehensible terms the metaphysical principle suggested by Lipstadt and many of the defenders of Wilkomirski and Grabowski, I would say it is the idea that “happen” means something like “said, with emotion and apparent conviction, to happen,” or perhaps “believed fervently to have happened,” though both of these descriptions necessarily fall short, as I cannot empathize with the mentality involved. This interpretation is reinforced by the religious function played by the “Holocaust,” which many have observed. Religious faith is self-validating, impervious to reason, and regards proposals to scientifically validate its claims as profane in all senses of the word.
In the recent film about Fred Leuchter, the Jew Van Pelt expresses offense that, by entering the ruins of a crematorium at Auschwitz, Leuchter had transgressed on “the holy of holies.” That expression has a specific historical and liturgical meaning in Judaism as the “Kodesh Kadashim,” being the most sacred chamber housing the Ark of the Covenant in, while the Jews were wandering, the Tabernacle, and later in the Temple, and which only the high priest could enter.50
It is in that sense that one must interpret Elie Wiesel’s remark “Let the gas chambers remain closed to prying eyes, and to imagination.”51 The Temple and the Ark no longer exist; some act as though the ruins at Auschwitz can substitute. In any case, no revisionist would qualify as the high priest.
That might be considered a neat explanation of our differences with the promoters of the legend, but after some consideration I can’t accept it, at least not in its simplicity. For one thing, it is not simple. That I have given an interpretation in terms of religious myth may only seem to make the matter more familiar, but I think it has really made it more elusive. It is understood, of course, that I am not speaking here of the historical problems; I am only trying to understand our adversaries.
The complication is that we think of religion as universal and other worldly. Judaism, by contrast, is a tribal religion of this world, in which contention with gentiles is a major ingredient, both in practice and in myth (for example, their “cheerfully reported genocidal wars”, as Wilson puts it52). As Kevin MacDonald writes, Judaism is among other things “a group evolutionary (and) reproductive strategy that facilitates resource competition by Jews with the gentile host society.”53 We have nothing in our religious experiences that begins to resemble those of a Jew in relation to Judaism. I believe that, excluding from consideration some idiots, their idea of what it means for something to happen is about the same as ours, but there is a paucity of evidence for what they want to claim happened. As shown by the Laqueur book, the facts of the past do not support them, and they will avoid Laqueur’s path henceforth. However they do possess the present, politically. That is emphatically expressed in the Berenbaum outburst that opened this paper [“A Holocaust museum is built…”].
A cold calculation shows that a strong weapon in promoting the legend is bawling “survivors” who will not be challenged because to do so would only increase the hurt to them.54 Kosinsky and Wilkomirski may be frauds but, hey, we don’t want people to develop a habit of reading such writings critically. That concern simmered, not very well hidden, in the defense of the Ortho award to Wilkomirski. People may even start wondering about Elie Wiesel, as did Alfred Kazin, who accused Wiesel, Primo Levi and Jerzy Kosinsky “of ‘making a fortune off the Holocaust’ and inventing atrocities.”55 They may even start wondering about those Auschwitz alleged eye witness testimonies, and the Auschwitz legend doesn’t have much else.
A variation on the “survivor” is the person who claims to have lost relatives. Usually the right answer to their challenge “What happened to them?” is “I don’t know.” That should end the exchange. In rare cases it may be possible, over time, to nail a liar. The case of Leo Loafer in Dallas comes to mind, but even in that case the nailing could not have been accomplished in a verbal exchange between strangers.56
In many circumstances it is better to possess the present than the past, but the whole point of history is the past. That is what revisionists talk about.
Now I will close by rendering my simple opinion on the Wilkomirski controversy: both sides were right, and the revisionists are right as well. To see how this can be possible, consider in analogy the revisionist assessment of a not very hypothetical debate on whether or not Hitler knew of an extermination program, a controversy that David Irving started in 1977 with his Hitler’s War. One side says the evidence shows that Hitler did not know. The other side argues that events on the scale of the “Holocaust” would have to have become known by Hitler. The two sides can’t possibly agree because they are both right and know it. Only the revisionist can explain why there is no contradiction in saying both are right, but only provided it is understood that the revisionist is right.
If I may return to Laqueur, a similar seeming contradiction arose as a paradox, because the same man held what appeared to him to be two contradictory opinions: mass exterminations at Auschwitz were a “terrible secret,” and mass exterminations at Auschwitz could not have been kept secret. Only the revisionist sees that there is no contradiction. Laqueur is right on both counts, but of course given his preconceptions he was unable to resolve the contradiction and left the subject. Again, the revisionist resolves the seeming contradiction.
Consider the dispute over the wartime role of Pope Pius XII.
One side says he did nothing against the “Holocaust.” The other side says he gave as much help as reasonably possible to the Jews. The dispute is illusory. Both sides are right, as is the revisionist, but only the revisionist has the key.
There was no Holocaust for the Pope to act against.
“Holocaust? . . . What Holocaust?”
