Archive for the ‘Featured’ Category

Survivor stories are a genre that prove the “Holocaust” is a Jewish hoax

Sunday, April 24th, 2016

Paul_larger image

Paul Argiewicz proudly shows off his Auschwitz tattoo which is his best proof he is a holocaust survivor. But it’s the details of his story that are suspect, as is true of all ‘surlievor’ stories.

By Carolyn Yeager

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN a survivor story that passes the test of truth and accuracy – not one! Isn’t that amazing? They are all filled with exaggerations and downright lies. And that really tells us something, because “the Holocaust” is in actuality nothing more than a collection of survivor stories. I am not an expert in revisionist historiography, but I think I can say with confidence that no scientific/forensic evidentiary support for a “Holocaust” exists. Documentary support is both sparse and dependent on questionable or uncertain interpretations. That leaves us with witness accounts from those who were in the concentration and work camps to tell us what “the Holocaust” was.

It’s been known for a long time that eye-witnesses are the least reliable evidence for what really happened in any given situation. Forensic evidence is the best, and even circumstantial evidence is superior to eye-witness. The stories that were told by false eye-witnesses in 1945-46 were outlandish compared to what we believe today. Far-fetched and grotesque accusations of sadistic methods of killing were made against camp authorities and guards and then soberly reported in the world’s news outlets. The remaining leaders of National-Socialist Germany were executed by hanging after being found guilty by an unlawful tribunal of war victors without so much as a peep heard against it in the mainstream media of the time. With the help of the Internet and revisionist historians, we have come a long way since then in using our critical judgment when it comes to blatant atrocity propaganda. Now I think it’s time to encourage even more and tougher critical thinking about the stories survivors have told and are still telling.

There are certain elements all the stories have – that’s why they’re a genre.  They’re almost all written by Jews. They describe awful conditions in the camps with more generalization than specifics, ie. barracks, food, work, supervision, guards and, of course, Dr. Mengele if they were at Auschwitz-Birkenau. One common observation made by those who arrived by train at Birkenau is that they saw in the distance smoke and flames coming out of the crematorium chimney. Sometimes there was a bad odor. It is known by people educated in these matters that cremation does not create smoke or odor, and that flames cannot leap out of a chimney unless it is dangerously malfunctioning. But enjoinders to stop contradicting the laws of nature and science make no impression on these story-tellers. They are following a higher law of “Never Again,” which makes lying permissible and the impossible possible. I’ve come up with the word ‘surlievor’ for them, which I’ll use from here on.

With this introduction in mind, let’s look at Paul Argiewicz’ story again. I wrote about this man last week and tried to stress two major points: his lies about his birth date and about being in the Famous Buchenwald Lieberation Photo. But when I read fully through the Oral History he did with the Wisconsin Veteran’s History Museum, I discovered a few more major problems in his story. Using the critical method on Paul’s Story will show us why all surlievor stories are just that — stories so fictionalized that they are  totally unreliable as history. They are meant to propagandize, and they do, but for most who read them, they also serve as  entertainment in the widest sense.

The real Paul Argiewicz

If you read the above-mentioned oral history interview and then read Paul’s obituary placed in his hometown newspaper you find some very different facts in the places where it counts most. For more than a decade before his death at age 88, Argiewicz was known as a regular out-patient at the veterans hospital near where he lived. The personnel there, along with the U.S. Social Security Agency, the Veteran’s Administration, and other agencies he dealt with, had his correct date of birth. That’s why his obituary gives it correctly as 1925. Then there’s a newspaper report (also here) of a 2010 presentation he made to a high school group that is different still. I have not read the biography written by Deanne Joseph, but I know that she fictionalizes his story too.  I’m sure the “Oral History” from the year 2000 is more revealing than the story written by a professional writer hoping for a best-seller – or at least a good seller able to fulfill the curriculum needs at thousands of middle schools. In this interview at least, the real Paul Argiewicz does come through.

Some trivia: Even though the interview took place in 2000, it was not transcribed until 2008-09. The book by Deanne Joseph also came out in 2008. Katy Marty transcribed the interview; it was corrected by Channing Welch, after which the corrected copy was typed by Katy Marty. Since the interviewer James (Jim) McIntosh and Argiewicz talked over each other fairly often, it’s evident these ladies did a commendable job.

Sheryl Erdman Argiewicz, Paul’s wife, is present and says something from time to time. Right in the beginning Paul says, “Why don’t I have my wife with me?” and Mrs. A, who is apparently not seated just right next to him, says, “No just do it on your own honey.” Then she added, “I’ll just prompt you when you forget, alright?” And several times she answers questions for him.

At the time of the recording, they have been married four years. Paul is 75 years old. This is important because, from what he says later in the interview, he didn’t began to speak about being a holocaust surlievor until after they married in July 1996 when he was age 71. His first wife had died and he began looking for another. He said of Sheryl, “She was available,” but not in a derogatory way. He was clearly very dependent on her.

The revelation that, like so many others, he didn’t talk about the holocaust until after Schindler’s List became a big hit in 1993 and Hollywood made being a surlievor fashionable, puts the biggest question mark around Argiewicz, to my mind. Surlievor “meet groups” cropped up at that time wherever there were a lot of retired Jews. They got together and told their stories to each other, while Stephen Spielberg got the idea to tape record and archive as many surlievor stories as possible – thousands of them! [Thanks to Eric Hunt, we have been able to see a lot of them and can easily recognize the nutty things and enormous lies  so many of them tell.] It sure appears it was Paul’s new wife that encouraged him to “go on the speakers circuit” as a holocaust surlievor. In fact, Sheryl’s daughter Cindy is one of the biggest boosters of her father-in-law’s story.

13 Major problems in Paul’s one-on-one interview

1.  He didn’t speak publicly about being a holocaust survivor until he was in his 70’s, after remarrying in 1996.

Page 56:  MR. A: And we knew each other [his current wife Sheryl]. And she turned a lot in my life, a big change in my life. Literally, I couldn’t talk to you. Like you would ask me today about the interview what you give me. I would never give it to you. I would walk out.

JIM: Too tight?

MR. A: I was so tight I would walk out. I just, I just didn’t work. And this lady here made about face. She opened me and I became –

Unfortunately a major interruption occurs at this point and he doesn’t get back to it. But he’s telling us he never spoke about it and it is Jim who puts the words “too tight” in Paul’s mouth. Jim is very often doing this, or finishing Paul’s sentences, and Paul just accepts the word Jim gives him. Not what should happen in something billed as an Oral History

2. Claims he was born in 1933, when his actual birth date is 1925.

Page 6:   MR. A: I was born in Bielsko, Poland.

JIM: Boy, you better spell that one.

Mr. A. B-i-e-l-s-k-o, Poland.

JIM: When?

MR. A: In 1933.

JIM: ’33?

MR. A: Yeah.

This is pretty ridiculous because he makes himself 8 years younger when, according to his own story, he should be 5 years younger. Jim even gave him an opportunity to change it, yet Paul stuck with 1933 and his wife didn’t correct him. In a speech to a Jewish group I just happened to see on Youtube yesterday, he said: ‘In 1939 I was 10 years old,’ making his birth in 1929. So you see how it moves around.

3. Claims he was 10 years old when his family moved to the Sosnowiec ghetto, which would have been in 1943  according to the birth date he gives. And his wife answers for him.

Page 8:  MR. A: First I got into ghetto in Sosnowiec.

JIM: Age? Your age?

MRS. A: Ten, when you went in the ghetto.

MR. A: In the ghetto I was ten.

Sheryl apparently didn’t trust him to tell it right, or maybe he paused. But the timing is way off , showing that they don’t seem to get it that his dates are not aligned. Nor do they consider whether one part of his story fits with another part further on. If he was born in 1933, he was 10 in 1943. They didn’t go into the ghetto in 1943!

4. Claims he was only 11 years old when “arrested by the Nazis” in 1941. Again, with a 1933 birthdate, he would have been 8 years old.

Page 9:  MR. A: Okay, and we were in that ghetto for almost a year.

JIM: Your family?

MR. A: My whole family.

In that year he turns eleven (really 16), then gets arrested, possibly for stealing more than bread.  One has to doubt his entire “arrest for stealing bread” story and conclude he  doesn’t want to reveal what really happened, maybe only because he wants it to be more exciting.

5. Claims he told the SS officer in charge that he was 18 and was believed.

Page 10:  MR. A: And a guy behind me kicked me in the shin and said to me in Jewish he said to me, “Say to him that you are 18.” And I was almost, I was just about eleven years old. But I was very husky built and strong. [He was a short person with a baby face. A minor problem here is that Paul says further on that he only learned Jewish in the camps but he understands this guy  talking to him in Jewish.]

MR. A: I said, “Eighteen.” I became instantly eighteen years of age.

JIM: Here, here

MR. A: So from the beginning you had your name and they kept your address, whatever it was. They sent me to a camp, what it was actually an “arbeitslager”, a work camp and we were working on the Autobahn.

They could have easily found out who he was, where he lived; he says they had his address. So I don’t believe this story either. Strangely, his surviving sister Lucy, around his age, has said nothing one way or the other [maybe she doesn’t want to contradict her brother], although her husband tells of his experiences after the Germans crossed into Poland when he was 13 years old – he was one year younger than Paul, in the same town, and they were friends. Matzner says his family lived in the ghetto until 1942 when all the Jews were sent to Auschwitz. He was young (16 then) and able to work. It would have been the same for Paul’s family. But Paul wants to stand-out from the rest … by being arrested and incarcerated as a child. His sister and her husband just stay quiet about it

Note in the article Robert Matzner tells of lucking out with a work assignment in a surveyor’s heated office because he could speak German, and being brought sandwiches every day by the secretary.  Remember this when we get to the “sandwich” part in Paul’s story.

Lucy and Robert Matzner

Lucy Argiewicz Matzner and Robert Matzner speaking to 8th graders at Riverview Middle School in Wisconsin about “genocide.” Robert said he spent time in six different camps, all about the same, with little food and 14 hours of hard labor a day. The work days were actually only 8-10 hours and the food was sufficient until the very end. Why do they all have to exaggerate their hardship? They’ve lived a great life ever since.

 

6.  Claims he was multilingual from the start, spoke perfect German

Page 10:  MR. A: …where I come from– It’s on the eastern part, southeastern part of Poland. […] So it was very close to Germany, and close to Czechoslovakia. That’s why I was born with three languages. I speak fluently German, Czech, and I speak Polish.

MRS. A: English, of course.

MR. A: And Jewish I didn’t spoke until I got in concentration camp.

This is only a problem in his story in that it would have helped him get along with the Germans running the camp. He says he worked as an electrician, but just bluffed his way through. Not possible to bluff electrical work! But being multilingual enabled him to collaborate with the authorities  and get cushy positions where his languages – especially German – were useful. So I’m questioning his suffering. He’s torn between representing himself as a starving laborer and bragging about how important he was. Everything he says about work is sketchy and disjointed; he avoids talking about it because he doesn’t want to be seen as a rat. That may be one reason he came up with the 11-year-old child story.

I’ll add that what he calls perfect German could not have been perfect (but passable) considering how terrible his English is.

7. Claims in the camps they were fed only 1 kilo (2.2 lbs) of rye bread made with sawdust or other filler daily along with potato/vegetable “peelings” made into a watery soup. In addition, he said a bowl of ‘watery’ oatmeal was given at noon to those who worked.

Page 17-18:  JIM: Tell me about feeding you. How about eating.

MR. A: The food that we used to get about in the evening you used to get I would say kilo bread, rye bread, about a portion like this. It was filled full with filler. It was not flour. It was — Sawdust. — to fill it up. It was very low in calories, and practically nothing in protein, but one thing the Germans didn’t know about. That they were feeding us. They were feeding us with peelings, dried up peelings. And this (unintelligible), that was very high in protein, very high in vitamins. This, they had this – this they thought that the —

JIM: Peelings of what? Potatoes?

