Blog

Would Elie Wiesel have joined Saul Friedlander in threatening to “quit the U.S.” if Donald Trump is elected in November?

Written on September 26, 2016 at 4:36 pm, by Carolyn

sf_paris_9-22-2016

Israeli writer (but with U.S. citizenship) Saul Friedlander poses in a hotel in Paris, on September 22, 2016, the day of this interview. (AFP/Christophe Archambault)

By Carolyn Yeager

It’s very possible that Wiesel would have gone that far, even though Trump is deferential to Israel. Wiesel would have been on the side of his friend, Barack Obama (image right), and therefore supported Hillary Clinton. Just how sharply EW_Obama hug_US flaghe would have addressed Trump is something we can now only imagine. But we might get an idea from the growing number of ‘progressive’ American celebrities who are proclaiming their distaste at the possibility of a Donald Trump presidency and their promise to abandon their country if their worst nightmare should come true. A significant portion of those celebrities are Jews, even in the face of his enthusiastic support for Israel and his close connections to Jews.

Among this group, Holocaust historian Saul Friedlander is the latest high-profile Jew to threaten to leave the United States if Donald Trump becomes president. Born in Prague, he now lives in Los Angeles with comfortable dual US/Israel citizenship. That means he can vote in the American election, but he will definitely not be voting for Trump. In a recent interview in Paris, Friedlander told AFP:

“One cannot exclude Donald Trump from winning, even though he is a dangerous crazy. He says whatever comes into his mind. We don’t know what he thinks.”

Translated: He doesn’t follow the Kosher script. He thinks and acts as an independent person, and in the interests of the American nation and people. The politicians Jewry supports are Israel-firsters who can be counted on to defend Jewish interests over the interests of White Americans.

“At the same time, there is a huge swathe of Americans, mostly poor, angry whites, who dream of having him in the White House. He is kind of a release valve for their anger against the ‘establishment’ represented by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Because she has, unfortunately, a tendency to lie and to hide things. Trump, by comparison, seems totally open and frank, even if he has not published his income tax returns.

Translated: What the ‘huge swathe of mostly White Americans’ want is not good for Jews, so we prefer the lies and cover-up of Clinton to the open and frank Trump. After all, Jews’ first obligation is to look after themselves. In this connection, Friedlander then warned of the rise of anti-Semitism and of Holocaust denial.

“Negationists are, in general, anti-Semites, and I am utterly opposed to debating with them.”

He, Deborah Lipstadt and Elie Wiesel have all said this. Because they can’t win.

“It gets you nowhere, they will always find a so-called detail showing that all these stories of gas chambers were a joke.”

Indeed! Those troublesome, nit-picking details that reveal the gas chambers are a joke. What an admission! He said it.

“They are obsessed by the idea that Jews could have invented the story of their extermination.”

That’s a big worry. That their invention of the story of the six million will become known to the masses. Its getting closer to happening.

So it couldn’t be more clear why Friedlander fears Donald Trump. If Trump does not defend the PC in general, that could put ‘the narrative’ at risk. He might say anything! Trump is not anti-Semitic himself, but he’s not a house-trained politician that can be trusted to toe-the-Jewish-line in every instance. He may leave it up to the Jews themselves to defend it, rather than keeping it a state priority. I can understand some Jews considering moving to where they feel more assured their special benefits and privileges will be fully maintained. Germany perhaps? Many are saying Canada, so they can more easily return if Trump bombs out in four years.

Trump has said he only wants immigrants here who love the people of this nation. Since Friedlander, the immigrant, looks down on “a wide swathe of poor, angry whites” who are “angry at the establishment” (the establishment that protects and coddles him), he certainly does not love average Americans, and may even fear them. If he perceives himself as out of step with the majority of Trump supporters, this would certainly add to his feeling of discomfort with a Trump victory.

saul-f_2009Who is Saul Friedlander?