Holocaust revisionism hovered constantly, usually in the background but there nevertheless, in the Wilkomirski controversy. Both sides were right, and of course the revisionists are right, with the new twist that the accusations hurled by the two sides explicitly accuse the other of helping the revisionists. One side says Wilkomirski is a phony; the other says his account emphatically sounds like those that have been accepted as authentic.
The dispute is illusory. Both sides are right and so is the revisionist. All accounts comparable to Wilkomirski’s are phony.
One side says Wilkomirski is an impostor, and defense of him helps the revisionists. The other side says that, even if Wilkomirski is an impostor, rejection of him stains and discourages survivor testimony generally, giving rise “to a new revisionism”; for reasons I have explained that also helps the old revisionism. Both sides are right; the revisionist case is advanced however one reacts to Wilkomirski’s fall after his brief dance in the ghoulish spotlight of Holocaustomania adulation.
Notes
The New York Times, Dec. 29, 1999, p. E5. [See also: “Holocaust Survivor Memoir Exposed as Fraud,” The Journal of Historical Review, Sept.-Oct. 1998, pp. 15-16.]
34. E. Lappin, “The Man With Two Heads,” Granta, no. 66, Summer 1999, pp. 7-65.
35. See the Christian magazine Cornerstone (ISSN 0275-2743), vol. 28, no. 117 (1999), pp. 12-16, 18. It was posted at Cornerstone Magazine Online ( www.cornerstonemag.com/home.htm) on Oct. 13, 1999, and reported in the Jewish weekly Forward, Oct. 15, 1999, p. 1.
36. I discussed the Talmudic features of the Holocaust yarns in The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, pp. 246f. Wiesel has been immersed in Talmud, as discussed in The New York Times, Nov. 10, 1989, in a review of a PBS – TV interview of Wiesel, and as discussed in the Chicago Tribune, Dec. 31, 1995, book review section, pp. 1f.
38. Forward (New York), Sept. 18, 1998, p. 1.
39. N. Finkelstein, “The Holocaust Industry,” Index on Censorship (London), April 2000, Issue 2/2000, pp. 120+. See also his recent book, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (London and New York: Verso, 2000), esp. pp. 55-58.
40. Forward, Sept. 18, 1998, p 1.
41. The quoted material about Rosenberg was in Forward, March 17, 2000, p. 1.
42. Forward, March 19, 1999, p. 1; April 9, 1999, p. 2; The Nation, April 19, 1999, pp. 34-38. Peskin’s article enticed “Memory and Media,” in Readings: A Journal of Reviews and Commentary in Mental Health (a publication of the Ortho), Dec. 1999, pp. 18-23, is remarkable in attempting to discredit the motives of Wilkomirski’s detractors, and the effects of their actions. This article places him unambiguously in the camp of those who say that Wilkomirski’s real identity is unimportant, because he has contributed greatly to increase awareness where it is needed.
43. Forward, April 16, 1999, p. 20.
44. I discuss this at http://pubweb.nwu.edu/~abutz/di/dj/jpwar.html and jkrak.html.
45. The New York Times, June 16, 1996, sec. 2, p. 6; June 21, 1996, p. C1; July 5, 1997, p. 11. I have not seen this play but I can’t resist passing along some information from the review of June 21, 1996. The revisionist in the play is a certain Garner Globalis who “belongs to a Midwestern think tank that exists to disprove that the Holocaust ever took place.” In one scene Globalis, confronting camp survivor Stella, “kisses the number tattooed on Stella’s arm, promising a sensual erasure of all that number signifies.”
46. Commentary, June 1999, p. 7.
47. Adelaide Institute (newsletter, ISSN 1440-9828), no. 82, Nov. 1998, p. 1. Reproduced in The Journal of Historical Review, Nov.-Dec. 1998 (vol. 17, no. 6), pp. 2f.
48. She expressed the view in a January 16, 2000, CNN program on the Irving trial. Tom Segev, in an article in the English edition of Ha’aretz, February 4, 2000, reported her belief that when “there will be no more survivors left… the influence of the Holocaust deniers is liable to increase.” The same view was attributed to her in an article by Elli Wohlgelernter in the Jerusalem Post, Sept. 24, 1999, “Friday” section, p. B5; my book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century is described as “the turning point” in the development of Holocaust revisionism (“Holocaust denial” to Lipstadt).
49. Newsday (Long Island), Dec. 6, 1999, p. A13. Dwork’s argument is self-promoting. She thinks that academic programs such as hers must get more support to compensate for gradually disappearing survivors: “the actuarial tables are an extra strong argument for the establishment of serious scholarship in academia.”
50. Dagobert D. Runes, Concise Dictionary of Judaism (New York: Philosophical Library, 1966), pp. 65, 114.
51. Elie Wiesel, All Rivers Run to the Sea. Memoirs (New York: Random House, 1995), p. 74.
52. E. O. Wilson, Consilience (1998), cited above, p. 6.
53. Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone.: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1994), pp. ix-x. Related books by MacDonald are The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Praeger, 1998), and Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (Praeger, 1998) [Reviewed in the May-June 1998 Journal of Historical Review, pp. 28-27.]