MR. A: Potatoes,

MRS. A: Carrots, vegetables —

MR. A: Carrots, cabbage, anything would work.

MRS. A: Animal feed –

MR. A: In a soup, cooked in a soup.

JIM: Yeah, that, and bread that was your meal.

MR. A: Very thin. That was main stable.

MRS. A: And oatmeal, watery oatmeal in the morning.

MR. A: The oatmeal we were getting around lunch time. The people what worked only. The people what didn’t work got only one meal a day. They didn’t even get —

JIM: If you worked you got two.

MR. A: Yeah. You got two meals. You got the bonka suppe. The “bonka suppe” that used to be … Was watered down oatmeal just like I would say a little bit thicker then that water.

This doesn’t compute with what the German records show and with what many others say, but it does match what the worst of the surlievors say. Germans were not stupid enough to think starving people can make good workers. Everyone got at least two meals a day; physical laborers got four. They also were allowed to receive food packages from home and from the Red Cross  and Jewish agencies, etc.  Even though Paul likes to talk about starvation, it was not happening, certainly not to him.

"Starving" Buchenwald prisoners at liberation. They sure look well-fed to me.

“Starving” Buchenwald prisoners at liberation. They sure look well-fed to me.

 

8. Couldn’t say how deep the bunk beds were in the barracks, whether 3 or 4 layers. Said he could show a picture from a magazine!

Page 19:  JIM: The bunks were how deep or how high?

MR. A: Ah, in some places we used to have three and four —

JIM: Three or four?

MR. A: In Buchenwald I remember, what was it, three or four I think. Was it three there or four layers?

MRS. A: (unintelligible) three.

MR. A: Whatever it was. I have pictures. I bet, in fact I’d like to show you the picture from U.S. News and World Report.

This is a good place to remark that there is not a single picture of our hero in any camp, or anywhere, from this period. We are taking his word that he was there. Like Wiesel, he thought to prove his claim by identifying himself in that “Famous Buchenwald Photo” but it hasn’t worked out. He’s not in it. It’s pretty funny that he can’t say immediately how many layers to the bunks if he was there, as he says, for 4 months — It’s hilarious that he asks his wife — he thinks she knows more than he does!

9. Claims he worked as an electrician in the camps. How did he become an electrician? 

Says he was only a couple of days at Auschwitz (long enough to get a tattoo), then was moved because “I said I could work.” Says “They moved because they needed electricians.” He appears to mean going from Auschwitz to Blechhammer , not from Blechhammer to Buchenwald in Dec. ’44.  I wasn’t able to find any information on quarries at Blechhammer, but we know there was a big one at Buchenwald.

Page 20-21:  MR. A: The people would work in the steinbruch [stone pit], like in the quarries, or on the railroad they had no communication because they were all in gangs. Like in chain gangs. [not actual chain gangs] But I was working with a civilian as an electrician so I used to go around –

JIM: Outside the camp or inside?

MR. A: Outside the camp and inside the factory. The factory was almost thirty square miles. Blechhammer, ooh, that was one of the biggest AEG farm industry plan.

JIM: You mean continuous building, or did it just multiple buildings?

MR. A: There were hundreds of buildings in all different sections. They were making out of the coal gasoline [End of tape 1, side A ca.30 min] gasoline but the factory was still in process of building it. They were not completed. Then the Americans and the British denied it to be finished, but they already produced gasoline, because this was the most important thing because out of coal you had almost a hundred different products.

MR. A: Because they used to make ah, medicine out of it. They were making oil, gas, — Soap, whatever petroleum by product was producing.

JIM: How did you get there? [meaning into the big factory buildings at Blechhammer]

MR. A: How? Because I used to go with this man. Every day the guy, I used to come to him in his little cubbyhole he had. He had a few electricians with him working. He used to be the foreman and I used to be his go-fer.

JIM: Did you walk to this job? Or –

MR. A: No, the SS men used to bring me over to drop me off and he had to sign every day a paper.

JIM: This is how far away?

MR. A: Oh, I would say maybe a half a mile.

MR. A: Okay. So I came there and he says, “All right.” “What I did was in the morning, used to come I put the water on so coffee and I worked with him, oh, maybe a month. He was very leery of me, very careful with me. After all, I still was a dirty Jew. This was at Buchenwald.

JIM: And he was a Pole. A Pollock?

MR. A: No, I wouldn’t trust him. I was, he was a real German.

He was talking about Blechhammer, then the SAME STORY moves to Buchenwald. It’s totally confusing. He was never an electrician at Blechhammer if he wasn’t one when he got to Buchenwald. Says he was only a ‘helper’, a ‘go-fer’ in Buchenwald, probably because he spoke German and could work for the Germans in charge, or even Czech or Polish skilled workers. But he passes himself off as an electrician and Jim lets him do it.

Another thing that comes through with Paul is that he likes and respects Germans. He obviously had a lot of interaction with them. So he blames all the bad stuff on Nazis and Austrians (says Hitler was an Austrian, not a German!).

10. Also claims he learned electrical work in Buchenwald in January-February 1945 – a wild story.

Continued from above … page 21-23:

MR. A: He was a German and a very kind person. I never realized yet what this man was. So after a month working with him he comes to me says, “Pauliken, stop with your lies. Tell me the truth. You are not an electrician, are you?” And I looked in his eyes, with tears in my eyes, I remember that, and I said, “No.” That saved my life. [Everything saves his life. He’s obviously sensitive to the fact that he survived when so many didn’t, as the story goes. But also, it would not have taken the German foreman an entire month to discover Paul was not an electrician!] And he hesitated for a second and he closed his eyes and he took the pencil like this, he put it down. He closed his eyes, he put his hands like this. When he opened his eyes he says to me “Paul, Pauliken,” he said, “you know –

JIM: Little Paul.

MR. A: “Little Paul,” he said, “I will save you. Whatever I can, I will do but I want you to keep your mouth shut. Whatever people ask you, ‘I don’t know’, – and they won’t ask you for anything.”

MR. A: “You haven’t seen anything.”

MR. A: I don’t know anything, and that’s going to be the best thing. So all of a sudden he opens this little box. He gives me a sandwich. I never had a sandwich like this even when I was a kid.

MR. A: So he gives me a sandwich. I ate the sandwich. He says, “Don’t ever say nothing.” A week later he came to work. Well, he comes every day, but he came with tears and crying and everything. I don’t remember his last name. I said, “Hans, mit zu Ruhe?” And all of the sudden he breaks down. He says, “I lost my mother, I lost my wife, and I lost my children in Dresden in the bombing. He said, “I have nothing. What did that animal do to us.” He didn’t say the word Hitler.

This is Feb. 15, 1945. But he would never have addressed this man by his first name; plus Hans is a common German name to easily come up with. He “doesn’t remember his last name” so that he can’t be tracked in camp records and found not to exist. Most importantly, he’s making out that “good Germans” hated Hitler. And does the sandwich idea come from his brother-in-law’s story? I suspect so.

JIM: Right.

MR. A: He says Was has das, no, he said “Welche art schweine mach” to us, what kind of swine, what he did to us. And I didn’t say a word to him. He became so close to me.

No German at that time would have blamed Hitler for Dresden. Never. This simply didn’t take place.

JIM: You were a replacement.

MR. A: I was his –  and when the SS men came he said, “Oh this kid? He is essential. He is such an important person. He knows everything.” And he by teaching me how to wire things and how to do things, and he says, “Certain things I used to do backwards on purpose so they would have to call you to find if there’s any troubles on the line because you know about it.” And he says, “You’ve got to be so important that they will not kill you.” And when we used to go over there when the angriffe [attack] used to be the luftangriffe [air attack], the bombing used to come, and you could hear the siren. Everybody went for the shelters. They wouldn’t let prisoners from concentration camp people in the shelters but they let me in.

So he taught Paul to “wire things,” and even backwards, in one month? And this was in Feb-March 1945, after Dresden? It’s just not credible.

MR. A: I had the special ribbon on my thing.

JIM: Oh, really?

MR. A: Uh huh, and I had a special instrument to save those instruments for testing. I used to carry them. He [Hans] said, “You grab those and run with them. They gonna have to let you in because these instruments are more important than you.” And that’s how I saved my life. And a lot of guys got killed.

MR. A: And he used to be a foreman. He used to be a very big person at Blechhammer. And he taught me how to wire the turbines. This was got to be a perfect job. You can imagine the turbines were, each turbine was as long as this room here.

“He” can only mean “Hans.” But now “Hans” is at Blechhammer and teaching Paul to wire turbines! If he did this at Blechhammer,  he would not say at Buchenwald, “Tell me the truth, you are not an electrician, are you.”

In any case, never would an uneducated teenage Polish hooligan like him be allowed to work on the turbines at Blechhammer. Plus, Paul said he made his living as a steamfitter in the United States, not an electrician.

11.  Said the only day off was Sunday and “all you had [was] hazing, hanging, beating.” And sometime when they came back from work they had to watch “four or five people being hanged.”

Page 29:  MR. A: Because when I stayed home for some reason on Saturday and Sunday we didn’t work.

MR. A: No, Saturday we worked Sunday the only one day we didn’t work. That’s all you had hazing, hanging, beating. [It was generally the rule at Auschwitz camps to work til noon on Saturday, then have the rest of the day and Sunday off. We know the inmates engaged in recreation. So he was right the first time.]

JIM: Oh really.

MR. A:  Hanging, and sometime when we came from work we had to stay in crowd watching four or five people be hanged. Terrorizing people, keep them for no reason. For nothing.

JIM: Just for entertainment?

MR. A: Just for entertainment, yeah. When I used to come in through the doors  and I could hear the music playing, they had a four or five guys’ instruments and when I heard the music playing we knew right away there would be hanging. And the worse thing one time happened to me, this I never will forget. I was already about two years in Blechhammer on Yom Kippur Eve. You see he knew about it. How did I know all these things? I worked with this guy, sometime I used to pick up an old paper what be thrown away.

Shades of Elie Wiesel’s Night. I have not seen anything about public hangings at Buchenwald, but the discipline in the camp was totally under the control of the communist inmate organization, who had managed to take it over in 1943, not the SS. I would bet Argiewicz never saw a hanging in his life. He doesn’t describe anything about it – how, who, why, etc.

We don’t learn “what happened to him one time.” He started talking about the Voelkischer Beobachter and Julius Streicher instead, and Jim never brought him back to it.

12.  Claims before liberation in Buchenwald, in his barracks they were frying human bodies for food – “Take a knife and cut off the flesh and eat it.”

There is a story of cannibalism at Bergen-Belson; I don’t know how true it is. It comes from a General quoting a medical officer.

“The prison doctors tell me that cannibalism is going on,” the medical officer said. “There was no flesh on the bodies; the liver, kidneys, and heart were knifed out.”

But I don’t find anything at all about Buchenwald. Argiewicz must have copied what he had read about Belsen. He stresses several times how much reading he’s done, that he is self-educated. He talks about the day of liberation on page 35:

MR.A: On one morning I get up, I hear shoot – we were making fire and frying human bodies. Take a knife and cut off the flesh and eat it.

JIM: Where was this?

MR. A: In Buchenwald.

JIM: Who was doing this?

MR. A: We did, the inmates because there was no food.

MR. A: We became a lot of guys became –

JIM: Cannibals.

MR. A: Cannibals. That’s sad. So, one morning I hear shooting and trembling and I look outside and here I see a green tank with white markings, you know, olive green come right through the gate, not through the gate, through the barbed wires. And I see he stopped and I see the turret with the barrel facing one of the towers when all of the sudden a salvo I hear. The whole tower, you know can imagine, what is it? A hundred,what is it? A big barrel – I heard a salvo.

Jim wasn’t interested in finding out whose bodies they were cooking! Were dead bodies just laying about? Paul would like you to think so. Jim doesn’t care about telling lies because he does it too. On page 54:

JIM: You havin’ fun –

MR. A: Give you a lot of baloney. (laughs)

JIM: Oh sure, I like that.

