Blog

Romania caves to Elie Wiesel Institute—authorizes holohoax propaganda center

Written on October 10, 2019 at 11:26 am, by Carolyn

Romanian President Klaus Iohannis announced on Tuesday in Bucharest his approval for the creation of an official Romanian Holocaust Center under the auspices of the Elie Wiesel Institute for Study of the Holocaust.

By Carolyn Yeager

President Klaus Iohannis announced on Tuesday (Oct. 8) his official approval for the creation of the country’s first Holocaust museum in Bucharest, Romania’s capital. He said in a ceremony attended by ‘holocaust survivors’:

“The history of Jewish Romanians, their contribution to the country’s development and the tragedy experienced during the war… represent a legacy which was hidden from us for decades.”

He added: “This museum will not so much bring answers as raise more questions.” He said the goal was to recover the memory of the Holocaust [or maybe to invent it where necessary?]; strengthen the education about the Holocaust, and combat anti-Semitism [oh yes, that too – the actual main goal]. The museum will take up space in a WWII era eight-story building in central Bucharest.

Elie Wiesel behind the museum plan

The new museum will be coordinated by the Elie Wiesel Institute for the Study of the Holocaust in Romania, a “think tank” created by Wiesel and his handlers in 2005. Wiesel claims to have been born in Sighet, Hungary in 1928, which is now part of Romania. In 2004 an international panel led by Elie Wiesel estimated that between 280,000 and 380,000 Romanian and Ukrainian Jews perished from territories under Romanian administration from a total of 750,000. It also found 11,000 Roma were killed. For reliability of Elie Wiesel Institute facts and figures, see “Elie Wiesel Institute Wrong on Romanian Grave Claims. Also, previous story here.

Elie Wiesel died in 2016.

Only 3,200 (admitted) Jews still live in Romania, according to the last census in 2011; other sources say 8,000 to 10,000. [Jews moved to New York where the living is better. Thousands of others changed their identity to Christian and remain in Romania officially undetected.]

Romania switched sides in the world war in 1944. The government was originally strongly allied with the victorious Germany, but when the tide turned, the Romanian army deserted and opportunistically, with all their German weapons and gear, went over to the Allies. Romania was therefore under Soviet communist control for the next 45 years, remaining a backward, dreary and corrupt country. That was in large part what drove so many Jews to leave. They want communism for Gentiles, but not for themselves.

 

Elie Wiesel’s sex abuse comes back to haunt his legacy

Written on October 24, 2017 at 5:13 pm, by Carolyn

Elie Wiesel (left) at the trial of Eric Hunt (right) was quite prepared to put the 22-year old away for life for frightening him by taking hold of his arm in an empty hotel hallway in 2007. Is it surprising that someone who’s been through the “worst there is” should still be so frightened of a kid?

Which is worse: Grabbing a man’s arm or grabbing a woman’s ass?

By Carolyn Yeager

Attack ‘victim’ Elie Wiesel attacks 19 year old girl and runs away

Elie Wiesel has been accused by a Jewish mother of four, married, a Ph.D from New York University of having squeezed her buttock when she was a vulnerable 19-year-old attending a Jewish charity dinner with her boyfriend’s family. Wiesel, of course, died last year and it’s doubtful his family will comment on the charge.

What it brings to mind for me is this: Elie Wiesel fully cooperated in the prosecution of a 22 year old male, the at-the-time completely unknown Eric Hunt, for grabbing his arm in a hotel elevator in 2007. And now it  comes out that Wiesel is also a perpetrator: guilty of surreptitiously grabbing a young woman’s buttocks at a Jewish charity dinner in 1989.

In 1989, Wiesel was 61 years old and it had been only three years since he won the Nobel Prize for Peace in Oslo. He was at the height of his fame.

I believed Jenny Listman’s story right away because radio personality Deanna Spingola had told me of her experience meeting Elie Wiesel after a speech he gave as a “Holocaust survivor.” I do not recall where or when this took place, but Deanna claims she went up, along with other audience members, to meet the famous survivor after his speech. As I remember her telling it, he fixed his gaze on her with suddenly aroused interest, and whatever physical contact took place, whether handshake or something more, he held on to her longer than she felt was appropriate. He also engaged in chatty conversation, asking her about herself. Deanna, at the time an attractive single working woman, blonde and blue eyed, felt the unmistakable sexual vibes emanating from Mr. Wiesel toward her. I suppose if she had told him where she would be after the event (in the hotel bar for instance) he would have found a way to show up there. The impression Deanna had then, at a time she was still a believer in the holocaust narrative, never changed: that he’s a womanizer.