Friedlander, 83, was born in 1932 in Prague, grew up in France where he was sheltered in a Catholic boarding school from 1942 on, and immigrated to Israel in 1948. He served in the Israeli army. From 1953-55, he studied political science in Paris (should have run into Elie Wiesel at that time) and became very active in the World Zionist Organization and the World Jewish Congress. By 1959 he had become an assistant to Shimon Peres, Israel’s Defense Minister, and in 1963 he was granted a PhD from the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, where he remained teaching until he moved to UCLA in 1988 as a professor of history (Club Chair in Holocaust Studies).

Friedlander’s magnum opus came out in 1997 titled Nazi Germany and thenazi-germany_jews Jews. The second volume, The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945 appeared in 2007. Friedlander is known as an Intentionalist, although he only goes back to 1941 when Hitler decided to “exterminate the Jewish people” – not earlier as some Intentionalists do (like to the writing of Mein Kampf). He also takes the position that the Jews had no idea what was happening to them and that is why they went to their deaths like ‘lambs to the slaughter’. “They simply didn’t know what was happening,” he argues. Friedlander never lived in Nazi Germany; he was a child in France during the war. So he’s simply a historian, poring over documents and reading witness accounts, second hand.

Friedlander says that his parents were gassed at Auschwitz, and that he learned about it in 1946. Since there were no gassings and no records of gassings at Auschwitz – how did he find out about it? He himself revealed that an unnamed Jew (a family friend) wrote to Friedlander’s grandmother informing her that his parents had been sent to Germany or to a Jewish reservation in Poland. That’s it. That’s the proof.

If you watch Friedlander on one of the many videos where he is being interviewed, he comes across as an utter bore who speaks excruciatingly slowly. At least for me he does; I can hardly bear waiting for his next word to come. He is feminine in appearance, in contrast to Donald Trump who is distinctly masculine.

Friedlander had a famous debate with a German historian Martin Broszat. Friedlander argued that the study of the Nazi period was ‘global’, that it belongs to everyone, and it was a problem when some German historians wanted to focus on everyday life during the Third Reich.  A big part of the discussion was whether the National-Socialist period could be treated as another period of German history – as in, from the Imperial to the Weimar to the National-Socialist to the present day. This was relevant, for instance, in the growth of the welfare state – since the Third Reich did extend welfare programs for its citizens in a responsible and historically fitting way.

Friedlander was totally opposed to any such suggestion. His arguments against it are weak – in fact they are frivolous. For example, he argued his first “dilemma” with it was that such an approach would cause historians to lose their attention to the genocidal politics of the Nazi state. His second major objection was that by looking at the Nazi period as “normal”, there was a danger that historians might lose interest in the ‘criminality’ of the Nazi era. Third, he said if the Nazi era was ‘historicized’, it might allow historians to advance apologetic arguments about National Socialism, as he said Ernst Nolte and Andreas Hillgruber had already done. Well, we can’t have that, can we? – says the Jewish apologist Friedlander.

Actually, all three of his “dilemmas,” as he called them, seem to be the same one. It takes away from his reputation as a great thinker, doesn’t it? Friedlander is actually a mediocre talent who got ahead with the help of Jewish connections.

Friedlander and Elie Wiesel

Saul Friedlander and Elie Wiesel were friends, born four years apart and their views on Germany and the Holocaust are very close.

In his autobiography All Rivers Run to the Sea (p. 329), Wiesel tells a story about Friedlander. He said he saw Saul in 1958 or 1959 in Manhattan when Saul was working for Nahum Goldman and the World Jewish Congress. Saul was depressed and taking Valium because no publisher was interested in his writing about Pope Pius XII and Nazi Germany. Wiesel said he introduced him to publisher Paul Flamand and that was the turning point in Saul’s career. Is Flamand Jewish? I can’t say absolutely yes, but I’m pretty sure he is. Wiesel wouldn’t turn to anyone but a Jew.