13.  Claims he was on a four-week death march from Blechhammer to Buchenwald in November 1944.

Page 38:  JIM: Tell me about the death march.

MR. A: When the Germans were caving in, they were losing the war in the east, and the German army already, the Russian army already entered Poland and as they were going towards Germany so they came by Kattowitz, Katowice. This was right on the German border with approximately I would say maybe sixty kilometers, seventy kilometers about 45 miles from our camp. One day they gave each one of ‘em whole loaf of bread and took us on a four week death march. When we left there were about 3,000 prisoners. By the time we got to Buchenwald there were only 800 left, maybe, and whoever couldn’t walk, they came and rolled you over with their foot, you know on your back. They shot you. That was their favorite, right here. So when they shot you they gave you instant, instant death. You didn’t even feel it, you know when you get shot right through, through the back, and that was their favorite.

From Jewish Virtual Library:

On January 21, 1945, 4,000 prisoners, including 150 women, were taken out of the camp and put on a death march lasting 13 days.

Page 39:  MR. A: It is sad to say lot of these guys escaped into this country. And a lot of ‘em [speaking of “Nazis.” And what about all the horrible Jews like Paul that escaped into this country?]

JIM: Yeah, that’s another subject now. Let’s not get off into that.

MR. A: I know, but I would like to tell you about it, the subject, how –

JIM: Yeah, I’m perfectly willing to listen to that. It’s just that I don’t want to get off our track here.

MR. A: Off our track, right. But what happened, we got into Buchenwald and the day when we got into Buchenwald, not to Buchenwald, to Blech – to Weimar. So of course the American pilots didn’t see that we were on the bottom. [They were now in a train, which he forgot to mention] And most of the guys what used to be in the open railroad and cars and when the artillery starts shooting I can imagine, you can imagine, the shrapnels were flying all over, and I knew and I could see how the guys were killed in the cars, so I jumped out of the car, railroad car, because the guards ran away. They hid in bunkers. And I jumped underneath the train, the railroad car and I got saved because sometime, you know, the metal pieces, and when I came back I saw half the car was dead. [Did nobody but him have the idea to jump out of the car?]

[…]

MR. A: Because, you see when we left on the march it was in November, November, and then we got into Buchenwald, I think it was in December.

JIM: You were on the road a month?

MR. A: About a month, yea.

All sources I find put the march from Blechhammer to Buchenwald beginning on Jan 21, 1945, lasting 13 days, half the time Paul claims. He says it was November and they arrived at Buchenwald in December 1944. Big discrepancy here. There were not two marches, only one. Why is Paul so confused? Does he want to give himself a longer stay at Buchenwald? If he didn’t arrive until February, he wouldn’t have had time to get in tight with “Hans” before the Dresden bombing. Or is he just guessing … badly. I think his entire Buchenwald story about Hans is fiction and he added it in competition with his brother-in-law whom he’s known since childhood.  He was probably in Buchenwald for a couple months and it was uneventful.

Some final quotes

Page 37: MR A: Well, that’s when I was liberated. I was not liberated in Auschwitz, because they evacuated us from Blechhammer. This was about maybe sixty, seventy miles from Auschwitz. And Auschwitz what they did they gave me this number, and I was there only a couple days because over there I bluffed myself through, too, because there I said that I can work. See this was my number. Can you see the number? 1-7-6-5-2-0. [Auschwitz was a transit camp. in addition to being a concentration camp in Birkenau.]

 Page 38:  MR. A: They moved because they needed electricians.

JIM: You were an ace by then. (laughter)

MR. A: Oh, I was an expert. I was a real expert (laughs), but I tell you but it worked. It worked. [He pretends it worked; it could not have worked. He was doing something else.]

JIM: So you went from one camp to the other?

MR. A: To another camp and they brought me then –

JIM: So you were liberated from Buchenwald.

MR. A: I was liberated from Buchenwald and that was, Buchenwald was outside Weimar. Weimar, do you remember that was the capital city of the Weimar Republic?

JIM: I know. Weimar Republic. Yes, I know that.

The capital was Berlin, which just shows how much critical attention Jim is paying. Whatever Paul says, Jim goes along with it. And that is the reception surlievers get from everywhere since the 1990’s, and earlier. It’s been so easy for him — no matter what he says, it’s accepted, no questions asked. So why not embellish the story? Why not add a bit more zest to it, why not punish the Nazis even harder, even if they treated you decently. It needs to be done for “Never Again.” It’s the same with Robert Matzner and all the hundreds of surlievers who go on the speakers circuit and engage a ghostwriter to put their story in a book. It has to be interesting, doesn’t it? We want it to sell. It’s for a good cause — for shutting up the antisemites. The deniers. For Israel. For our children’s future and safety. For all these reasons and more, we need to keep the story going.

For us on the other side, who are the victims of this hoax, we need to bring a hard critical spirit to every one of these overblown, nonsensical stories written by Jews. Not a one of them can stand up to scrutiny. (If you think one can, send it to me.) It’s just this scrutiny we don’t have enough of. Nor the media power to communicate the scrutiny we do have to large enough numbers of hoaxed and passive believers. We’ll  just have to keep working at it because continuing with the status quo is not an option.

“Child survivor” Paul Argiewicz and the missing five years

Sunday, April 17th, 2016

By Carolyn Yeager

This is a picture of Paul Argiewicz used by the Wisconsin Veterans Museum but with no description. Considering he’s wearing a US Army cap it has to be from after 1950, which would make him over 25 years of age.

Remember Paul Argiewicz? He’s the guy I wrote about here because it’s widely claimed he’s in the Famous Buchenwald Liberation Photo, which he is not. But there are a lot of things wrong with the Paul Argiewicz story – claiming he is in that photo is just one of them.

Christine Miller has observed that being forced to believe holocaust survivor’s stories has made Western man irrational. Paul’s story is as irrational as any, especially when it comes to the simple act of adding together two-digit numbers. So let’s start there.

Paul’s date of birth is always given as Aug. 6, 1925 in Bielsko, Poland. He grew up using his mother’s name, Argiewicz, because his parents were not formally or officially married. The family included two older sisters. He told interviewers that he only went three and a half years to grade school. He was arrested in 1941 by his own reckoning, when he would have been 16 years old.

However, his story, wherever you look either online or in the book about him, states that he was age 11 at the time of his arrest by the Nazis, and in his own obituary written or approved by his family it says “he was arrested at age 10 by the SS for stealing bread for his starving family in the Jewish ghetto.” [The ‘stealing bread for starving family’ part is obviously fiction, but Paul was known as an emotional person who cried easily and liked to create as much emotional reaction in his listeners as possible.]

So what’s going on with this man? And with his family and biographer? Can’t they add? It’s apparent that holocaust survivors have become so complacent in believing anything will pass that they actually believe “anything will pass.” Even to the point that if you’re born in 1925 you can be 11 years old in 1941. Think about it. The year of Paul’s arrest is not always mentioned as it is here, but we all know the camps were liberated in 1945, and we know he turned 20 in that year. Precisely, he was 19 on April 11, 1945, four months shy of his 20th birthday … not 14.

Deanne Joseph Ebner (left) who wrote the book "Number 176520: The Story of Paul Argiewicz ”A Teenage Holocaust Survivor" appeared with Argiewicz in 2012 at Riverview School.

Deanne Joseph Ebner (left) who wrote the book “Number 176520: The Story of Paul Argiewicz ”A Teenage Holocaust Survivor” appeared with Argiewicz in 2012 at Riverview School.

What makes this age imposture important enough for Paul and his biographer to try to slip it past most readers? The craving for attention. Paul separates himself from the crowded field of fellow “survivors” by billing himself as a “child survivor.” He describes himself as being still a teenager when he was released … which he was, even if just barely. But he wanted to be younger still … a child. And what is surprising is that he basically has gotten away with it! I have not come across anyone questioning the claim that Paul was 11 when he was arrested, even though he was born in 1925. [I notice he told the Wisconsin Veterans Museum interviewer on page 7 that he was born in 1933!]

This type of “pass” can be better understood from a question by a poster commenting to another “survivor” who claimed he rode in a packed train car for 6 days with no food or water and no stops:

Did anyone die midway in the six day train ride with no food/water? I’m by no means doubting, just asking a question. As someone has mentioned below, you CAN survive without water for about a week.

God forbid these young people should doubt anything said by a holy survivor, no matter how unconnected to reality. The “survivor” answered he didn’t recall any deaths. But the point being, we don’t ask questions – we’re ashamed or afraid to question – and it leads to utter nonsense.

After doing more than a bit of research into Paul Argiewicz, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is also a felt need by him to gain as much sympathy as possible from being a tender 11 years of age to avoid what may be legitimate questions about what he actually did during that 4-5 years in German camps. I’m quite sure that Paul was never starved nor even mistreated during his time in the camps. He was more likely quite the collaborator. The photo on his German drivers license dated June 1946, only one year after liberation, shows a healthy young man with no sign of having endured any trauma whatsoever. He’s wearing an expensive leather jacket or coat and looks untroubled and at peace with himself.

German Drivers License awarded to Paul Angiewicz in 1946 ... for good behavior?

German Drivers License issued to Paul Angiewicz in June 1946. He was obviously living in Germany at the time and looking prosperous.

The same craving for attention also accounts for his willingness to falsely identify himself in the Famous Buchenwald Liberation Photo. Argiewicz named himself as the person 3rd from the left in the 3rd bunk up from the bottom in 2008, the same year his book came out.  Everyone in that photo is self-identified, and it began after Elie Wiesel identified himself in it in 1983. Before that, no one was identified. After research by a number of people, including myself, it turns out the only correctly identified person is 16-year old Michael (Nikolaus) Grüner in the lower left. Even Argiewicz’ nephew, Murray Matzner, says his uncle is not in the picture, but excuses his uncle’s lies with the charge that he was under the influence of the woman who wrote the book about him, Deanne I. Joseph. Matzner wrote a comment at Scrapbookpages Blog in 2015 to a post that originally appeared in 2010.

It is obvious that my uncle Paul Argiewicz is not the person indicated in the photo. It looks nothing like him, and is in fact proved not to be him in his own memoir book photo on the opposite page where a drivers license photo one year later does not resemble this face at all. In particular, he did not have eyebrows that curved so far around his eyes.

The assertion that he is present in this photo was nonexistent until 2008, the year his memoir book was published. Since his ghost written book gets so very many facts and stories wrong, as the website associated with book sales also does, and stains a courageous man of integrity who is greatly missed because he is no longer with us, it appears that the false assertion is associated with the factually compromised book.

I have also seen a photo where it is the man one bunk lower, and to the left, a sleeping man facing away from the camera, who is indicated as my uncle with a vertical arrow.

I don’t know what it is with this photo. The individual indicated as Mr. Wiesel appears to have a receding hairline although a published image of him at age 15 prior to deportation does not have such a hairline. I believe that neither he or my uncle appear in the photo, and it appears to me that at least in the case of my uncle, that it was someone else pushing for him to be present.

My uncle was a wonderful, warm, caring, courageous, person who inspired so many with his exceptional love of life and people… but he isn’t in this photograph.

RIP, uncle. Your love lives on.

Comment by Murray Matzner — April 3, 2015 @ 1:03 pm

Okay Murray, except that Paul was photographed at one of his gatherings holding a blow-up of the famous photograph, indicating that he certainly wanted people to believe that he was in the picture. He, and maybe more so his wife Sheryl have been fully engaged in that fantasy.

Paul showing off famous photo

Lucy Matzner (Paul's "beloved" sister), her son Murray and husband Robert.

Lucy Argiewicz Matzner (Paul’s “beloved” sister), her son Murray and husband Robert.