54. I once used this strategy myself. Among the many lies I told when I was a child, there was one I told a teacher once. I don’t remember the specific circumstances or the teacher but my problem had to do with a failure to do something. My excuse was “death in the family.” I got away with it, as the teacher did not want to risk increasing my hurt. I had probably picked up the tactic from a radio program or movie. I plead that I am sure I used the trick only once, and was ashamed of it. Our enemies use it over and over in promoting their extermination legend. The existence of such protestations of hurt is also used to argue that revisionists should not be heard or published. For example Northwestern University history professor Peter Hayes assumed a gutter posture when he told a meeting of students that “he sympathizes with students who might show up to heckle” me if I were to give a lecture on Holocaust revisionism, since “We’re talking about something that people who live around here have relatives and loved ones involved in.” Daily Northwestern, May 1, 1991, p. 5.
55. Chicago Tribune, Dec. 31, 1995, book review section, pp. 1f.
56. Leo Laufer, a Dallas man, read a column in 1977 about my book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century and wrote a letter to the editor (Dallas Times-Herald, Feb. 10, 1977, p. B3; this newspaper is now defunct). He said he spent two years as an inmate at Auschwitz, and repeated the long discredited yarn that the Germans made soap out of Jews, claiming even that he was still in possession of samples of this soap. He also made a claim that would normally be impossible to discredit. He said he “lost (his) entire family of two brothers, three sisters, (his) father and mother, and aunts and uncles.” Such a claim can carry some weight in public controversy, because of course nobody wants to contradict a stranger about the history of his own family. However that was not the end of the matter. In 1994 Loafer wrote another letter (Dallas Morning News, April 20, 1994, p. 18A). There he described himself as “a Holocaust survivor who lost the entire family – father mother, three brothers, four sisters and not counting hundreds of family members.” His story gained two dead siblings in the interim.
Part of an address delivered on May 27, 2000 at the 13th IHR Conference in Irvine, California. Reproduced from The Journal of Historical Review, 19/6, November/December 2000.
http://careandwashingofthebrain.blogspot.in/2016/04/jew-inc-is-censoring-truth-about-ww-ii.html
Helio-lluyah that it’s over.
Just one point of clarification: while we all quite see the urgency of overthrowing teh heliocenter because heliocenter can’t hold, and overthrowing Heliocenter takes primacy over Holocaust in the pantheon of jew lies, could you once more explain how, once Heliocenter is down and out, skewered by the speargun of truth forever, will it cause the Holocaust lie to come tumbling down in its wake?
lobro in all humility.
(you can explain it in a normal tone of voice or shouting, no matter, since the latter mode is normal for you anyway … one more thank you, the bag of thanks will never run out for you troj)
Jewish complicity in this event is carefully “covered up”.
Ask noted WW2 researcher David Irving, who was forced to recant TRUTH in order to avoid punishment. . .
American execution expert, Fred Leuchter travelled to Auschwitz, surreptitiously obtained samples from the purported “gas chambers”, had them tested and published his results. The absence of methylene blue in ALL of the samples, save one, was PROOF that the “gas chambers” did not exist. The one positive sample was taken from a room used to disinfect clothing.
Mr. Leuchter was rewarded for his search for TRUTH by his professional and personal character assassination by those of the “tribe”. He lost all of his federal and state contracts, and was prosecuted under an obscure Massachusetts “law” for “practicing engineering without a license”–a law which had never been used before or since. . .
The engineering inconsistencies proves that these “death camps” were recreated for communist propaganda purposes. Germans were excellent engineers, and as such, would not have made the engineering “mistakes” that are evident.
Yes, there was extreme deprivation and suffering–many people perished. However, the prime cause of death was typhus. As allied bombings destroyed most of the infrastructure, typhus was at epidemic levels. THIS is what caused the massive amounts of human deaths . . .NOT gassing.
It is quite simply an impossible feat, given the time in which such a high number (6 million) were to have been cremated and the logistics involved.
I would venture to say, that as time passes, it will be increasingly difficult to keep the official Holocaust narrative alive. This is why so many laws have been passed in Europe to prevent sincere research into the official Holocaust narrative. This is also the reason the populace at large is flooded by Jewish-controlled media and Hollywood with films, articles, TV productions, academic promotion and other various efforts of
social engineering. I think that is why Jews whom place such tremendous energy in keeping the myth alive are panicking and responding with such illogical behaviors. Deep down inside they know they are liars, and are deeply afraid of the truth. That in itself is a form of self-created hell. If the truth is revealed to the public at large, their entire house of cards will fall, and they are fully aware of that fact.
http://www.moviemail.com/img/still/14779/The-Big-Red-One-02_cmyk.jpg
Due to in-breeding over millenia, Jews have developed numerous genetic, disabling diseases.