Friedlander and Wiesel both see the “Holocaust” as an event unique in history, impossible to discuss in normal language, and the result of anti-Semitism. Friedlander believes that ‘Nazi anti-Semitism’ is a distinct form of it that could bring about redemption for the anti-Semite. So Friedlander is a bit of a mystic too.

He maintains that the essence of National Socialism was that it “tried to determine who should and should not inhabit the world.” Further, it resisted any attempt to integrate it as part of the “normal” development of the modern world. But who is to say what the “normal” development of the world is? Clearly there is a difference of opinion there. But Jews insist there is only one way – their way. So again, the one who insists on how the world should be is the Jew.

Elie Wiesel has already departed this world. If Saul departs from the United States of America, and potentially revokes his citizenship (although he probably wouldn’t have the guts to do it), all the better for the United States. Barbra Streisand too, and Jon Stewart, Barry Diller, oh, there is a whole list of them. How we poor, angry Whites will celebrate their leaving. The media will describe it as a blow to our nation, but we Whites know better.

How Wiesel’s “tattoo” looks from where I’m sitting

Written on July 15, 2016 at 11:11 am, by Carolyn

Enlarged close-up of Elie Wiesel's arms in a 2006 photograph by Eyal Poreit

Enlarged close-up of Elie Wiesel’s arms in a 2006 photograph by Eyal Toueg, first published in Haaretz (see previous article).

by Carolyn Yeager
copyright 2016 Carolyn Yeager

It’s pretty pathetic to be confronted with a picture like the above, and expected to acknowledge that it is Elie Wiesel’s Auschwitz tattoo that I have been asking to see for six years now. Once again, the best suggestion I have for magnifying it is to click on it to get the image page, then hit the plus key up to 8 times while holding down the Ctrl key. The image stays sharp while being greatly enlarged. What do you see? I invite all the amateur, and maybe professional sleuths out there to do their thing.

Wiesel has been hiding this faded-out, so-far-undecipherable spot on his arm for 70 years, and now that he’s safely buried and completely inaccessible, Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper that broke the story of Wiesel’s death, is beginning to reveal that arm. At least, that’s how it looks from where I’m sitting.

To the naked eye, it appears to be a bruise on the arm. Upon magnification, we can barely make out what appear to be numbers, but it’s not at all clear what numbers they are. I see a couple but I’m not going to reveal what I think I see because I want a better image – and think we all deserve one. The dark and light lines made by his arm hair create a confused mess, visually. What we need are more high-resolution photographs like this one, preferably with a straight-on view of the arm. The photographer Eyal Toueg must have taken many shots on this day in 2006 and he would have all the negatives. It is his responsibility to publish them all, every one that shows Wiesel’s left arm, but he is probably Israeli and is under the dictate of higher ups. Someone else may have bought all the negatives. Maybe Haaretz owns them.

As it is, we are left with many questions – such as, why has Wiesel refused to show his supposed faded tattoo over the years? Is it because it’s unreadable? If he revealed it, the public would question it – or at least sceptics would – and he was not prepared to answer questions. Probably, if there were journalists who took a genuine unflinching investigative approach, he would have been forced to discuss it, but none did. The efforts of Jean Robin of Enquete & Debat website to encourage such an investigation show conclusively that lack of journalistic willingness.

Has it been kept hidden because it is not A-7713? Could that be why whatever was there has been defaced or somehow unnaturally/synthetically faded or smeared? I cannot find any example of an Auschwitz tattoo that looks like his does.

Is it because it is something he put on his arm himself when he was a youth in France? In this 1945 photograph taken at the French orphanage for Jewish boys we see what looks like an Auschwitz tattoo, albeit a tiny one, on Wiesel’s arm in the same place we see the dark spot in the 2006 photo.

Tatou Wissel

Elie Wiesel in summer 1945 in France – 16 going on 17 years of age.

The ready conclusion is that it’s his Auschwitz tattoo A-7713. But we can’t make it out at all! It’s already faint in 1945 and when I magnify it, no part of it is recognizable.