Murray’s father, Robert Matzner, (left) who married Paul’s sister Lucy, was born in 1926 in the same Polish town of Bielsko. He has written his own holocaust memoir, titled Prisoner 19053. I wonder how many falsehoods that book contains? Hopefully not as many as Paul’s. But I think Murray may be trying to keep peace in the family by blaming the falsehoods in Paul’s book on the author. Clearly, Paul’s wife Sheryl had a lot to do with the writing of the book, and the three are often pictured attending book-promotion meetings together.

*      *      *

After Paul’s death in December 2013, some controversy broke out on the Amazon book advertisement page among the “reviewers.” Specifically “BTI” wrote:

In Memory of Paul

By BTI on June 22, 2015

Every story in this book is documented in numerous recordings, CDs, and videos as coming from Paul Argiewicz himself – his face, his words, his voice. It is Paul’s account of what happened to him as a young boy in the Nazi concentration camps. Anyone who knew Paul, loved Paul, was inspired by Paul, and truly desires to protect the memory of Paul Argiewicz will boldly stand witness against the frauds of the world (be they Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, or vindictive relatives). All of the above-mentioned records of Paul’s testimony will soon be posted online. Be watching. May the evil ones be silenced by their own arrogance.

Cindy Nicoletti, Paul’s stepdaughter, posted a “review” by Dave Kasiske. In it he revealed:

“I am blown away that Paul’s nephew would come out now after Paul’s death. He cannot say the man in the picture is not Paul because the poor young Paul was probably close to death after experiencing starvation. Paul would say “Dave”, I can’t explain it to you how it was to cry at night because of starvation and never seeing my loved ones again.”

And

“Paul was always in tears when he told the story of his sister Lucy. Lucy is the mother of “Murray”, the one who is attacking Paul’s story. That brings the question to my mind, why would anyone who is Jewish go on a antisemitic spur? Even when I would sit with Paul at his kitchen table, the tears would flow when he talked about Lucy. Anyone who has the guts to attack a family member who survived the horrors of the Holocaust should seek psychological help.”

Yes, it takes guts indeed to stand up against holocaust lies, Dave. Maybe someday you’ll be able to do it. But now take a look at this from stepdaughter Cindy to see who is pushing Paul’s false story.

The owner of Sunless Expressions would like to recommend her stepfather’s book:

Number 176520 

argiewicz_circled

This famous photograph was taken a few days after the liberation of Buchenwald and appeared on the cover of a popular national magazine in the 1960s. Paul is pictured (circled) here on the third bunk from the bottom, the third person from the left (with his food bowl that doubled as a pillow).

Cindy, Owner and Founder of Sunless Expressions is the step daughter of a man with an astounding and miraculous life story. Paul Argiewicz was an eleven year old child in 1941 when he was arrested in Poland by two Nazi SS officers. His crime? Paul had stolen two loaves of bread to take to his starving family in the Jewish ghetto. Separated from his family and everything he loved, he would spend the next four years of his young life working as a slave laborer in seven different concentration camps. From Auschwitz to Blechhammer, Gross Rosen, and Buchenwald, Argiewicz; defied all odds by surviving one of modern history’s most unimaginable atrocities against humanity: the Holocaust.
Sunless Expressions is proud to recommend Number 176520 ~ The Story of Paul Argiewicz, a Teenage Holocaust Survivor. With over 16 pages of full-color photos, original camp documents, and other visuals, Number 176520 has quickly become a highly revered and sought-after Holocaust resource in schools, bookstores, libraries, museums, and homes. Visit www.paulsstory.com to purchase and/or learn more about the book that has been inspiring countless readers around the world.

We regretfully announce Paul passed away December 11, 2013.

Paul’s last public appearance before his death was on April 29, 2013 at the U.S. Holocaust Museum’s 20th Anniversary Ceremony with speakers Elie Wiesel and Bill Clinton. Here he is photographed with his wife Sheryl and grandson Jordan, who are active in furthering the mythical version of his life. In another photo he is showing off his Auschwitz tattoo “176520,” as they were all doing that night (except for Wiesel, of course). Yes, they were there, but what they did or did not experience cannot be proven by a tattoo.

There are no excerpts available from his book at Amazon, but I found this one and am going to quote it in full here. It gives a good idea of the fictional style found in most holocaust survivor stories – no dates, times, names – the events, as they are, exist as if floating in space, but are meant to evoke as much emotional sympathy, shock and pity as possible toward the subject. Notice the similarities to Elie Wiesel’s Night, which must have been used as a model, for example when the fellow arrestee advises a confused Paul to say he is 18. However, Paul’s “ghostwriter” handled the impossible jump from age 11 to age 18 by having the SS man play it as a sort of joke. And since Paul says he spoke perfect German, that warmed the heart of the otherwise cold officer. The whole scene is a lie …

At Scrapbookpages Blog, the blogger wrote in March 2010: “Argiewicz says that he had an advantage because he could speak fluent German since his mother was from Bavaria, a state in Germany.” Of course, we know his mother and father were both Polish, and Ms. Joseph comes up with a different story: That he associated with Gentile youths  when he snuck out of the ghetto every other night for a year (!) and learned German that way. But weren’t there Poles along with Germans outside of the ghetto? This is not explained, of course, but left to your imagination. Apparently a German baker and his children just loved little Paul and gave him bread and German lessons too.

Argiewicz book

Look how dishonest the book cover is. Paul was not a young child in the camps but 16 to 19 years old. He wasn’t even in Auschwitz except for 2 days, then, according to him, sent to Blechhammer, and spent the last 4 months at Buchenwald.

The preface to the book is written by our old friend, Professor Kenneth Waltzer, and in it he gives “historical documentation.” I would really like to see that. I should order the book and write more about this later; the only thing that stops me is that you and I both know there is no end to this stuff. One thing leads to another. So we’ll see, but for now, enjoy this excerpt. You will notice that not a single person has a name except Paul.

    *       *       *

Deanne L. Joseph’s moving new memoir, Number 176520 –The Story of Paul Argiewicz, a Teenage Holocaust Survivor, poignantly recounts one child’s journey through the terrors. With a preface and historical documentation provided by renowned Holocaust scholar, Professor Kenneth Waltzer (Director of Jewish Studies, Michigan State University), Number 176520 is quickly becoming an invaluable resource for students of the Holocaust.

Following is an excerpt from the book:

Paul and his family lived in the ghetto for about a year. In spite of the dire circumstances, his boyish, adventurous nature remained. He removed the identification patch from his clothing and sneaked out of the ghetto [Sosnowiec, not Warsaw -cy] through an opening in the barbed wire fence. It was an act of defiance that would have landed him at the end of an executioner’s gun had he been caught, but somehow he was able to pull off this rite two to three times a week. [I don’t think an 11-year old boy would be allowed out alone at night by his loving parents, do you? -cy]

Being the gregarious child that he was, he made friends with some gentile children on the “outside.” They did not seem to mind that he was Jewish, and some of their parents even tried to help him in small ways. The father of one of his new friends owned a bakery. The man’s sympathetic conscience obliged him to turn a blind eye, allowing Paul to steal freshly baked bread from his store twice a week. The ritual continued for a year. Sometimes the determined young scavenger managed to find potato peels or other small provisions of vegetables and was always faithful to rush his smuggled goods back to his hungry family behind the fence. 

Eventually, Paul became so comfortable in his excursions that he inadvertently lowered his guard and came face to face with disaster. Returning to his family with a pair of stolen loaves of bread, he was approached by two SS officers.

“Where did you get that bread?” they demanded. Paul had never been so close to the enemy. He stood, accused and frozen.

“Come with us!” The order was stern and curt. They snatched the bread from his hands. The pounding of his heart intensified until he thought it would surely break through his chest. He could barely breathe. He felt a hard, squeezing pressure on his arm — the grip of a Nazi. He had the sensation of walking very quickly, although he was unable to feel his legs. Were his feet touching the ground? Were they even moving? He heard only the sound of the officers’ boots clacking with each step on the hard street beneath their feet. His eyes burned as if on fire, and blurred images of his family flashed through his rattled brain. What would they think? Would he ever see them again? Were these men going to kill him? Paul fought to restrain the tears pooling in his eyes. He was only a child — his life was supposed to be ahead of him, not behind.

They arrived at their destination: an old schoolhouse that had been converted into a transitory evaluation and detainment center, the Durkankslager. He was taken downstairs to the basement, the “dungeon.” It was filled with people standing in lines. Everywhere were the familiar Jewish identification patches. The Nazis pushed him into place with the others. He looked around at the detainees, predominantly grown men. He did not see any other children in the crowded space.

An SS officer sat upright on a stool at the front of the room, one leg raised and bent at the knee with his booted foot confidently perched on a table. Behind him was a desk filled with papers. As each of the accused men made his way to the front of the line, he was questioned by the man on the stool, evaluated, and sent into a group either to the right or to the left. Paul was not sure why the men were being divided, but as he drew closer to the evaluating officer, he was overcome with a sense of doom. His mind fired rapid, disconnected thoughts. I’m only a child . . . perhaps if I tell them I’m only 11 years old . . . maybe they will have pity and let me go back to my parents.

Without warning, a man behind him in the line kicked the back of his leg. He leaned into Paul’s ear and spoke quietly but firmly.

“Don’t tell them your real age. Tell them you’re 18.”

How did he know what I was thinking? Paul wondered.

He arrived at the head of the line. No longer did anyone stand between him and the “judge.”

“Name?” “Paul Argiewicz.”“Age?” “Eighteen.”

The words rolled off his lips in perfect Bavarian German. The officer looked up. His dusky eyes examined the youth before him. His brow furrowed, and he observed the boy for a moment. Paul felt as though he had been suspended in space and time. The moment seemed to last an eternity. Surely, he was exposed . . . guilty . . . he had lied . . . to an SS officer! The penalty for such an offense was execution.

“You speak German?” The officer seemed amused. “Yes,” he responded once more in the language he had learned from his playmates.

“You speak with a Bavarian accent. Why?” “My mother is from Bavaria,” he lied again. For another endless moment, the man’s eyes pierced him. Paul was able to manage a convincing expression. Finally, the harshness of the Nazi’s sharply featured face faded, yielding to a smile and a chuckle.

“Go over there,” he said, nodding his head to his left.

Paul moved in the direction of the nod, but he did not understand the purpose of separating the men. Would he be sent to work or to the grave? None of the men seemed to know the fate that awaited them.

They remained in the detainment center for a few more days. Each day they were given small rations of bread and a cup of water. Paul allowed his mind to escape into a place of refuge and peace. He comforted himself with thoughts of his family, memories of good times they had shared, life in Phella’s beautiful home, and the hope that maybe he would soon be returning there.

In the corner of his eye, Paul perceived movement through a window in the damp stone wall. He turned his head to look through the dusty glass. Just beyond the tall barbed-wire fence, his father stood, his eyes scouring the room through the wire and glass. Noah’s eyes found Paul’s. His hand flew over his head waving to his son, his familiar penetrating eyes filled with longing. He held his hand still for a moment and then let it fall limp to his side. He stood motionless, his gaze fixed on his child. [This is a totally fictional account intended to create poignancy. Paul never saw his father through a window.]

Paul’s heart raced within him. An overwhelming urge demanded that he jump to his feet and run to the window. He dared not. To do so would jeopardize not only his fate but also now his father’s. Separated by brick and mortar, barbed wire and guns, and the merciless cruelty of the human heart, father and son looked upon each other for the last time. In that sacred moment, they knew that the bond they shared was beyond man’s reach; it was a bond protected and preserved in eternity. Still, the 11-year-old was overcome by the realization that he might never again feel the loving touch of his father’s strong hands or hear the sound of his voice.

On the cold, hard floor, Paul covered his face and wept. His father was gone.  [End of excerpt]

Sen. Ted Cruz lauds Elie Wiesel as a moral giant in AIPAC speech

Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) listens to Nobel Peace Laureate Elie Wiesel at a roundtable discussion. Cruz said the nuclear talks with Iran were reminiscent of Western appeasement of Hitler. (How original - Not)

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) listens to  Elie Wiesel at a Senate roundtable discussion last year. Cruz said the nuclear talks with Iran were reminiscent of Western appeasement of Hitler. (Say again??)