I never doubted Deanna’s account; I hope she will come forward and describe this experience in her own words, for the record. I am not the only person she told this to.

Now, hearing Jenny Listman’s story is confirmation for me that Wiesel was just another run-of-the-mill sexual predator from New York City, a breeding ground of such types.

Listman, describing herself as a non-observant Jew, writes about what happened to her in exquisite detail on her own blog page dated Oct. 19, 2017, as part of the #metoo Twitter campaign following the accusations against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. She defines herself as a PhD, married mother of 4, New Yorker; data science, data visualization specialist. She begins her long post with a quote from Elie Wiesel’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in 1986:

“I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

Listman explains the event as follows: She was participating in a group photo of her boyfriend’s family with guest speaker Elie Wiesel following a dinner given by the Jewish charity to honor their deceased father and husband. Wiesel suddenly said “Wait,” untangled himself from his place in the center of the group, darted in between Listman and her boyfriend at the far end, and then said, “Ok” to the photographer. Listman felt his hand on her shoulder inch down her back until, at the moment the photographer snapped the picture, Wiesel’s hand “squeezed her right ass cheek” and Wiesel “RAN, disappearing into the crowd of over 1000 people.”

When she told her boyfriend what had just happened, he responded with disbelief. Maybe she was mistaken, he suggested, or imagined it. No, she said, she was sure. But she didn’t push the matter any further. She knew it would just upset everyone. And so did Elie Wiesel know that.

The boyfriend, whom she later married and divorced, confirmed this conversation took place, according to Linley Sanders at Newsweek.

Remember that Wiesel’s speaking fee was $25,000 plus chauffeur-driven limousine to and from. Per talk. He was probably not friends of the man being honored, or his family, but was hired by the charity. (That is where so much of your charity money goes – something to keep in mind.) This explains why he was looking to entertain himself while doing a boring job for pay.

Reaction to this revelation

Reaction from the Jews is to downplay, disbelieve or deny. Non-Jews are staying away from the whole story – too hot to handle. They might say the wrong thing and never recover from it.

Commentary, a Jewish publication ran a dismissive article by Daniella Greenbaum the next day, Oct. 20, in which Greenbaum said she didn’t believe Listman’s account, and made her out to be mentally unstable.

The Forward Jewish news organization ran Listman’s accusations when they appeared, but then published a sort of apology/retraction two days later, saying the story “did not meet our journalistic standards and has been removed.”

The far-left Salon website posted the story, concluding that (in my words) there are not just ‘holocaust survivors,’ but there are ‘sex abuse survivors’ too, and we must listen to all of them and sort it out as best we can.

The best coverage of all is what you find right here on Elie Wiesel Cons The World.

Elie Wiesel condemns others but cannot admit his own human failings

To return to Wiesel and Eric Hunt, I think it is the most important moral of the story. Wiesel for many, many years accepted being portrayed as a paragon of blameless virtue and, in turn, portrayed all “holocaust survivors” as blameless victims of totally evil Germans. He was a proponent of the Jewish idea of “Never Forgive, Never Forget” and his infamous sentiment, “Every Jew must set aside in his heart a special place of hate for the German and what the German represents.”

When young Eric Hunt tugged on his arm in a San Francisco hotel demanding to speak to him privately, then let go, turned and walked away when Wiesel began yelling for help, Wiesel called the police and was okay with having Hunt charged with attempted kidnapping, false imprisonment, elder abuse, stalking, battery and the commission of a hate crime – which would have confined the youth to prison for possibly the rest of his life. Wiesel said he was very frightened, which was clearly an unforgivable thing to do to him.

Wiesel then testified at Hunt’s trial, during which he lied under oath about his purported Auschwitz tattoo and his book Night–no big deal to the blithe and breezy icon who can ‘run away’ from his own unlawful actions. Luckily for Hunt, his age and prior clean record allowed the counts against him to be cut to misdemeanor battery and misdemeanor elder abuse to which he had to plead guilty in order to be let off with time served and probation. A Man of Compassion, Wiesel is not.

How will the Wiesel admirers react to their icon’s sexual abuse of a teenager? Will there be more “#metoo’s” showing up in the near future? I’m sure there are more, but whether they have the will or desire to speak out is uncertain, especially as the majority are probably Jewish. I believe the Jewish power structure will crack down hard on any and all disloyalists. But we will keep watching and reporting it if more develops in this fascinating and unexpected saga.