It’s also interesting that this photograph was posted on the Internet by French Jew Loupi Smith, but it doesn’t seem to be in the US Holocaust Memorial Museum online collection (where it is hopeless to try to view their Wiesel photo collection, anyway; they obviously don’t want you to see it). Nor is it in the Yad Vashem photo collection under Elie Wiesel – in fact, they have only 3 photographs with Wiesel in them – all the rest are aerial views of Auschwitz-Birkenau! Really weird. I think this decision to withhold pictures of Wiesel can only have come from Wiesel himself. In my opinion, though, the above is definitely a photo of Elie Wiesel in 1945 in France.

Our next pictures are these two, which show the same mark on the arm in the same place, but both are still completely unreadable as numbers. I assume these pics are from the same 2006 photo shoot that produced our newest picture, which is a much better high-resolution image. We can see sharp detail, but the “tattoo” is still not decipherable. It’s a really bad “tattoo!” The problem does seem to be with the “tattoo,” not the photograph. It is just very faint.

When this 2006 image is magnified, the possible "tattoo" is seen only as a discolored spot, not recognizable as a number.

When this 2006 image is magnified, the possible “tattoo” is seen only as a darker spot, not recognizable as a number.

This image was also uploaded by Loupi Smith, but where did he get it? It's obviously from the same 2006 photo shoot by Eyal Toueg.

This image was also uploaded by Loupi Smith, but where did he get it? It’s obviously from the same 2006 photo shoot by Eyal Toueg.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now take a look at this man’s equally hairy arm below– he is Erwin Farkas who was transported to Auschwitz from Hungary in 1944 at the age of 14. His number, A-7899, is only 186 digits beyond A-7713 – they are in the same time frame. His tattoo is faded and a little blurred, but still legible. There is no discoloration of the surrounding skin and the numbers are definitely blue. In fact, all the tattoos that one sees on the Internet are in this good of shape or better (many are fake though).

jmp 003 Edwin Farkas

Erwin Farkas displays the Auschwitz tattoo A-7899 on his arm.

 

What happened to Wiesel’s that it is almost impossible to see? Only Wiesel could answer that – or would – so it’s clear that he didn’t want to since he didn’t let the higher quality picture at the top of this page be published during his lifetime.

In the “court of public opinion” and morally, if not legally … there is no excuse for Elie Wiesel to have been treated as he was by journalists and by historians. He had a duty to show the tattoo he said was on his arm and allow it to be photographed. He had a moral duty to prove that it was what he said it was—A-7713. His failure to do that over the course of many years makes him, and the mainstream media that enabled him, guilty of worse than negligence … they are guilty of “withholding evidence.” The media and academics are more guilty than Wiesel himself because Wiesel has to be given the right not to incriminate himself.

But morally, Wiesel is guilty of withholding evidence that was available all the time.

Above, I used the words “higher quality” but if all these pictures of Wiesel in the white knit short-sleeve shirt were taken on the same day by a professional photographer (which it makes sense that they were) then they should all be of similar high quality. And since we can’t make out the numbers on any of the three, it can only be that it’s the fault of the “tattoo,” not the photography.

I don’t believe this latest-to-be-revealed photograph from 2006 is photo-shop in any way. I do believe this is what Wiesel has on his arm, which he always claimed was A-7713. If it turns out to be A-7713, I won’t be upset in the least because all I’ve ever wanted was the truth about Elie Wiesel. But there will be questions and I will have a very hard time reconciling myself to the idea that the SS camp authorities could have made up a registration card for a 15 year old boy with the information that he was a 31-year-old man with the occupation of Schlosserlehring (Locksmith) – and never correcting it – allowing this boy to enter Buchenwald with that identification. No, it would be very hard to believe that.

The Buchenwald file card that shows Lazar Wiesel, born 9-4-1913, occupation Locksmith, A-B prisoner number A-7713, arrived in a transport from Auschwitz.

The Buchenwald file card that shows Lazar Wiesel, born Sept. 4, 1913 (age 32), occupation locksmith, A-B prisoner number A-7713, arrived in a transport that left Auschwitz on Jan. 26, 1945.