By Carolyn Yeager

Currently running for the Republican nomination for President of the United States, Cruz spoke on Monday, March 21 to the annual American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, Washington’s largest lobbying group and an unregistered agent of the Israeli government in the U.S.

His words were described as being those he has spoken many times before, but naturally what stood out to me was what he said about Elie Wiesel. At 13:40 into his speech he said:

A year ago, I was honored to join the great Elie Wiesel on a panel discussion in the Senate about this disastrous Iranian deal. Not a single democrat was willing to join Elie Wiesel … to sit alongside someone who witnessed first hand the horrors of the “Holocaust,” who brings a moral weight and gravity second to none, was both powerful and humbling. And I am convinced, after this election, the American people will stand and say together “Never Again” means never again.

On my very first day in office I will begin the process of moving the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the once and eternal capital of Israel.

Does Texas senator Ted Cruz know anything at all about what is called the “Holocaust?” Does he know anything at all about Elie Wiesel’s life? No, to both. I am sure he has never read a single book by Elie Wiesel, yet he calls him “the great” based on the fact that Wiesel was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor by the same ignorant Congress of which he is a part. This man Cruz is a complete panderer who accepts whatever the Jewish power structure says and bows low hoping to be selected to do its bidding.

And what does he mean by “After this election, the American people will say “Never Again” means never again.” Does he mean the “Holocaust” will be more dominating than ever? And Jews will be protected like never before? Just the direction we should not go in.

Cruz goes on to say at 15:08:

And as president, I will do everything in my power to ensure that anyone who provides financial support to the BDS movement, including schools and universities, will lose any access to federal funding. And to the extent they have engaged in any illegal behavior, they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

BDS stands for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions – a global campaign to increase pressure on Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian land. Israel is clearly the immoral party in this situation, yet Cruz cares not for morality, even as he holds himself up as an evangelical Christian following the teachings of his Cuban father’s rather extreme Christian cult. In reality, Cruz is an Old Testament Christian – in other words, a Jew. A man who feels honored to sit next to one of the most obnoxious liars of the 20th Century (and into the 21st), Elie Wiesel, author of the entirely false testimony, Night.

For these reasons, I want to make it known that I will never, under any circumstances, vote for Senator Ted Cruz for anything. Should he somehow become the Republican nominee, I will choose not vote,  and will sit out the election in disgust.

Elie Wiesel’s “Night” makes Western man irrational, gasses all logic

Saturday, March 19th, 2016

By Christine Miller

holocaust high priest cover

Holocaust High Priest by Warren B. Routledge, published in 2015.

I ACQUIRED THREE COPIES of Holocaust High Priest: Elie Wiesel, Night, the Memory Cult and the Rise of Revisionism, by Warren B. Routledge. I intend to give one copy to the Marshfield (Wisconsin) Public Library (if they accept), the other copy to Stratford Public Library and one is for myself. I was very interested in what the author, Warren B. Routledge, has to say about Elie Wiesel’s book Night, since I also challenged Night on December 1, 1997. At that time I was still a busy teacher, housewife and mother without sufficient time, nor do I have the meticulousness nor the inclination to be as thorough as Routledge. Neither was I ever at Auschwitz, therefore could not cite the mistakes which Routledge points out that Elie had made in describing the location.

Mr. Routledge has also done meticulous research on dates which are inconsistent. My earlier challenge kept to what to me were obvious absurdities which Routledge has neglected or overlooked. Thus it may be worthwhile to review my challenge.

An appeal to reason

December 1, 1997
Dear Members of the Board:

When Mr. Markwardt, head of Marshfield Public School Libraries, wrote (June 3, 1997): “The German people should suffer a shared guilt that should last many generations,” he invigorated my resolve to fight the gas chamber-holocaust lie. The next generation are my children. Does he and his fellow travelers in spirit really think that I would sit back while they press the mark of Cain on my children’s foreheads? I hereby request that the Marshfield school libraries eliminate “Night” by Elie Wiesel. EW_original Night hardback

Night orignal cover

This is the original “Night” paperback from which the quotes in this article were taken.

“Night” is like a Monte Python skit with this difference. In a Monte Python skit the absurdities are funny. In “Night” the absurdities are pernicious and meant to indoctrinate our children with hate.

There is the Pythonesque episode of the baby toss. “Babies were thrown into the air and the machine gunners used them as targets.” – Machine guns are not used for target practice , but for sweeping a wide field from side to side.

There is the Pythonesque episode of a wildly shooting Gestapo who, instead of shooting at the neck, shot Moshe the Beadle in the leg. “Each one (Jew) had to present his neck … How had Moshe the Beadle escaped? Miraculously. He was wounded in the leg and taken for dead …” – This really must have been a miracle in the truest sense of the word.

There is the Pythonesque episode of the copulating youngsters in an overcrowded train. However, there is one difference. In the skit, only cartoon characters are made to copulate. “Free from all social constraints young people gave way openly to instinct, taking advantage of the darkness to copulate in our midst.” – Our high school students are very liberated, but I cannot imagine any of our sweetheart couples copulating in a train so crowded that the act would have to be performed standing up. Much less can it be imagined of these Jewish youngsters brought up within a society of strict sexual morality, a society which did not condone dating but still relied on matchmakers. I think Elie has a dirty mind.

There is the Pythonesque episode of Juliek playing his violin in a space so crowded that the dead were heaped upon the living. Elie Wiesel asks: “How had he (Juliek) managed to free himself?” – My question is: How had Juliek managed to get his fiddle out uncrushed, and how was he able to move his fiddle arm in order to play from a Beethoven concerto when at the same time Elie was crushed underneath bodies and had to battle for a mouthful of air? The next morning Elie found Juliek asphyxiated by the crush of people. I am not impressed with the reasoning prowess of most people. But nevertheless we expect a certain amount of reasoning and logic from adults which we do not expect from children. Children are therefore extremely vulnerable to atrocity propaganda. If you leave this book in our school libraries you are not doing right by our kids.

Sincerely yours,
Chris Miller

An appendix:

After that challenge I came across another book by Elie Wiesel: “Tous Les Fleuves Vont a Mer – All Rivers Run to the Sea – Memories.” In a long paragraph which I had to shorten (herewith my translation), Elie has this to say. (The whole paragraph has been expunged from the English translation: “All Rivers Run to the Sea,” Schocken Books, New York.)

“That trip in the train, I described it in my first testimony, needs clarification – and it is delicate. It deals with the erotic atmosphere which prevailed in the train. In the French version I say: ‘Freed from all social constraints, the young people gave way open to instinct, taking advantage of the darkness to copulate in our midst.’ [page 20, original Night] Then I rechecked the original version in Yiddish. There the passage reads differently … It describes the timid contacts which never exceeded the bounds of decency. [Not true – it is the same in Yiddish! -cy] How could I have translated that with: copulate? I do not know. … Perhaps I was speaking of myself. … For the first time in my life I could touch a woman. …

“The rest belongs into the realm of phantasy.”

Not only is this episode a case of Elie Wiesel’s phantasy, his whole story is. Routledge wonders if Wiesel ever had set foot into Auschwitz. After rereading “Night” I wonder about that too. “But we had been marching for only a few moments when we saw the barbed wire of another camp. An iron door with this inscription over it: “Work is liberty” (work is freedom)! Auschwitz.” [page 37, original Night]

My comment: Nowadays everybody seems to be familiar with the entrance gate (it is a gate, not a door) with the inscription: “Arbeit macht frei” (work sets you free).

“Work is liberty” is Orwellian like “War is Peace.” How could Elie have made that mistake? I attempt an answer. The French original of “Night” was copyrighted in 1958. During that time neither Auschwitz, Treblinka nor Sobibor were in the news. We Germans were still hammered with the gas chambers at Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald. But slowly a shift took place. The gas chamber stories in the camps on German soil could no longer be maintained. The camps inaccessible behind the iron curtain took their place as extermination camps. Elie Wiesel wrote “Night” before that shift had taken place and was therefore not familiar with the inscription.

Elie was deported at the age of 14. He claims to have had a golden crown in his mouth which everybody coveted, especially the foreman, Franek. A dentist finally broke it out with a rusty spoon. Mengele, whom Elie saw wearing a monocle, and Elie as a fourteen year old having a gold crown are metachronisms (meta, after + chronos, time), chronological errors. As the people of Marshfield don’t drive to Stratford anymore in a stagecoach, in 1940 nobody wore a monocle and a kid did not get a golden crown. A child had his tooth yanked, and only if he was lucky by a dentist. I also do not know how you can get a crown out with a spoon. Needless to say, with Elie, the spoon had to be rusty. [page 50-51, original Night]

After I had written my challenge I got the German translation, “Die Nacht.” In the preface it reads that: Elie Wiesel with his parents and younger sister were deported to Auschwitz. Only later on does the book talk about sisters who remain nameless. (These two sisters were hale and hearty after Auschwitz was taken by the Russians. His younger sister and his mother died most likely in a typhus epidemic). [That is, if they were ever there, and Mrs. Miller does question whether Elie was. -cy]

In the English translation there are no gas chambers. “When he (Bela Katz) heard of our arrival, he managed to get word to us that, having been chosen for his strength, he himself put his father’s body into the crematory oven.” In the German translation it reads: “Als er von unserer Ankunft erfuhr, liess er uns sagen, dass er wegen seiner Koeperkraft dem Sonderkommando zugeteilt und dadurch gezwungen worden sei, seinen eigenen Vater in die Gaskammer zu schieben. In the German translation “Nacht” all the crematory ovens of “Night” are turned into gas chambers. Western man has been made irrational. That was a necessity, otherwise he could not have been made to believe in the absurdities of the Holocaust lore.

In case you are interested:
March 6, 1998
Christine B. Miller
606 Cypress Avenue
Marshfield, WI 54449

Their reply

Re: Decision of Reconsideration Committee on February 12, 1998

This is to inform you that the Materials Reconsideration Committee of the School District of Marshfield voted to retain the book “Night” by Elie Wiesel on the shelves of the Library Media Center in the Junior High School.

You may contact me if further information is needed.

Sincerely,
Ken Krahn
Superintendent of Schools

~~

Christine B. Miller was born in Bavaria in 1935 and lived through the National Socialist regime and the 2nd world war as a child on her grandparent’s farm. She emigrated to the United States in 1956, went to college, married, raised a family and became a high school German teacher in Marshfield, WI. She has published two books: Reality Check and Feldzug im Osten (Campaign in the East). She was interviewed on The Heretics’ Hour in 2011 and 2012.

This essay first appeared in The First Freedom, March 2016.

Where was tattoo-less Elie Wiesel in 1944 if not at Auschwitz?

Saturday, March 5th, 2016

Followup of “Elie admits he doesn’t have the tattoo A7713”

By Carolyn Yeager
copyright 2016 Carolyn Yeager

Elie Wiesel's left arm in bright sunlight in a still from his own video "Elie Wiesel Goes Home" - no retouching. [courtesy Eric Hunt]

Elie Wiesel’s left arm in bright sunlight in a still grabbed from his own movie “Elie Wiesel Goes Home” – no retouching possible. [courtesy Eric Hunt]

IT’S HARD TO BELIEVE, after all I’ve written, that some people are still saying to me, “You shouldn’t say Wiesel has admitted he doesn’t have a tattoo, because what if it turns out he does. Then you’ll look foolish and set back revisionism.”

Turns out? How long do we wait for something to “turn out?”

Wiesel will be 88-years-old on September 30th of this year. Very few human bodies are able to carry on after their 90th year, so, without a consensus opinion from the revisionist community, we are looking at the prospect of an eternal “We’ll never know” pasted over the Elie Wiesel tattoo question. Naturally, this is what Wiesel supporters want, but should revisionists be content with never going beyond that, continuing to fear  there will come a time he will dramatically pull up his sleeve for the cameras?