A trend developed in which parents of newborns whom had inerited the diseases, were suing the doctors,
for not warning the them of this information, so they might have aborted the fetus. These lawsuits are known as “wrongful birth suits”.
This encouraged new invigorated genetic studies that ironically led to some disturbing reveals.
In an article recently published in the most prestigious scientific journal, Nature, Israeli researchers announced in 2013, the discovery of a genetic marker for major psychiatric disorders with high heritability like schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorders, manic depression and bipolar disorder linked in a genome-wide association in the Ashkenazi Jewish population, in lay language a mutated gene that makes Ashkenazi Jews 40% more likely to develop these severe psychiatric disorders than non-Jews.
I would add that since the genetic studies on the neurological condition of psychopathy is still in its infancy,
this is most likely why the condition of psychopathy was not included in the mental diseases in which Askenazi Jews have such a high propensity.
https://richardedmondson.net/2014/01/19/are-the-jews-crazy/
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.560128
The expression of their faces bears witness against them, And they display their sin like Sodom; They do not even conceal it. Woe to them! For they.
one woman even claiming to have met him as a fetus!!
never mind “Dr death,” he seems to have been a veritable walking lucky rabbits foot!
as far as I can see, every one that met him lived to tell the tale!
“tale” being the operative word here…..
2. To offer only unblemished animals (Leviticus 22:21)
3. Not to dedicate a blemished animal for the altar (Leviticus 22:20)
4. Not to slaughter it (Leviticus 22:22)
5. Not to sprinkle its blood (Leviticus 22:24)
6. Not to burn its fat (Leviticus 22:22)
7. Not to offer a temporarily blemished animal (Deuteronomy 17:1)
8. Not to sacrifice blemished animals even if offered by non-Jews (Leviticus 22:25)
9. Not to inflict wounds upon dedicated animals (Leviticus 22:21)
10. To redeem dedicated animals which have become disqualified (Deuteronomy 12:15)
11. To offer only animals which are at least eight days old (Leviticus 22:27)
12. Not to offer animals bought with the wages of a harlot or the animal exchanged for a dog (Deuteronomy 23:19)
13. Not to burn honey or yeast on the altar (Leviticus 2:11)
14. To salt all sacrifices (Leviticus 2:13)
15. Not to omit the salt from sacrifices (Leviticus 2:13)
16. Carry out the procedure of the burnt offering as prescribed in the Torah (Leviticus 1:3)
17. Not to eat its meat (Deuteronomy 12:17)
18. Carry out the procedure of the sin offering (Leviticus 6:18)
19. Not to eat the meat of the inner sin offering (Leviticus 6:23)
20. Not to decapitate a fowl brought as a sin offering (Leviticus 5:8)
21. Carry out the procedure of the guilt offering (Leviticus 7:1)
22. The kohanim must eat the sacrificial meat in the Temple (Exodus 29:33)
23. The kohanim must not eat the meat outside the Temple courtyard (Deuteronomy 12:17)
24. A non-kohein must not eat sacrificial meat (Exodus 29:33)
25. To follow the procedure of the peace offering (Leviticus 7:11)
26. Not to eat the meat of minor sacrifices before sprinkling the blood (Deuteronomy 12:17)
27. To bring meal offerings as prescribed in the Torah (Leviticus 2:1)
28. Not to put oil on the meal offerings of wrongdoers (Leviticus 5:11)
29. Not to put frankincense on the meal offerings of wrongdoers (Leviticus 3:11)
30. Not to eat the meal offering of the High Priest (Leviticus 6:16)
31. Not to bake a meal offering as leavened bread (Leviticus 6:10)
32. The kohanim must eat the remains of the meal offerings (Leviticus 6:9)
33. To bring all avowed and freewill offerings to the Temple on the first subsequent festival (Deuteronomy 12:5-6)
34. To offer all sacrifices in the Temple (Deuteronomy 12:11)
35. To bring all sacrifices from outside Israel to the Temple (Deuteronomy 12:26)
36. Not to slaughter sacrifices outside the courtyard (of the Temple)(Leviticus 17:4)
37. Not to offer any sacrifices outside the courtyard (of the Temple)(Deuteronomy 12:13)
38. To offer two lambs every day (Numbers 28:3)
39. To light a fire on the altar every day (Leviticus 6:6)
40. Not to extinguish this fire (Leviticus 6:6)
41. To remove the ashes from the altar every day (Leviticus 6:3)
42. To burn incense every day (Exodus 30:7)
43. The Kohein Gadol must bring a meal offering every day (Leviticus 6:13)
44. To bring two additional lambs as burnt offerings on Shabbat (Numbers 28:9)
45. To bring additional offerings on the New Month (Rosh Chodesh) (Numbers 28:11)
46. To bring additional offerings on Passover (Numbers 28:19)
47. To offer the wave offering from the meal of the new wheat (Leviticus 23:10)