So I can only hope that more of these photos by Eyal Toueg will be published. Because as it stands now, Elie Wiesel’s tattoo claims still don’t pass the most elementary test – that of what the heck is the number!

New (old) pictures come to light in wake of Elie Wiesel’s death

Written on July 9, 2016 at 6:25 pm, by Carolyn

BY CAROLYN YEAGER
copyright Carolyn Yeager 2016

Though they say a picture is worth a thousand words, these two need some explanation. One is from 1987, the other from 2006. Since the more recent one will arouse much more attention, I better start with that.

ew_2006_eyal toueg (2)

This 2006 photograph taken by Eyal Toueg, displayed in a July 9th “Premium” article by Shlomo Nakdimon at Haaretz, has been cropped by me to remove some of the dark space to the right … the better to see the important details.  This may be the first time it has been published.

You will notice right away that there is a smudge on Wiesel’s left forearm, precisely where an Auschwitz tattoo would be. Many people will say, Oh, that’s his very, very faded and blurred tattoo. But it looks more like a bruise, and, by using your keyboard to enlarge the image while retaining a clear resolution, you’ll find, as I did, that it then looks even more like a bruise the larger you go. Plus there seems to be more bruise just above it where his right arm meets his left.

[To enlarge the image, first click on it to get the full size image, then hold down the Ctrl key while clicking the plus (+) key as many times as you can or want. To bring it back to normal, do the same with the minus (-) key. Both keys are on the upper right next to “backspace”]

This photograph has to be from the same photo session that includes the one where he’s sitting with the oversize Hebrew book — he’s wearing the same white knit golf shirt and his hair is the same. That one has been used by Wiesel defenders to suggest there is a faint tattoo on his arm. You can see it here and here.

However, this kind of thing is the typical Wiesel mode of operation throughout his life. He refuses to be explicit about his person and his personal life, even though he gets very explicit about things like the “shades of wateriness of the soup” and the face of the boy he wrote was hanged in Auschwitz. But his own body–which can be checked–he offers not a word of description. And looking at this blue-black discoloration, I can see nothing—even with using all my imagination—that I could imagine to be a 7713. I know you can’t either, but you might try to come up with some theory about it. I have my own theory, that Wiesel pinched himself real hard the day before the photographer came.

In 2006 he was 77 years old, an age when it’s extremely easy to bruise the skin. And that’s what it looks like. Recall the tattoos of so many other inmates from his same time there — none look like this.

But I have a second theory, which might be better — that Wiesel had applied his own tattoo number with ink but he didn’t go deep enough. It was only applied to the dermis (outer layer of skin), not the epidermis, and so it disappeared over time as new skin cells grew until now it is just a smudge of dispersed ink. Remember the top photo on this page that doesn’t look like a real tattoo — this may be when he did it.

Now, the other picture indicts him even more. He is in Lyon, France for the Klaus Barbie show trial and stops by the Holocaust Memorial there on June 2, 1987. He just won the Nobel Peace Prize 6 months earlier, and this Buchenwald liberation photo was associated with him winning that prize. You recall right after the ceremony he traveled to Yad Vashem in Jerusalem and posed in front of a large blow-up of this very photograph.

Elie Wiesel, winner of the 1986 Nobel Peace prize, views the Holocaust Memorial in Lyon, France, June 2, 1987. The photo on the wall shows prisoners of the German Buchenwald concentration camp inside their barracks, a few days after U.S troops liberated the camp near Weimar, Germany. Wiesel points to the picture of himself in the camp. (AP Photo/Laurent Rebours)

Elie Wiesel, winner of the 1986 Nobel Peace prize, visits the Holocaust Memorial in Lyon, France, June 2, 1987. The photo on the wall shows prisoners of the German Buchenwald concentration camp inside their barracks, five  days after U.S troops took over the camp near Weimar, Germany. Wiesel points to himself in the picture. (AP Photo/Laurent Rebours)

Notice that Michael Grüner on the bottom row was cropped out of this version, along with the tall standing man, but there is Mel Mermelstein peeking out from the upper far right. Mel wrote a whole book about his incarceration before Wiesel said in 1983 that he was in this picture, but Mel never mentioned knowing the already famous Elie Wiesel there in his book! Mermelstein resided in the children’s barrack, too.