He’s already done so and we have the result in the image at right.

And what don’t people understand about logic? One doesn’t need a University course in logic to use common sense. Two plus two adds up to four – we don’t need a calculator to prove it, our fingers can tell us. What should we think of those who would say “But what if it doesn’t? What if our fingers turn out to be wrong?”

It’s the same logic we use when someone tells us he has a number tattooed on his arm that proves he was at Auschwitz in 1944 – we expect it to be shown to us. There is no reason we should have to take it on trust. Imagine yourself in a real life situation like that and you’ll get it. Those who are willing to accept a deal such as we have in the case of Elie Wiesel are either cowards, frightened serfs, or collaborators in the lie. But people are also ignorant of the facts – even though mostly through choice, and maybe also poor memory.

For this reason, I want to specifically address these persons to try to give them a little backbone … er, I mean background. You need to be clear about how Elie Wiesel got into this tattoo quandary to begin with.

To those whose reasoning goes, Why would Wiesel say he has a tattoo when he doesn’t have one? He wouldn’t be so foolish, therefore I have to assume he might have one. He also doesn’t need to have a tattoo to have been at Auschwitz, – they forget about the Yiddish book, Un di Velt hot gesvign (And the world remained silent), from which Night was taken. In that book, and carried over to Night, Eliezer and his father were tattooed on their left forearms with A7713 and A7712. It follows that if Night is Elie Wiesel’s own story, he has to have a tattoo.

On page 51, the author wrote:

The three “veterans,” with needles in their hands, engraved a number on our left arms. I became A-7713.

Now I hope you understand (and please don’t forget it again) why he has to have that particular tattoo, and why he has always said he does have it. He has no choice. The fact that it has never been shown to the public speaks volumes (never underestimate his belief in his ability to fool the public), as well as the fact that we’ve seen his uncovered left arm in photographs and there is no such number there. What more proof do you want? The final nail in the coffin is that Wiesel and the people around him remain silent about it – they will not allow the question to be asked. That is the “admitting” part.

So it’s settled – Wiesel has no tattoo, and he admits as much. He’s kept up the lying charade so long because he could! No one challenged him. Once again, I will give credit to Jew Michael Grüner for breaking this open, even though he makes up plenty of ridiculous concentration camp stories himself. But Grüner got the documents and made them public, along with explanatory letters from Auschwitz and Buchenwald.

If Wiesel is not a concentration camp survivor, we need to look into other possibilities for his whereabouts in 1944. We will not be able to prove anything – this period of time could not be more confused. Displaced persons and self-identified camp survivors were flocking into Western Europe in search of opportunities; they were creating new identities and applying to go to Israel and to America. In all of this, it’s impossible to find any kind of a trail. But some pathways are more plausible than others for the Wiesel family.

Wiesel’s family is not found in records at Auschwitz

Speaking of documents, do you know there is no record of any member of Wiesel’s immediate family at Auschwitz? That’s a fact. In addition, the only record, as far as I know, of Elie’s two older sisters being at the Dachau sub-camp Kaufering comes from a book put out by the “Central Committee of Jews in Bavaria” in 1946. They published a list of 61,387 Jews in a book named Sharit Ha-Platah (translates as “Counted Remnant”), among which are listed Hilda and Bea Wiesel. The names were collected by Chaplain (Rabbi) Abraham Klausner, who is said to have visited many of the camps in southern Germany where survivors gathered in late 1945 and 1946. You better believe the Rabbi wanted to get as many names as possible, and that there is nothing official about this list.

Bea, Elie and Hilda Wiesel in Paris after the war.

Bea, Elie and Hilda Wiesel in Paris after the war.

We first meet up with Hilda and Bea as refugees in Germany, just as we first meet up with Elie at a Jewish orphanage in France. Hilda Wiesel married an Algerian Jew and moved with him to Paris.  She has since spoken about her family’s deportation in a Shoah Foundation videotaped interview, but without details of what happened after they arrived at Auschwitz. Her sister Batya (Bea) emigrated to Canada and never spoke publicly about it at all.

Hilda’s Shoah Foundation testimony which she gave in 1995 (coincidentally the same year Elie’s official autobiography All Rivers Run to the Sea came out) differs from her brother’s story in Night in numerous details. Relevant here, she said:

We were deported on 15 May [1944]. We heard around 1943, because we had family in Belgium, we heard that they had deported a cousin, but we didn’t know where to …

I can only tell you one thing, that the third transport – we had to stand 5 by 5, five abreast – there were Hungarian gendarmes, hardly any Germans, mostly Hungarian gendarmes.

We were myself and my sister, the one who was in Canada and is now deceased; my mother; my grandmother, that is my father’s mother; and, oh … my little 10-year old sister. And we arrive in Auschwitz, the men were apart, my father with my brother.

According to the original Night and the Yiddish And the world remained silent, the family’s deportation date was June 3, 1944. In Marion Wiesel’s re-translation, it was changed to May 20. So which is correct? Most likely none.

Hilda also tells us the women and men traveled in separate cars.

My mother knew there was no hope, because she told me and my sister, always stay together, always stay together. And she said, go tell your dad to always stay together with Elie. And I ran over to him and said, Papa, stay with Elie, stay with him – like that.
Q: This was on the train, that you are describing?
A: No, it was after getting off the train.

If they were in the same train car, Mother could have told her husband herself. But Night and its Yiddish precursor describe the boys and girls having sex together in the darkness of the train, freed from following the usual rules, and Wiesel says he was traveling with his mother and sister — everyone was together. Let me make clear that I don’t have any more faith in 70-year old Hilda Wiesel Kudler’s testimony than I do Elie Wiesel’s “stream-of-consciousness” autobiography, which, as I said, coincidentally appeared at the same time in 1995. And I am not convinced by this that the family really went to Auschwitz since not one of them was registered there, nor do their names come up on any hygiene or other reports even though they were supposedly put in quarantine. We do find Lazar and Abraham Wiesel, and Myklos Grüner, his father and brother listed on a hygiene report.

I’ll also add that Mother, Grandmother and youngest sister [10 years-old according to Hilda Wiesel, but 7 years-old according to Elie in Night, where Grandmother is not included] are understood to have been sent directly to the “gas chamber” and gone up in smoke through the chimney shortly thereafter. Since homicidal gas chambers didn’t exist, all the women would have been sent to the showers, gone through the disinfection process, given new clothing and assigned to a women’s barrack, the same as Wiesel writes about Eliezer and Father. However, a grandmother and mother with a child would have been assigned to non-working barracks; the two 20-somethings to barracks for female workers.

A very odd fact is that both in Night and in the Yiddish book, Eliezer and Father never mention their wife, daughters, mothers and sisters again. They don’t look for them, talk or ask about them, as other people did. They apparently accept being told that their loved ones “went up the chimney” and immediately become concerned only for themselves. I don’t believe this; it’s not human nature, it’s make-believe.

So if not there, where else could the Wiesel family have been in 1944?

Following a trail of possibilities

Well, we do have Shlomo and Mendel Wiesel’s first cousin Yaakov Fishkowitz filling out a Yad Vashem Page of Testimony for each of them, reporting they both died in 1943 in a “labor camp.” If Yaakov didn’t believe this were true, why would he have done this in 1957 at the same time he filled out other pages for relatives he marked as being sent to Auschwitz in 1944? He also said Shlomo was born in 1903 and Mendel in 1905.

Add to this the very weak story Elie Wiesel gives for why his family didn’t do something to protect themselves from the “Nazi menace.” On page 8 of Night, Wiesel wrote:

In those days it was still possible to buy emigration certificates to Palestine. I had asked my father to sell everything, to liquidate everything, and to leave. ‘I am too old, my son,’ he answered. ‘Too old to start a new life. Too old to start from scratch in some distant land …’

Too old at the age of 41? Fishkowitz puts his birth in 1903. Other than that, there is no official birth date for Elie Wiesel’s father. In a close family, children always know their parents’ age and birthday. Hilda said her mother was born in 1900. So Shlomo Wiesel’s age is being covered up by son Elie, who left the DoB space on the Page of Testimony he filled out for his father blank. We can say that the oldest Shlomo could have been was 48, but more likely younger. Wiesel has always made his father out to be a tired old man, especially in Night. I have distrusted this characterization and believe it was a literary device to make the story more poignant, just like turning 10 year-old Tsipora into a 7 year-old.

The following interesting passage is on page 27 of the Yiddish Un di Velt hot gesvign, but is not included in the shorter French or English Night:

We had opportunities and possibilities to hide with regular goyim and with prominent personalities. Many non-Jews from the surrounding villages had begged us, that we would come to them. There were bunkers available for us in villages or in the mountains. But we had cast aside all proposals. Why? Quite simple: the calendar showed April 1944 and we, the Jews of Sighet, still knew nothing about Treblinka, Buchenwald and Auschwitz.

Two things here. It again says it was April, not May, when the Sighet Jews first learned they would be deported. It confirms the passage on page 83 of the Yiddish book: “It was a beautiful April day,” said on one of their first days in Auschwitz-Birkenau.

The other thing – it is not true the Jews of Sighet knew nothing, yet that is what Wiesel writes in his autobiography All Rivers, while at the same time he also writes of Polish Jews passing through their neighborhoods telling stories of terrible atrocities by German occupiers. He says that non-Jews offered the Wiesel family places to stay. Wiesel writes that their Christian maid Maria begged them to come to her village and she would keep them safe. How many Jews may have taken advantage of such offers? But we’re told that Shlomo Wiesel refused to accept this kindness of Christians, and Elie’s only explanation is that they still didn’t believe the stories they were hearing. Then he blames the world for not warning them! This can be found in All Rivers Run to the Sea, on page 63 and 68-69.

Isn’t is possible the reason we find mention of these offers of help in all three Wiesel books is because it was such an important part of his experience that he felt compelled to include it? His family hid out and were protected from arrest. Or … maybe only he was sent away for safety, and his mother and sisters had different experiences. His father too, unless he did indeed die in 1943.

After the war, when only Elie and his two older sisters reunited, it was convenient to say the others were “murdered” in Auschwitz. That was the preferred story at the time. After all, with an advertised death toll of four million until 1990, there was plenty of room to say hundreds of your relatives were exterminated there.

In France

Elie Wiesel is center-top with a group of friends all wearing similar berets, at Ambloy, France.

Elie Wiesel is center-top with a group of friends all wearing berets, at Ambloy, France in 1945.

Wiesel could have been sent to the home for Jewish orphans in France after the war from wherever he had been staying. In the few photographs we have, he looks cheerful and well-adjusted. He has friends, and seems to be a leader of younger boys. His hair is very long in the front, too long to have grown out from a concentration camp shaved head just a few months before.

From his very first year in France he was extremely interested in Zionism, the struggle in Palestine, and was a supporter of the Irgun, the Jewish terrorist organization in Palestine. Where did he learn all this, since he says that while in the camps he had no interest in anything? This is another reason to suspect he sat out the “Hungarian Holocaust” and was staying in a safe political environment somewhere.

I have written so many details in the various articles on this site that suggest or show outright that Wiesel has lied about many, many things – that he is faking it when it comes to so many aspects of his story. It’s not like he’s a paragon of truthfulness and I am therefore going out on a limb, or defaming him, by questioning the basics of his story. What really gives me a justification to do so comes back to – yes, that’s correct, his lack of a tattoo!

I think it shows that Wiesel and his friends know how damaging this tattoo business is by the fact they won’t speak about it – they completely refuse to deal with it. The Jewish Shoah believers in France at Enquete & Debat tried but could not get Wiesel to answer any questions about the tattoo by writing to him at his Foundation office in Romania. After a period of time they phoned there and Wiesel’s assistant hung up on them as soon as she realized what they were calling about. If holocaust-believing Jews are treated that way, it tells us just how unwelcome the topic is.