48. To bring additional offerings on Shavuot (Numbers 28:26)
49. To bring two leaves to accompany the above sacrifice (Leviticus 23:17)
50. To bring additional offerings on Rosh Hashana (Numbers 29:2)
51. To bring additional offerings on Yom Kippur (Numbers 29:8)
52. To bring additional offerings on Sukkot (Numbers 29:13)
53. To bring additional offerings on Shmini Atzeret (Numbers 29:35)
54. Not to eat sacrifices which have become unfit or blemished (Deuteronomy 14:3)
55. Not to eat from sacrifices offered with improper intentions (Leviticus 7:18)
56. Not to leave sacrifices past the time allowed for eating them (Leviticus 22:30)
57. Not to eat from that which was left over (Leviticus 19:8)
58. Not to eat from sacrifices which became impure (Leviticus 7:19)
59. An impure person must not eat from sacrifices (Leviticus 7:20)
60. To burn the leftover sacrifices (Leviticus 7:17)
61. To burn all impure sacrifices (Leviticus 7:19)
62. To follow the [sacrificial] procedure of Yom Kippur in the as prescribed in Parshat Acharei Mot (Leviticus 16:3)
63. One who profaned property must repay what he profaned plus a fifth and bring a sacrifice (Leviticus 5:16)
64. Not to work consecrated animals (Deuteronomy 15:19)
65. Not to shear the fleece of consecrated animals (Deuteronomy 15:19)
66. To slaughter the paschal sacrifice at the specified time (Exodus 12:6)
67. Not to slaughter it while in possession of leaven (Exodus 23:18)
68. Not to leave the fat overnight (Exodus 23:18)
69. To slaughter the second Paschal lamb (Numbers 9:11)
70. To eat the Paschal lamb with matzah and marror on the night of the 15th of Nissan (Exodus 12:8)
71. To eat the second Paschal Lamb on the night of the 15th of Iyar (Numbers 9:11)
72. Not to eat the Paschal meat raw or boiled (Exodus 12:9)
73. Not to take the Paschal meat from the confines of the group (Exodus 12:46)
74. An apostate must not eat from it (Exodus 12:43)
75. A permanent or temporary hired worker must not eat from it (Exodus 12:45)
76. An uncircumcised male must not eat from it (Exodus 12:48)
77. Not to break any bones from the paschal offering (Exodus 12:46)
78. Not to break any bones from the second paschal offering (Numbers 9:12)
79. Not to leave any meat from the Paschal offering over until morning (Exodus 12:10)
80. Not to leave the second Paschal meat over until morning (Numbers 9:12)
81. Not to leave the meat of the holiday offering of the 14th until the 16th (Deuteronomy 16:4)
82. To celebrate on Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot at the Temple (bring a peace offering) (Exodus 23:14)
83. To rejoice on these three Festivals (bring a peace offering) (Deuteronomy 16:14)
84. Not to appear at the Temple without offerings (Deuteronomy 16:16)
85. Not to refrain from rejoicing with, and giving gifts to, the Levites (Deuteronomy 12:19)
86. The kohanim must not eat unblemished firstborn animals outside Yerushalayim (Deuteronomy 12:17)
87. Every person must bring a sin offering for his transgression (Leviticus 4:27)
88. Bring an asham talui when uncertain of guilt (Leviticus 5:17-18)
89. Bring an asham vadai when guilt is ascertained (Leviticus 5:25)
90. Bring an oleh v’yored offering (if the person is wealthy, an animal; if poor, a bird or meal offering) (Leviticus 5:7-11)
91. The Sanhedrin must bring an offering when it rules in error (Leviticus 4:13)
92. A woman who has a running issue (unnatural menstrual flow) must bring an offering after the Mikveh (Leviticus 15:28-29)
93. A woman who gave birth must bring an offering after she goes to the Mikveh (Leviticus 12:6)
94. A man who had a running issue (unnatural semen flow) must bring an offering after the Mikveh (Leviticus 15:13-14)
95. A metzora (with a type of leprosy) must bring an offering after going to the Mikveh (Leviticus 14:10)
96. Not to substitute another beast for one set apart for sacrifice (Leviticus 27:10)
97. The new animal, in addition to the substituted one, retains consecration (Leviticus 27:10)
98. Not to change consecrated animals from one type of offering to another (Leviticus 27:26)
99. Carry out the procedure of the Red Heifer (Parah Aduma) (Numbers 19:2)
100. Carry out the laws of the sprinkling water (Numbers 19:21)
101. Break the neck of a calf by the river valley following an unsolved murder (Deuteronomy 21:4)
Huh? No comprendo. What the hell is this person talking about? I’ve said nothing against Arch Stanton. Not that I recall.
Peace and Blessings,
Ron
*************
Then it must also be a metaphor for the PALESTINIAN, IRAQI, LIBYAN and AFGHAN CHILDREN as well who daily and CURRENTLY suffer at the hands of western imposed destruction at the behest of Israel.
Authenticity of the story resides in the Authenticity of Pain, hence, if pain is authentic, so is the story … erm, by way of simile, hemorrhoids hurt, therefore the shit is real or something like that.