In this photograph, the unkempt Wiesel is sealing his doom by pointing directly to the unknown person (not him) he is claiming to be himself. And with such a guilty expression, too! Nothing could prove his dishonesty and forgery better than this.

I came upon this picture in the Time magazine Elie Wiesel photo collection posted at the time of his death. When I saw this one I quickly saved it. This might be my all-time favorite picture of the Wiesel. I will surely make more use of it.

“Elie Wiesel died before he confessed his lies about the Holocaust,” says French website

Written on July 7, 2016 at 10:04 pm, by Carolyn

1986 Nobel Peace prize winner and writer Elie Wiesel (L) stands in front of a photo of himself (bottom right hand corner) and other inmates, taken at the Buchenwald concentration camp in 1945, during his visit on December 18, 1986 to the Holocaust Memorial Center "Yad Vashem" in Jerusalem. Wiesel, a naturalized American citizen, was born 30 September 1928 in Sighet (Romania). A survivor of the Nazi concentrations camp, he has spent his adult life fighting for the rights of Holocaust victims. SVEN NACKSTRAND/AFP/Getty Images)

1986 Nobel Peace prize winner and writer Elie Wiesel (L) stands in front of a photo he claimed to be himself (bottom right hand corner) with other inmates, taken at the Buchenwald concentration camp in 1945, during his post-Nobel visit on December 18, 1986 to the Holocaust Memorial Center “Yad Vashem” in Jerusalem. SVEN NACKSTRAND/AFP/Getty Images)

BY CAROLYN YEAGER

The French website Enquete & Debat (E&D) has been on to Elie Wiesel’s failure to answer questions about his “missing” tattoo since 2012. The Jewish or part-Jewish chief of E&D is Jean Robin, and he is the one who has taken it upon himself, the past four years, to investigate what he calls the Elie Wiesel Affair. Robin has explained his position in this way: “I am also interested in these matters since a part of my jewish family on my mothers side died in Auschwitz, and a great grand father on my father side, Noël Robin, was deported to Buchenwald and died in Dora for resisting the nazis.” [For being active in the French Resistance, he means, just like Paul Rassinier who later turned into a revisionist. -cy]

Elie Wiesel Cons The World premiered on July 13, 2010. Enquete & Debat was established on June 18, 2010, but did not turn its attention to Elie Wiesel until Dec. 24, 2012, two and one-half years later. The first article based it’s information on Nicholas Grüner’s book Stolen Identity, Robin said. He wrote in that first article that they learned about Grüner from the American ‘Brother Nathanael’ (via Alain Sorel, the French négationniste), but Nathanael got most of his information from Elie Wiesel Cons The World. E&D has used an image that was created especially for EWCTW, so I know he is a follower of this site.  Robin is careful not to give attention to it, though; he called me an “authentic nazi.”

M. Robin has done a beneficial service, which is much appreciated, by writing and phoning archivists at the Auschwitz-Birkenau state Museum in Oświęcim, Poland and the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity in Romania, seeking information about Wiesel’s missing tattoo. The head person at the latter premises hung up on him when she learned the object of his call. He has made all of this public.

Unlike me, Jean Robin appears to be truly heartbroken over what he has discovered. He believes in the six million! He has written that he and Nicholas Grüner have repeatedly contacted news media and important figures within the Holocaust establishment with their information, imploring them to publicly question Wiesel, but got only insults or wishy-washy excuses in return. He believes that Wiesel’s forgery damages the Shoah story, and cannot understand why Wiesel is more important to these people than the entire Shoah. I don’t think he suspects, as I believe, that many of them already know the entire ‘Holocaust’ is a lie, but keep it up for the political power it gives them, or fear of that power. In his statement on Wiesel’s death, you can notice a tinge of bitterness mixed with the disappointment.