As I’ve said before, the only way to bring attention to Wiesel’s serious tattoo problem is to make a lot of noise about it – to get public attention on it. This is not happening and will not happen as long as the general response is: Forget the tattoo because it might turn out that he has one.

The cowardice in such a position leaves me flabbergasted. It’s half ignorance, as I said above, that is true, but the other half is lack of nerve. I am doing my best to dispel the ignorance. Those promoting the Wiesel legend lie, lie, lie, lie, lie and it doesn’t bother them in the least, while the truth forces are afraid of being wrong when the odds for being wrong on this are 5% or less – to me, it’s 0%. To continue to be content with just asking the question “Is it possible that Elie Wiesel doesn’t have the tattoo he said he does?” and fail to go beyond that to a declarative statement on the matter is not an acceptable outcome considering all we know.

It’s time to put all doubts aside and claim the obvious.

Jews-for-Jews “Blue Card” charity gives social justice award to Elie Wiesel

Sunday, January 10th, 2016

kati-marton-elie-wiesel-rita-cosby_1-2016

Elie Wiesel, 87, looks very dark-skinned for January (like an Indian really – could it be makeup meant to make him look healthier?) and also small standing between Kati Marton (left), who helped present the award, and Rita Cosby, whose role at the event was not mentioned

By Carolyn Yeager

Fake Auschwitz survivor Elie Wiesel is never too busy or too ill to show up for another award handed out by his Jewish friends. The 87-year old Wiesel appeared in person to receive the Richard C. Holbrooke Award for Social Justice, given to him by The Blue Card at their 81st Annual Gala at The New York Public Library on January 8th. The presenter was actor Michael Douglas, son of 50’s star Kirk Douglas who let it be known at the end of his career that he was Jewish. The elder Douglas’ birth name was Issur Denielovitch, the son of Jewish immigrants from Russia.

The Blue Card describes itself as the only national non-profit organization solely dedicated to providing financial assistance to destitute Holocaust survivors residing in the United States. [My goodness, can there be a destitute survivor in the U.S.? I find that hard to imagine since there are 6 million Jews and very few survivors left.]

More on Blue Card

All the information about The Blue Card on Wikipedia comes from The Blue Card itself. It tells us that it was established in 1934 in Germany to help those “fleeing” Nazi persecution and was reestablished in the United States in 1939. [Its true that in 1939 New York City became the world headquarters for International Jewry.]

This particular event raised $750,000, they say — the most in its history. I don’t know where the money went, but they have a number of programs to receive it: an Emergency Cash Assistance program, a dental program, a stipend program (monthly checks), a Jewish Holiday program, a summer vacation program, an emergency response program, the Mazel Tov Birthday program, a Vitamins program, the Bring a Smile program, a Cancer Fighting program, a Hospital Visitation program and a Nutritional Guidance program. All for Jews. Yes, they say it’s for “holocaust survivors,” which theoretically includes non-Jews, but you shouldn’t believe that many are really included.

If European people came up with such a scheme to raise funds for poor Whites, (as Third Reich Germany once raised money for poverty-stricken rural Germans) they would be viciously attacked as racist by the very people running this charity organization. I think we should try it, though.

Only covered by Jewish media

This event was only covered by Jewish media because it is only about Jews. Basically everyone there was Jewish. Let’s start with the Blue Card’s president Gia Machlin and Executive Director Masha Pearl, who gave welcoming remarks. Machlin is also President & CEO of EcoPlum Inc., a green shopping rewards site and eco-information destination for eco-friendly living. Pearl is a young woman who plays a role very similar to Karen Pollock’s at the Holocaust Education Trust (HET) in Britain. The event also honored Sara Wolfensohn and Rachel Rosenberg.

Matt Nosanchuk, who has been prominent in advancing the Obama administration’s gay rights policies and is now White House Liaison to the Jewish Community, presented a recorded message from philo-semitic Vice President Joe Biden to Elie Wiesel, commending him for his holocaust education efforts. Biden said, “From you, Elie, I learned that we have to educate every successive generation exactly about what happened, and we can never, never forget.” So heartwarming.

Richard Holbrooke

You may be wondering who he is and why the award was named after him?

Richard Holbrooke was born in 1941 in New York City to two atheist Jews. His mother’s family is said to have left Hamburg, Germany in 1933, going to Buenos Aires and from there to New York. His father was Polish, whose original name was Goldbrajch. Holbrooke is admired by Jews because he gained key positions in the U.S government, beginning with the Democrat Carter administration in 1977, then in both Bill Clinton administrations, finally the Obama administration until his death in Dec. 2010.

Kati Marton was married to Richard Holbrooke from 1995 till his death, thus she was co-presenter of the award. She is also Jewish, born in 1949 in Hungary, the daughter of two mainstream reporters. She says her parents never spoke about “the holocaust” (nothing to say, I guess). After the war they spent nearly two years in a Hungarian prison charged with spying for the U.S. Kati and her older sister were raised Roman Catholic, but she says she learned much later, by accident, that her grandparents were Jews who were murdered at the Auschwitz concentration camp. (Oh yes, isn’t it strange how they all say that. Every Jewish relative no one knows any details about was murdered in Auschwitz.)

Rita Cosby, successful, hard-driving TV journalist, wrote a book detailing a story (perhaps mostly fiction) about her Polish father’s youthful adventures as a resistance fighter in Warsaw during WW2. His real name was Ryszard Kossobudzki, changed to Richard Cosby in the U.S.

Michael Douglas presenting award to Elie Wiesel

Michael Douglas posing with Elie Wiesel, holding the framed award.

What does it tell us?

In his acceptance speech, Wiesel talked about poverty since this particular group raises money for just that (though I don’t think those they help are at all destitute, a word they use). He also said, “I belong to a generation that has seen probably the darkest of its moments and lived them …but also the happiest. The Day of Liberation…when suddenly, the Americans came in! Days earlier, 10,000 left Buchenwald  and  were the last to leave literally the last…. we were supposed to leave the next day.” (This from the man who falsely claimed to be in a famous liberation photo from Buchenwald to help him win a Nobel Prize, but wrote in Night he was in a hospital unconscious at the same time. Poor Elie can’t keep his fantasies straight.)

So what does this tell us or why should we care about it. It tells us that the Jewish holocaust narrative, allowed to be institutionalized as real history because of long-standing anti-Germanism in Europe and America (actually fear of German competition), is a major money-making business that all Jews participate in and/or benefit from. They know how it benefits them and so they can come together and agree on monstrous lies, and celebrate monstrous liars. They are able to by-pass the facts by seeing themselves and their race as both eternal victims and God’s chosen; thus whatever they do to defend and protect themselves is okay. They are always okay.

In Germany just now, children’s events are being cut back or cancelled because there is no money for them. The needs of the migrants come first. The migrants are driven into Europe by Jewish power, don’t kid yourself, to destroy any possibility of nationalist governments by destroying the common racial genetics that make a people. Jews hate nationalism, especially in Europe and America because it can exclude them. But for Israel, they agree it is necessary!

The Aryan people are intelligent, inventive, creative, original and idealistic, but we don’t know how to stand up to the Devil. Jews, not being a truly religious people but a self-worshiping people, know the Devil is an idea, just as is God, who is only active in our lives if we believe he is. God needs us to make him real, and the same with the Devil. That’s one thing we can learn from the Jews.

Wiesel and Winfrey make an Auschwitz soap opera together

Thursday, January 7th, 2016

Priceless_at Auschwitz

Elie and Oprah star in a very boring  film about … walking around in the snow. Here they are in front of the Auschwitz 1 crematorium, feeling the horror.

By Carolyn Yeager

The Germans have been accused of making soap from jewish corpses in Auschwitz , but it takes a jew to make a soap opera there.

Victim Elie Wiesel and victim enabler Oprah Winfrey made a soap opera at Auschwitz on January 29, 2006, exactly ten years ago. The two superstars, along with Winfrey’s film crew, met in front of the entrance to Birkenau and much of that filming was added to the documentary created later in-studio by Oprah’s production team. The resulting 45-minute “movie” was broadcast as part of The Oprah Winfrey Show in May of that year.

Recall it was thirteen days earlier on Jan. 16 that Winfrey announced the “new 2006 translation” of Elie Wiesel’s Night as her newest book club selection. The next day, Jan. 17, Amazon announced it was changing the category of Night from novel to memoir. A lot of questions were raised (as it was known they would be), and the Elie-Oprah Auschwitz trip was intended to distract attention away from those embarrassing questions … to reinforce to the public that Wiesel was a genuine, suffering “death camp”survivor and Night was unquestionably his true story.

It was, in my opinion, a business venture that the advisers to both parties worked out as part of the entire deal between Oprah and Elie. All that the two headliners had to do was show up and act out the roles they knew so well. Oprah has referred to Wiesel as “my world hero” and said she was never the same after reading Night; she was the perfect gullible, unquestioning foil  for him.

It was assumed by Oprah and the manipulated public that Wiesel would be her guide to a place he knew well. (And it would have been a perfect time for him to show his tattoo to the camera … if he had one.) But as I will point out, Elie’s words, or lack of them, expose him as a stranger to that place. He tells fiction after fiction, taken from lurid survivor testimonies that were discredited long ago. The only things he really describes are his emotions, his feelings, his thoughts … which become boring and are not convincing either.

In the film @3:43,  Elie says, “Each time I come, I – I try not to speak for a day or two or three … ” but from what I can discover, this was only the 3rd time Wiesel had been there. The first was on Janurary 27, 1995, when he spoke at the 50th anniversary of the so-called liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp. It was probably on this same trip that he filmed a documentary beginning in summer 1994, both in Sighet, Romania and in Auschwitz-Birkenau in Poland. In that film, “Elie Wiesel Goes Home,” he is shown silently walking around the Birkenau grounds with his shirtsleeves rolled up, revealing bare arms with no sign of the tattoo A7713 he says  he still has. (He said this as late as 2010.)

This 3rd and last time he made the film with Oprah, which was titled “Auschwitz Death Camp“.  The lies and just plain ignorance that are packed into this program is amazing. I will refute some of it here.  Elie actually says very little in the beginning but reads passages from Night in order to not speak such stupidities on camera. It is understood by most reasonably sophisticated people that Night is a creative effort—not to be taken literally. Notice that in the film he doesn’t describe his life in the camp with any detail–no names, specific persons, places, events—only generalizations anyone could come up with. For instance, standing in front of Block 17 in Auschwitz 1, where he says he lived, he claims he thinks often about those who died there, but doesn’t offer a single name or how they died.

Oprah takes in every word from the “Professor” (as she calls him) as profound, and though she responds in her trademark super-sympathetic manner, it does seem that she would have liked something more solid from him. She seemed to me to find her hero’s wandering, empty thoughts unsettling – and was pretty much left speechless. This has to be why her production team added so many background film clips and photos portraying the usual media version of the holocaust story—to add some content to a boring walk in the snow with an old con man. Sorry, but if you pay close attention, you should come to the same conclusion.

The main errors refuted

I link to the pages on Oprah.com that I am commenting on, and highlight the offending passages in boldface, so that you can follow and compare.

http://www.oprah.com/world/Inside-Auschwitz/1

As young Elie Wiesel stepped off the cattle car at the Auschwitz subcamp Birkenau, also known as Auschwitz II, he smelled the stench of burning human flesh and saw the crematorium throwing its flames into the sky. “[Mrs. Schächter] wasn’t so mad at all,” Oprah says. “She was a prophet.”

Oprah shows exceptional ignorance by believing that flames could be coming out of a crematorium chimney, but this is what was written in Night She even believes in Mrs. Schacter, who is simply a character Wiesel invented.1

There was no stench of burning flesh in the air at Birkenau, in spite of quite a number of “survivor novels” that say so. Operating crematoria do not release any smell. Wiesel picked up that idea of “stench” from the testimonies at the Nuremberg tribunal and Soviet reports. In 1955 he thought it was safe to say such things. Today we know what he wrote did not happen.

http://www.oprah.com/world/Inside-Auschwitz/2

The systematic process of determining who would live and who would die was known as “selection.” SS officers briefly sized up each new arrival. Those deemed capable of hard labor, like 15-year-old Elie Wiesel and his father, went into the work camp. All others were sent immediately and unknowingly down the path to Auschwitz’s four gas chambers.