Now, let me tell you that my pain is AUTHENTIC, so to cut to the chase, which lineup for the reparations, retroactive to a bunch of years before I was reborn from the horra-of-Shoa.
With every day that I await the payment, the pain increases exponentially and with it, the authenticity of Holocaust, so stop revising already and pay me the lump sum.
Still a bit incomplete I’d say, although the glasses are chosen well, he could land a job with any orchestra as a conductor.
The dominoes of mendacity falling,
A is a proven liar, anybody (Holo-priesthood) continuing to support A is a proven liar, the publication that refuses to make a big stink about it is a liar,
and best of all, you can show all this without mentioning Holocaust at all, therefore how can anyone call you a Denier and thus, a law breaker.
Wilky-Smirky is devastating, like 007 that outjews the jews, “The name is Meh, Don Meh”.
.
Posted on June 27, 2014 by Carl Herman
.
Three weeks before W. Bush’s election for a second term in 2004, his Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, chided Pulitzer-winning journalist, Ron Suskind. Rove said:
.
Guys like [Suskind] were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
.
Readers and writers in alternative media can explain, document, and prove that much of these “created realities” are “Big Lie” crimes, objectively not even close to the foundational principle of “limited government” within the US Constitution, and “created” with whatever bullshit rhetoric their focus groups conclude most likely to sell (thank you, Professor Frankfurt, for your bestseller making BS an academic term).
.
Read on.
.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/06/endgame-response-karl-rove1-empire-creating-reality-study-studys-youre-arrest.html
Not too sure about that … if I remember, Suskind never named the source but the various gatekeepers fingered Rove-the-goy.
as far as the big holohoax lie goes – here’s what we think we know so far.
the nazi party (jew-ish ashkenazi global bankster cartel – three cities zonists) took control of germany and russia at the time. the leadership of the usa, britain, germany and russia, with all their hoff juden bilderberger cronies used the world wars and all worked together to establish increased rothschild central bankster control of the world, from basel, switzerland, and to set up the state of israel (rothschildlandia). the zionists had control of the usa (still do) through their agents, fdr, truman and eisenhower etal, and britain and russia with churchill and stalin, all fake ashkenazi and tribe of dan jews and zionists. these leaders purposefully sacrificed millions of “their own” goyim military personnel and civilians in prearranged battles with each other, to get rid of them and make way for more zionists in positions of power and influence. hitler was clearly a jew and a rothschild agent all along. everything he did, including having the german army massacred in russia, increased the zionists’ plan, including knocking jews loose from their homes in europe and moving thousands of them to palestine. yes there were relocation and death camps for the jews. zionist jews went to israel. non-zionist jews went to the ovens, and there were previously many more non-zionist jews than there are now. the emaciated corpses you’ve seen the film of were jewish transferees who starved to death in camps after the allies, real american military officer, like patton and forrestal 9both later assassinated), stopped all travel on german systems. anything that moved was bombed and strafed. these jews had been moved out of the german cities because they high command did not want them killed in the firebombing raids they knew were coming against the german civilian populations. but they did starve and die of disease in the chaos at the end. the firebombing and the rest of the mass murder of german civilians and pows by the allied forces after germanys surrender was the real genocide of the time; one of them anyway.
the official narrative on the holocaust is a total jewish media myth designed to perversely give the zionists license to rob and exterminate the palestinians. but they’re not stopping there. they’re now destabilizing the entire middle east and north africa through their use of isis (israeli secret intelligence service), which they and their american stooges created. and they are ruining europe for all time by the influx of millions of migrants, many of whom are refugees, with many more who are balkanization and terrorist agents. all the southern countries on the hit list are those with no rothschild bank. the saudis are complicit in it all, because they are actually bloodline jews too.
the holohoax is one of the main anchors in the whole mythology behind the current state of jew-ish affairs being perpetrated upon palestine, europe, england (now under jew-ish control as great britain), the usa, etc.. and it is not too hard to debunk any of the many jew-ish so-called holocaust survivors and their fantasy tales of past captivity.
and now, after this web of deceit has been woven over and over the ever taller and taller house of crooked cards, some of the big lies are becoming unsustainable. probably the big lie most likely to crash at this point and take the whole house of crooked cards down with it is the person of angela merkel, who is by all physical appearances an obvious bloodline descendant of adolf hitler, now posing as the genuine leader of free germany. researchers on rense.com say most working germans understand who she really is and so does the cia. sensational as this revelation is – it will never be mentioned by any totally controlled zionist media outlets (all of the majors). angela merkel is just doing the same thing her father adolf (rothschild) hitler did, which is acting as a double agent on behalf of the three cities empire, to conduct policies which will keep the german people and all stalwart others the zionists fear and hate so bad from putting the throttle on their plans for world domination and enslavement of all the goyim everywhere.