Elie Wiesel died before he confessed his lies about the Holocaust

Elie Wiesel, who lied about his identity, his Auschwitz tattoo that he does not have, and his imaginary detention in Buchenwald, as we have shown, has died. All media will praise a forger of history, whose lies have allowed deniers to create doubt about the Holocaust itself.

On this occasion, we have linked to all the articles we devoted to this infamous character [nine in all -cy], who is an enemy of the Jewish people and of Israel by his lies, his glory totally undeserved.

In my first article of 24 December 2012 [English version here], I wrote: “I am calling on the Jewish community throughout the world, personalities who are concerned about the Holocaust and the future of its memory, as well as major media to take responsibility and compel [Elie Wiesel] to answer the serious questions raised about him.  This must be done while MM. Wiesel and Grüner, the two persons mainly concerned in this case, are by chance still alive,  but unfortunately won’t be much longer because of their age (they are both over 80 years).” Alas, it is now too late, nobody took responsibility for Mr. Wiesel.

Jean Robin

M. Robin understands, because he uses logic and reasoning, not emotion and fear, that there is no redeeming the Shoah witness Elie Wiesel now. He has died a liar. As the icon’s friends pass away too, will there be anyone to defend him? The United States Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. must be very undecided as to how to handle their founding chairman from here on. There is no doubt he did not have the tattoo on his arm – never had it. There is also no doubt that the “important Holocaust figures” — what I’ve been calling the Holocaust Lobby,  were unwilling to allow the question to be asked — indeed, and in fact, they joined in the lying (such as claiming Wiesel to be in the famous Buchenwald liberation photo) to help him get a Nobel Peace Prize. The top media liar would be the New York Times, followed by the Associated Press (AP), NBC and PBS, but all the rest went along too. While M. Robin will not consider the Holocaust-Shoah to be a hoax, he knows that “l’affaire Wiesel” is a hoax and that puts everyone who went along with it into question, whether he wants that or not.

Guest Editorial: The Passing of a Legend

Written on July 5, 2016 at 6:57 pm, by Carolyn

 

elie-wiesel

By David Blomstrom

July 2, 2016 marked the death of Elie Wiesel, who was probably second only to Anne Frank as the name most associated with the Holocaust. The timing was a little eerie, because I was hard at work on my series Jews 101 when I learned of Wiesel’s passing. It gets weirder still because another famous Holocaust survivor is currently making headlines — the famous Nazi-hunter, Simon Wiesenthal.

Wiesenthal died several years ago, but the city of New York recently cut off its “spigot of funds” to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which is at the center of some huge scandal, like most Jewish “charities.” Speaking of corruption, did you know about Elie Wiesel’s connections to Bernie Madoff, who could be called the Elie Wiesel of fraud?

It all started with one of Elie Wiesel’s scams, the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, which he established in 1988. Like a number of other well-known Jewish “charities,” the Foundation was easy pickings for Uncle Bernie, the financier who was arrested in late 2008 and accused of running a $50 billion Ponzi scheme. Wiesel said he ended up losing $15.2 million in foundation funds, along with his and his wife’s own personal investments. He probably hated Bernie Madoff more than anyone except Adolf Hitler. The irony is that Hitler would have taken care of Madoff if he was still alive.

You see, Wiesel, Wiesenthal and Madoff are all Jews, and Madoff isn’t necessarily the worst of the three. Wiesel and Wiesenthal are both widely regarded as liars, and that’s just the beginning.

Wiesel and Wiesenthal both claimed to have spent time in Nazi concentration camps, and both milked their misadventures for all they were worth. Ironically, some people suspect that neither one ever set foot in a concentration camp. Indeed, Wiesel is perhaps the most popular poster boy for the Holohoax camp. Others believe there was a Holocaust of sorts and Wiesel and Wiesenthal really were caught up in it, but they greatly exaggerated the horrors they witnessed.