 

My work on “Night” is featured in a talk given by Jewish Professor Alan Astro at St. Francis College in 2014

Written on June 11, 2017 at 7:19 pm, by Carolyn

Alan Astro PhD, Trinity University

By Carolyn Yeager

I happened upon this video and recognized my own text of Yiddish-to-French-to-English translation being used by this professor at a Catholic university in San Antonio TX. Though a native of Brooklyn, Alan Astro says he has been at Trinity University for over 25 years. His field is modern languages and literatures; one of the subjects he teaches is Yiddish culture.

His lecture, titled “Christianity and the Holocaust in Elie Wiesel’s Night” was filmed by St. Francis College and at the 6min59sec mark, he shows text from my very important 2012 article “Night #1 and Night #2—What Changes were Made and Why, Part One.” So you never know who is reading this site – a lot of people and all people who have a professional interest in Elie Wiesel.

At 6:59, Astro shows text translated by Kladderadatsch for this web site, which he calls “Where’s the tatoo?” (sic). He says that even though Yiddish was not known very well even in the Jewish world … “Holocaust deniers somehow get their hands on the Yiddish and manage to get it translated. Here is one holocaust denier or minimizer on the web who makes a whole big deal about the fact that in the Yiddish and French and English original translations Wiesel “is not quite 15” when he is arrested and sent to Auschwitz, whereas he is 15 in the newest edition and this is considered to be something that somehow questions the veracity of the whole historical knowledge of the Holocaust. But that’s another issue all together. But it does show you that things can very often have strange consequences.” (He goes quickly to something else at 8:10. So Astro has my text on the screen for one minute, 11 seconds, enough time to read it all.

This is the segment he used:

3.  Not yet fifteen … or fifteen?

UdV Page 63 : Yingl, vi alt bistu? fregt mir a heftling.  Zeyn pnym iz geven in der fintster, ober zeyn kol iz geven a mids, a varems. Nokh nisht keyn 15 yor, hob ikh geentfert.

“Kid, how old are you?” a prisoner asked me.  His face was in darkness, but his voice was tired and warm. “Not yet 15 years,” I answered.

LN Page 54:  Hé, le gosse, quel âge as-tu?  C’était un détenu qui m’interrogeait.  Je ne voyais pas son visage, mais sa voix était lasse et chaude.  “Pas encore quinze ans.” / Not yet 15 years.

SR Page 39: “Here, kid, how old are you?” It was one of the prisoners who asked me this. I could not see his face, but his voice was tense and weary. “I’m not quite fifteen yet.”

MW Page 30:  “Hey, kid, how old are you?” The man interrogating me was an inmate. I could not see his face, but his voice  was weary and warm.  “Fifteen

This very important passage was discussed above. I think the reader would agree that “not yet 15″ can mean even farther from the age of 15 than “not quite fifteen.” What is clear is that Marion Wiesel has changed the author’s original words to fit them to her husband’s age in Spring 1944.

Astro dismisses this important observation with the misrepresentation (in boldface above) that the example is intended to negate the entire holocaust story. No, it isn’t; obviously it questions the veracity of Elie Wiesel’s truthfulness in “Night” since this scene took place in April or May, and the real Wiesel’s 16th birthday was coming up on September 28, 1944. Thus Wiesel was not 14 in Spring ’44, but had already been 15 for at least 7 months. Astro is not interested in telling that to his audience or pursuing it himself. He is a professor of languages and literature, but not an expert on Elie Wiesel or the Holocaust. Far, far from it.

Another photo of Professor Alan Astro.

At 19:33, hear him pronounce Wiesel’s name as weasel (as I say it) and then quickly correct himself to the affectation Wie-zell that he used throughout the talk. This indicates that ‘weasel’ is his default way of pronouncing the name, or the way he first learned it.

At right is another photo of Professor Astro I found online that gives what might be a truer look at the man.

One fact proves more than any other that “Night” is a work of fiction

Written on June 9, 2017 at 10:35 am, by Carolyn

Shlomo Wiesel, Elie’s father, in 1942, a young looking man.

By Carolyn Yeager

Elie Wiesel wrote two ‘official’ accounts of his 1944-45 concentration camp experience: his novel Night (1958) and his official autobiography (Part One), All Rivers Run to the Sea (1995). Thirty-seven years separate these two publications.