the report from the scene at the time was that adolf had escaped. but joe stalin had that rewritten, saying that he had committed suicide in the bunker and his body was burned. possibilities are he was hauled off with the bell to the underground complex in antarctica. or maybe he died in paraguay, where the bush people lately acquired all that acreage.
my experience, the white warriors, aryan brotherhood types are no way ready to admit adolf was a double agent. lots of people are fully invested in him and his party as the heroes of the time, though obviously failed at that.
only a small percentage of germans were actual nazis, and plenty of them were jews. but they took total control over the rest of the country. and they were backed by the big banksters from all over the world. everybody wanted to cash in on the war, and they did.
seeing how adolf was losing the war, on purpose, eventually some honorable elements in the regular german military realized what was up and tried to kill him themselves. that attempt failed but the fact that it happened helps clear things up.
looking back on it al, seeing how ww2 worked out so well for the jews,l and seeing what’s happening in the world now – it’s pretty obvious what really went on in germany at that time.
The Hitler bashers strike again, Hitler should have kept his head down and dutifully followed the weimar model, which had already worked so wonderfully for the jew, rolled out a welcoming mat for jew commie terrorists, saboteurs and agitprop artists infiltrating by hundreds from the bolshistan to the east.
That alone would have proven that Hitler was not on the rothschild’s payroll.
Got that?
As for evidence, who needs evidence when the Holocaust was properly established without evidence, such a sweet, old fashioned notion … as the song goes, what’s truth got to do with it.
For example, the enigma of Enigma is easily solved, why are there no mentions in 150,000+ secret encrypted dispatches of cooperation with the Rothschild empire?
because herr sir lord rothschild knew that Enigma had been cracked, in fact hitler probably gave them the key, the Turing tale was spun for the masses and the secret of the hitler’s treachery bypassed Enigma traffic altogether … just like the Holocaust paperwork.
The fame and riches are yours, step right up to claim the prize, Oprah will do a special on youze.
where does this put guys like Ezra Pound, ts eliot and Eustace Mullins, were they also paid rothschild agents or just useful idiots?
Either way, I am tossing all their material out, the books, links, files … garbage.
nazis underneath the lot
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/allwarsarebankerwars.php
it is ‘anti-semitic’ nowadays to blame Pharisee-Jews for all wars:
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-rothschild-gang-shadow-conspiracy-or-rumor-2011-6
1. Jews, led by the Rothschilds finance ALL the wars,
2. Jews, led by the Rothschilds finance BOTH SIDES OF ALL THE WARS,
3. The national leadership in ALL these conflicts are willing pawns of the Rothschilds, ie, take ORDERS from them.
Did the Rothschilds finance the Zulus who previously defended from the Boers?
Did the Rothschilds finance both the Zulus and the tribes that the Zulus obliterated on their southbound march of conquest?
It seems to me that you may be supporting all of these claims, if so, I’d like to see some evidence, whatever you got.
They would automatically roll over and play dead, no money, no funny.
And it looks like this is the basis of your belief that Hitler was a Rothschild valet in white gloves, serving chilled drinks at their chateau, ie, he got Germany prepared for war – the smoking gun.
there were many cases of this, Kuwait aggression against Iraq, which Iraq responded to with counter-aggression, leading to Gulf 1 and huge overall gains for the Jew.
But this is by no means the rule, only shows how Jew operates to create a war where none is asked for.
Hitler’s ascension to Reichstag upset the apple cart and that’s when the heavy provocations started, Jew hoping for an instant response and even more instant victory, what Hitler, the National Socialist and the German nation did defied belief, to in span of just 6 short years progress with ubermensch rapidity from a devastated land, abjectly groveling before the Jew, to a superpower with the world’s healthiest, most powerful economy, technology and war capacity, in terms of weaponry, officer corps and finely trained and motivated rank and file.
The parallels are stunning and moreover, I seriously believe that Putin is playing an even more patient game, bidding his time, his partner, China is more powerful than Japan of late 1930s and best of all, ZOG is bloated, sick, gone the way of Cochinita and Kathleen Jenner.
Please parse and guess away….
There is plenty for you to do.
See the full membership :
http://www.bis.org/about/member_cb.htm
I also know but little.
However, and let me make this a giant HOWEVER, i do have and employ “metrics of credibility” for the lack of a better term.
This means that in arriving at an opinion or arguing a case, i will
The more falsifiable an item, the less value i assign to it in my grand assessment.
Enigma, the cypher machine stats are considered quite reliable, insofar as whoever reports them may or may not have skewed the data, but given that these are very hard to falsify, with timestamps and access to the original intercepts, easy to verify and therefore they and their absence in regard to certain claims counts a lot.
In absence of hard data, i will look at the overall behavior, did it support the smooth chain of judaic plans for the non-jewish world, the torah-talmud-“chemor”-protocols-yinon-pnac-clean_break and all the rabbinical blather in between or not.