As I researched Elie Wiesel, I discovered a story so remarkable I’m amazed Hollywood never turned Wiesel into a movie star. The story is complex, too; Wiesel was a man who could be loved or hated, depending on one’s perspective.

So I decided to write two eulogies for Wiesel. The first is written from the perspective of an anti-Zionist or an anti-Jewarchist who hates Jewish corruption in general. The anti-Jewish/NeoNazi crowd will enjoy it, too. The second is written for the Elie Wiesel fan club, which includes people involved with the Holocaust Industry as well as Microsoft shareholders and the Andy Warhol cult.

1. The Bill Gates of Holohoaxers

Just for argument’s sake, suppose Wiesel wrote and spoke the truth, and the Germans who gave us the Holocaust were just as evil as he claimed. Suppose they were as twisted as Obama, who flaunts his Nobel Peace Prize even as he slaughters innocent people with unmanned drones and continues callously torturing people. I would still despise Elie Wiesel (who was also awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986). Why?

[…]

Elie Gates, meet Bill Wiesel

However, a better comparison would be Elie Wiesel and Bill Gates. Combine Woody Allen’s forlorn face with Bill Gates’ famously untamed hair, and you might have an Elie Wiesel lookalike. But beauty is more than skin deep.

Like Bill Gates, Elie Wiesel was a con man. Like Gates he claimed to care about humanity while really advancing his personal agenda. Wiesel even attended the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, an event perhaps most closely associated with Bill Gates.

Oprah Winfrey, too!

Another person I’d like to weave into this story, just for the Hell of it, is Oprah Winfrey. Like Wiesel, she’s a media whore, though the similarities pretty much end there.

Oprah once declared that anyone who criticizes Obama must be racist, just as people who criticize Israel are racist. Obama, who has all but transformed into a Jew himself, showed his appreciation by giving Oprah the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Next thing you know, Oprah will follow Obama’s lead and start wearing one of those stupid Jewish prayer caps.

On second thought, Oprah does resemble Elie Wiesel in another important respect; she exploits child abuse the way the Weasel exploits the Holocaust. Which isn’t to say Oprah wasn’t really a victim of child abuse. Who knows?

Oprah once accompanied Wiesel to Germany, where they toured the concentration camps Wiesel once called home. Maybe some day she’ll visit Gaza.

The Arm Mystery

Elie Wiesel may have a secret in common with former Seattle Mayor Norm Rice. Rice was allegedly shot by his wife after she caught him in bed with another lover (a man). I always wondered why Rice didn’t shut critics up by just rolling up his sleeve and showing them a scar-less arm.

Similarly, Wiesel claimed the Nazis tattooed A-7713 on his left arm, but some critics claim he lied. The world’s most famous tattoo can’t even be seen in photos of Elie wearing short-sleeved shirts.

The Two Faces of Elie Wiesel

Wiesel did his part to prevent Iran from making nuclear weapons, though he apparently had nothing to say about Israel’s illegal nuclear arsenal. The Times (London) refused to run his ad condemning Hamas for the “use of children as human shields” during the 2014 Israel-Gaza massacre (when Israeli storm troopers killed a helluva lot of children, shields or not). He also declared that “Jerusalem is above politics . . . it belongs to the Jewish people.” Screw the genuine Semites who have lived there for centuries.

Elie Wiesel blasted Fidel Castro, ranting about political prisoners, yet never missed a chance to be photographed with Obama, who’s still torturing people on some island in the Caribbean…could it be Cuba?

No hypocrisy there! And for good measure, Elie hammed it up with George W. Bush, too. Indeed, he supported George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq as a necessary moral act.

I’ll shed no tears for Elie Wiesel, who was obvious a RACIST LIAR AND HYPOCRITE.  More at governor5.com/Statement on Elie Wiesel

 

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