Three articles written by me in 2011 (and here) and 2012 contain information that demonstrate conclusively that Night is not a true account of the experience Wiesel may have had with his family at Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1944. Night is written for “effect” and to be a gripping father-son drama that rises to the standards of a literary work of art. Night cannot, therefore, be called Wiesel’s testimony – a claim he made on several occasions.

Because a lot of information was conveyed in these three articles – a lot of details were covered, and I had other purposes in mind – this crucial fact easily gets lost to the reader’s attention. In this article I will zero in on this “crucial evidence” in order to make it crystal clear why Night can only be considered a work of fiction and Elie’s autobiography “All Rivers …” is the place to go for Elie’s ‘true’ account of his experience.

The main evidence I want to put up front is the agreed upon birth date of Elie’s grandmother Nisel Bash Wiesel, mother of Shlomo and Mendel and four daughters. In 1957, Yaakov Fishkovitz filled out a Yad Vashem Page of Testimony (PoT) for his aunt Nisel, stating she was born in 1881 in Chust, Romania and died at Auschwitz in 1944. In 1999, Eliezer Shlomovitz, living in Los Angeles CA at the time, also filled out a PoT for Yad Vashem giving his grandmother’s birth year as 1880, with a question mark. Elie Wiesel never filled out a form for his grandmother, whom he wrote he was very close to, nor for his mother or sister, but only one for his father.

Why Grandma Nisel’s birth date is so important

A birth date of 1880-81 makes Grandmother Nisel 63 or 64 years old in 1944, a figure agreed upon by Hilda Wiesel. However, the story line in Night, accepted as factual by writers, journalists and Internet sources like Wikipedia, gives Father’s age as 50 in 1944, which, if true, would mean grandmother Nisel was only 13 or 14 years old when she gave birth to Shlomo, her third child, and only 11 or 12 at most when she gave birth to her first child. Such a shockingly young age is not in the tradition of Hasidic Judaism to which the Wiesels’ belonged.

In the scene in Night when the family arrives at Birkenau around midnight, Father tells a fellow prisoner who questions him that he is 50 years old and the prisoner urges him to say he is younger. Similarly Eliezer says he is “not quite 15” and is told to make himself older. He subsequently answers “eighteen” when questioned by the guard (or Mengele?). Both men are passed on through. From this, and apparently this alone, the default birth date for Shlomo Wiesel became 1894 and no one, including Elie, ever questioned or corrected that. However, Elie slyly left blank the date of birth on the Yad Vashem PoT he filled out for his father in 2004, and he never offered a birth date for either of his parents.

Wiesel adds 10 years to Father-son age difference in Night

In 1957, Yaakov Fishkovitz also filled out a Yad Vashem PoT for his cousins Shlomo and Mendel Wiesel, giving their dates of birth as 1903 and 1905 respectively. These are probably correct because it makes their mother Nisel age 22 or 23 when Shlomo, her third child, was born, and age 24-5 when Mendel, her fifth, was born.

So why did Elie, in writing Night, make Father 50 years old instead of his real father’s age of 41? Answer: To make the  theme of a role reversal between father and son more dramatic, of course. To deepen the loneliness felt by the boy watching his worn-out father break down under the cold, uncaring death machine perpetrated by the evil German Nazis. To write the most heart-breaking story he could!

For the same reason, his 10-year old sister became seven years old and he even made himself a year younger (14 going on 15 instead of 15 going on 16).

It couldn’t be more clear that his purpose in writing Night was different than his purpose for All Rivers, which attempts to give a record of his early life and actual family history. In fact, while Wiesel writes pretty extensively about his grandmother Nisel, who even accompanied the family to Auschwitz in All Rivers – she doesn’t appear at all in Night. He left her out as extraneous to his tightly-constructed narrative, the purpose of which was not to tell it as it really happened.

Summing up

So when the facts diverge between the two books, as they often do, go with All Rivers as the more accurate version. For example, in Night, Eliezer is in the hospital at Birkenau in January 1945 with an infected foot. In All Rivers, he tells the very same story but it is not his foot at all, but his knee that is operated on! If there is any truth to the story, which can be considered doubtful, accept that it was his knee. (I think Elie, or one of his Night editors, liked the dramatic image of leaving a trail of red blood in the snow, so what the heck, just change knee to foot!)