The end results don’t count all that much, an honest failure is much more noble than the ignominy of cowardly appeasement, so the fact that one single country, Germany, with one reliable, strong ally, Japan, lost an all out war against the entire Jew-controlled world is no proof of Hitler’s treachery any more than a sportsman or a sports team losing a game, as if each time Bobby Fisher or Roger Federer lost, it meant they threw the game and are mafia-puppets.
Like I said, backing away from war, he would have to acquiesce to further promotion of the Weimar mechanism, ie, a total and eternal sodomizing by jew on the scale the united states have capitulated to or even greater.
Now Pat never addressed these issues, not once.
He blithely states very serious accusations without the slightest hint of hard evidence and i am asking him to step up to the plate, not namby pamby “he said, she said”, like every time Putin shakes hand with a Jew, it is proof of his treason (Rumsfeld publicly hugged Saddam, Cheney and Sarkozy happily handshaking and smiling with Gaddafi, so yeah).
The best that this Dublinmick-Henry_Makowians can do is point to Germany losing the war (by the way, they also lost ww1, who does Pat blame for that, surely another German Rothschild employee, maybe the Kaiser?) or the fact that jew-owned Farben IG supplied Zyklon-b pesticide to the government to eliminate lice in clothing and mattresses – wow, what a proof – and the Allies didn’t bomb a Jew-owned conglomerate – wow, another massive proof, like saying the Allies (NATO) bombed Belgrade but didn’t bomb Israeli embassy, only the Chinese one.
Pat is the obstinacy champ, which can be good but also bad, obstinacy is not an automatic virtue like say, empathy is.
yet, he is quite fair, as his defense of Franklin Ryckaert shows, so i hold no personal grudge against him, only some of his views (make “some”, “quite a few”
And in terms of the sheer power Conn was to Louis what Germany was to the ZOG.
.
Germany Issues Arrest Warrant For Ingrid Rimland Zundel
.
http://rense.com/general67/adrr.htm
.
Japan in WWII: A Casualty of Usury?
.
By Dr. Ingrid R. Zundel on June 26, 2011
.
Was WWII Fought to make the World Safe for the Bankers?
.
Thanks to best-selling author, David Irving, the establishment view that the United States of America became embroiled in World War II as a result of a surprise attack on Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941 is no longer accepted by major historians. The origins of this conflict, says South African politician and noted banker, Stephen Goodson, have far deeper roots.
.
Goodson explains the background as follows:……………..
.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/06/26/was-world-war-ii-fought-to-make-the-world-safe-for-usury/
.
.
Dr Ingrid Rimland-Zundel’s article re Hitlers economic principles –
.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/13/hitler-and-the-banksters-the-abolition-of-interest-servitude/
how the Federal Reserve Bank buys votes in the States
….. in order to control the state legislatures;
and how they use their vast financial resources in maintaining “an international propaganda” for covering up their previous misdeeds and setting in motion new opportunities for their “gigantic train of crime”.
.
There is a busy little private company you probably never have heard about, but which you should. Its name is the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation. See their website. Looks pretty boring. Some kind of financial service thing, with a positive slogan and out there to make a little business. You can even get a job there. Now, go and take a look at their annual report. Starts with a nice litte Flash presentation and has a nice message from the CEO. And take a look at the numbers. It turns out that this company holds 23 trillion dollars in assets, and had 917 trillion dollars worth of transactions in 2002. That’s trillions, as in thousands of thousands of millions. 23,000,000,000,000 dollars in assets.
.
As it so turns out, it is not because DTCC has a nice website and says good things about saving their customers money that they are trusted with that kind of resources. Rather it is because they seem to have a monopoly on what they do. In brief, they process the vast majority of all stock transactions in the United States as well as for many other countries. And – and that’s the real interesting part – 99% of all stocks in the U.S. appear to be legally owned by them…………..
.
It is a private company, owned by the same people (major U.S. banks) who own the Federal Reserve Bank.
.
http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/__show_article/_a000010-000923.htm
Subscriptions needed way more now. $$$Commerce and contracts with conditions… yielding lawsuits.
Search and ye shall find. Huge archive.
it’s where good Internet sites go when they die. Try it.
http://www.cwporter.com/tathoaxletter.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/tathoaxletter.htm
This site is full of loonies. Indeed, the Christians are some of the most rational commenters. Mirabile dictu.
https://forum.codoh.com
http://www.shop.codoh.com
HolocaustHandbooks.com
HolocaustHandbuecher.com
inconvenientHistory.com
― Frédéric Bastiat
― Frédéric Bastiat
How long is a million hours?
.
Well, a day is 24 hours so 1,000,000 hours is 1,000,000/24 days.
.
That is, 41,666 days and 16 hours.
.
If a year is 365 days, then in terms of years we would work it out as 41,666.67/365 years, which is just over 114 years.
First (and still judicially official, question it and go to jail) plaque
For ever let this place be a cry of despair and a warning to humanity, where the Nazis
murderedEXECUTEDABOUT ONE AND A QUARTER HUNDRED men,
women and children, MAINLYAUSCHWITZ-BIRKENAU 1940-1945
117 Jew Holocaust