To sum up, Wiesel’s willingness to change important details about his family, and his own major experiences, tells us that creating a “true account” of their year of internment was not his goal. For him, no different from most survivors who write memoirs, he preferred what was “true in his mind.” Or, in other words, what made for a better and hopefully more successful book.

Elie Wiesel’s family-approved obituary calls “Night” a novel

Written on May 18, 2017 at 9:47 am, by Carolyn

By Carolyn Yeager

Wiesel family attends a fund-raising event for Multiple Myeloma cancer in Oct. 2015. Left to right: Elie Wiesel, wife Marion Wiesel (seated), son Elisha Wiesel, daughter-in-law Lynn Bartner-Wiesel. (Hit Ctrl and + key several times to enlarge image)

The Wiesel obituary published at Legacy.com, affiliated with funeral homes and newspapers across America, states in it’s first sentence:

Elie Wiesel, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning author who told the story of his Holocaust internment in his autobiographical novel “Night,” died July 2, 2016.

It also said: “Wiesel called “Night” his “deposition,” noting that it was a true story, though parts of it were fictionalized.”

So is this the final word from Mr. Wiesel on his legacy? When do we know which of the varying statements put out by Wiesel and his surrogates is the official one?

When I was checking the conflicting personal information about survivor Paul Argiewicz for my first article about Paul, I found his obituary at Legacy.com to be the most accurate in giving the true facts. Paul was a man who continually told lies and changed his story, particularly when it came to his age at the time certain key events occurred. So I think that is relevant to determining the truth of another survivor (Wiesel) who also has a record of changing details of his story. Wiesel and his wife Marion even re-translated Night for a new 2006 edition, in order to change quite a number of elements in his story that were not consistent with other elements, or with the officially accepted narrative as it’s come to be.

This obituary was probably written by a close family friend or retainer – Jewish, of course – and approved by the family. I believe it is considered a grave sin in Hasidic Judaism to lie about your ancestors, especially your father and mother, which is why it’s necessary for your published obituary to be truthful. But also, when in the state of grief for your loved one’s passing, most people want to write accurately about them and not indulge in lies and fabrications that might have seemed acceptable at other times. It’s interesting, in light of this, to see how these “facts” have been handled here.

The obit tells us that the events that followed Wiesel’s arrival at Auschwitz-Birkenau are “well known to the public” because “Wiesel dramatized them in “Night.” To dramatize doesn’t mean to make a careful record of just what one remembers, but to adapt a story so as to express it more emotionally, or strikingly, or in an exaggerated way for literary purposes. It’s also true that Night was edited so much, it was as much the product of Francois Mauriac and Jérôme Lindon, his editor, as it was of Elie Wiesel.

It is almost always said that after the family arrived at Birkenau, Wiesel’s mother Sarah and ten-year old sister Tziporah were sent in a different direction than his two older sisters – in fact, specifically to a “gas chamber” where they were immediately murdered. But here we are told that “Wiesel and his father were separated from his mother and three sisters.” Period. Nothing more. It eventually goes on to say: “He was reunited with two of his sisters after the war, but he never saw his third sister or his mother again – they died in their own concentration camp.” They could not bring themselves to repeat the invention that the two died at Auschwitz, for which there is no evidence whatsoever, so they are left with just saying they died somewhere, somehow because they were not seen again.

I have been pressing these points for a long time, but the complicit mainstream media and holocaust hacks irresponsibly repeat the false account that Elie’s mother and sister were sent immediately to a (non-existent) homicidal gas chamber at Birkenau for “extermination.”

The obit, however, does not clarify the very confusing story concerning the writing in Yiddish of the precursor to Night.

“Night” offered a stark portrayal of genocide. Amazingly, the deeply unsettling narrative was heavily edited, reduced from Wiesel’s original 862-page manuscript to a taut, terrifying 245 pages, published in 1958 in France and translated into English for U.S. readers in 1960.

This is misleading, in that the 862 pages and the 245 pages were both in Yiddish. When the 245 pages were translated into French, it became a small book of 178 pages. The English translation was only 116 pages. Wiesel wrote about 50 more books after that and all were short (except for his official autobiography, but it is made up of individual snippets of ‘memory’). So it’s a little hard to imagine that the original manuscript was his, especially since he said he wrote the entire thing from scratch during a ship’s passage between Israel and Sao Paulo, Brazil. Of course, no one has ever seen the alleged 862 page manuscript to even verify its existence. See “The Truth about Night; Why it’s not Elie Wiesel’s Story”

This website makes use of some non-original copyrighted material. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information Click Here