The “selection” was for work placement, not life or death. Those who could not work (children, elderly and sick) went into the barracks at Birkenau where they were fed and allowed to join in activities. There was actually a lot going on. Mail was delivered in both directions, packages were received, the health clinics and hospitals were busy. Some did light work in the camp. Even babies were born.

No one went to a gas chamber because there were none. Wiesel never, ever spoke of a gas chamber in his book Night, written in 1954, and further edited from 1956-58. He only spoke of people taken to the crematorium after they died, which to him at that time was only from disease, hard work and mistreatment—not gas chambers!

West London Crematorium, in 2005

West London Crematorium, 2005

Those selected to die were told they were getting showers, then packed into the chambers by the thousands. Canisters of the deadly chemical Zyklon B were dropped in. As the toxic pellets mixed with air, cyanide gas was released. Death took about 15 minutes to come and felt like suffocation. Proud of their efficiency, SS officers witnessed the gassing as it happened through special peepholes.

None of this is true. Shower facilities were real showers, an important part of the camp disease prevention program.

“Canisters of Zyklon B were dropped in”? What would canisters do? Does Oprah expect that the ‘victims’ opened the canisters themselves?

Death from Zyklon B poisoning would not feel like suffocation. Death by poison gas is painless; one just drifts into unconsciousness.

Claiming that SS officers watched people die through peepholes is the lowest form of defamation of Germans—one thing that Wiesel specializes in. He is pawning off this gruesome “camp gossip” to Oprah and she is not questioning it. But later in the video she did keep saying she “couldn’t understand” how human beings could do such things. The answer is they didn’t.

The grisly task of burning the dead bodies in underground ovens was left to Jewish prisoners. Forced into this horrific job, they temporarily evaded their own death.

What is meant by “underground ovens”? There was no such thing. There were above-ground crematoria for hygienic disposal of human corpses, exactly the same as are found all over the world. There is nothing sinister about cremation retorts. Oven is a word meant to mislead people by bringing up images from the fairy tale “Hansel and Gretel!”

It doesn’t say much for jews if they agreed to kill and cremate their own people just to put off their own death for a short time. There is no way to force someone to do this.  This is one of the weakest links in the Jewish Holocaust narrative.

http://www.oprah.com/world/Inside-Auschwitz/3

Professor Wiesel takes Oprah inside one of the few barracks still standing at Auschwitz. He says that prisoners were packed two or more to a bunk on straw mattresses. Professor Wiesel slept on similar bunks at Auschwitz and later at Buchenwald.

Wiesel never wrote of sleeping two (or more) to a bunk. He wrote that at times he was on the top bunk and his father on the bottom. In Buchenwald there was never two to a mattress, especially in the children’s barrack.
Most people don’t find straw mattresses unpleasant to sleep on, especially if they’re tired enough, but most of the people living in Birkenau actually didn’t do much in the way of work and exercise.

Elie Wiesel looks out from the far right of the middle bunk.

“Elie Wiesel looks out from the far right of the middle bunk.” This photo was staged in an empty barrack because the mattresses have already been removed, 5 days after liberation.

In this photo, taken by soldiers on April 16, 1945, after the liberation of Buchewald, Elie Wiesel looks out from the far right of the middle bunk.

That is not Elie Wiesel in the photo. That person looks nothing like him, but also he writes in his various memoirs that he became seriously ill with food poisoning two days after the April 11th liberation and was taken to a hospital where he stayed for two weeks. Think how ludicrous it is that he should claim to be in both places at the same time! This should tell you something about Wiesel’s irresponsibility when it comes to the holocaust narrative. Anything goes.

Rats, lice and other vermin were rampant. Deadly outbreaks of dysentery, typhus, tuberculosis and malaria wiped out entire sections of this camp. Inmates wore thin cotton uniforms year round, even in the harshest winter. Given only meager rations of stale bread and meatless soup, many starved to death. For prisoners not sentenced to die in the gas chambers, the average life span was barely four months.

Complete nonsense. The barracks at Birkenau were cleaned and disinfected regularly. Wiesel even writes about it  in Night.
There are photographs of outdoor workers wearing heavy coats, boots, caps and gloves in winter.
NO ONE STARVED TO DEATH. The emaciated inmates at the end of the war were afflicted with wasting diseases, not starvation.
That the life span was 4 months is an invention picked up by Elie Wiesel from other “survivor stories.” Why then are there millions who were in the camps for several years and are now still getting a reparation check every month?
For saying these kinds of irresponsible things, Wiesel should be reprimanded by the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial staff, but he isn’t.

http://www.oprah.com/world/Inside-Auschwitz/7

At Auschwitz 1, the notorious Dr. Josef Mengele, known as the Angel of Death, conducted sadistic medical experiments on prisoners, infecting them with diseases, rubbing chemicals into their skin and performing crude sterilization experiments in his quest to eliminate the Jewish race by any means possible.

Dr. Mengele was a normal man who served humanity as a doctor.

Dr. Mengele was a normal man who served humanity as a doctor.

All the stories about Mengele are inventions. True, he was interested in gaining knowledge about certain medical conditions but not in the way the crazy, narcissistic jews talk about it. He was actually a goodhearted man who has been made into a devil. Elie Wiesel never laid eyes on him anyway.

In Block 11, the secret German police, the Gestapo, interrogated and tortured political prisoners and anyone who dared to disobey.

The Gestapo had an office at Auschwitz. There was a good deal of sabotage and contact with the enemy carried out by Auschwitz 1, 2 and 3 inmates, especially the Poles who had a strong network with Warsaw and London.  This could not be allowed and was punished severely. But the Gestapo didn’t regularly “torture political prisoners” or those who “dared to disobey.” That is more camp gossip. Good police know how to gather evidence and get confessions without torturing people. Block 11 was simply the camp jail and it has has been built up into a torture chamber, which it wasn’t.

“At least they had individual deaths—even this becomes a privilege,” Professor Wiesel says. “Here, actually, death was a release because it followed the torture.”

What’s he talking about? Nothing, it’s Wiesel-speak. We can’t know what he means by “torture” since  everything is a torture for him. But he pushes the theme that death was preferable to life in the camps—at the same time he describes how he and everyone else clung to life. He preaches that the camps were places of continual punishment, which isn’t the reality at all. If it were, how would so many millions have come out at the end of the war in good health?

http://www.oprah.com/world/Inside-Auschwitz/8

A case filled with empty Zyklon B cans is a haunting reminder of the poisonous gas used by the Nazis for killing prisoners on a massive scale. “When the gas chambers were full, an SS man put on the gas mask, went to the roof, opened the little window there and threw such a can into the gas chamber,” Professor Wiesel explains. “Unspeakable pain and horror—that’s how they were killed. Mothers and children hugging.

Once again, the claim of mass killing is false. Prisoners were kept as healthy as possible in order to be able to work. And also once again, they’re throwing cans into the “gas chamber” through a little window in the roof. Pretty stupid of the SS men!
Also – once again – death by Zykon gas is painless.
“Mothers and children hugging” is pure soap opera fiction to effect the emotions of school kids and women like Oprah. It has been shown conclusively that there never were any homicidal gas chambers. It was black ops propaganda and is now just a plain old Big Lie.

http://www.oprah.com/world/Inside-Auschwitz/10

Baby clothes and shoes are all that remain of the death camp’s smallest victims. Infants were killed immediately on arrival, as were the young mothers who refused to leave their children.

No evidence for that at all. A few items of baby clothes is sure not evidence. The evidence shows that children were provided with kindergartens at Birkenau with painted murals on the wall. Babies were born at the hospital at Auschwitz. I could go on and on.
Wiesel is on overdrive to make Nazis guilty of unspeakable crimes … the better to extort billions from Germany for Israel.
In a short promo video, Oprah says to Elie “You saw the babies thrown into the fire” while an image of cremation “ovens” is shown on the screen. This is purposely misleading because Elie was speaking of babies thrown into open pit fires—but no one will believe that anymore. Wiesel won’t give up his “jewish-babies-burned-alive-in-fire” narrative because fire is part of the Jewish redemption narrative and it is the most evil curse he can put on the hated “Nazis.”

http://www.oprah.com/world/Inside-Auschwitz/12

The Nazis went to sinister lengths to profit from the extermination of millions, and no possible resource was wasted. Human hair shorn from victims’ scalps was gathered and sold to German factories to make cloth.

Human hair was cut short to control body lice that the jews and others brought with them to the camp–not to make a profit. They no doubt couldn’t have profited, considering all the barbers that were necessary.  It was a life-saving measure.

What was done with the hair after it was cut was of no importance to the inmates. Do you want to keep the hair that is cut from your head? Do you worry that the salon or barber shop will make a profit from it? I doubt it. Wiesel tries to connect cutting of hair with extermination, but there is no connection. Failing that, he projects it as a humiliation.

Wiesel  wants you to believe that the “Nazis” made money off the jews’ bodies by selling their hair, when in fact they were just making use of all resources in their wartime economy. Is it better to throw stuff away, or to recycle it?

Final thoughts

We could ask why Elie didn’t take Oprah to see the swimming pool. Or take her into one of the large kitchens, or the theatre. Or point out where the soccer field had been in Birkenau.  Apart from the fact that he may not even  know about this places, since he never lived there, both knew that bringing up that aspect of the camps would defeat the purpose and soapiness of their soap opera. Their purpose was to reinforce the stature of Elie Wiesel and his book Night, and a secondary benefit was to give Oprah more tear-jerking content for her TV show. In May 2011 Night was #3 on the Top Ten bestseller list from the Oprah Book Clubs in their final 10 years, according to Nielsen BookScan.

Winfrey did her best as an actress even though she broke character in a couple places, halting expressing her confusion about the story, saying she couldn’t make any sense of it. Wiesel immediately counseled her that she should not look for sense because none could be made of it. It is unexplainable and inexplicable … and a permanent mystery. As for upholding his part in making the film interesting, Wiesel totally failed. He was a bore. His Auschwitz experience remains preposterous and unconvincing—really just a soap opera.

Oprah_Elie

Endnotes:

  1.  Wiesel said in an interview with the Paris Review in 1984:

Sighet, my little town, all the characters that I am inventing or reinventing, all the tunes that I have heard. It is always, whatever its name, that little town Sighet.

The real Sighet was actually the largest city in Maramures province with a population of 50,000 to 90,000 people, and was 35 to 50% Jewish … as written by Wiesel himself in Un di velt hot geshvign, the Yiddish precursor to Night. But in Wiesel’s other books, Sighet is a product of his imagination.

 

Elie admits he doesn’t have the tattoo A7713

Saturday, January 2nd, 2016

 

A7713

The number A-7713 is hugely important in the life of Elie Wiesel, but not in the way most would think.

By Carolyn Yeager

A7713 IS A NUMBER that is widely recognized because of the story Night written by Elie Wiesel.

According to the story, 15-year old Eliezer had that number tattooed on his left forearm two days after he arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau in May (or was it April?) 1944.

Wiesel says the story is a true report of his life experience and that he has that number on his arm still today. Yet by refusing to show it to the public for the past 60 years, he is as good as admitting that he does not have it.

In courts of law, whenever a claimant fails to provide proof of his claim, he forfeits his right to that claim.  Wiesel has failed to provide proof that he has the tattoo so he must give up the claim. This is the clearest admission he could make, would you not agree? I mean, we’re not talking about a private area of his body that he would not want to expose, but only his left forearm.

When this image is magnified, the possible "tattoo" is seen to be just a shadowy spot, not in any way a number. So sorry.

FALSE ALARM. When this image is magnified, the possible “tattoo” is seen to be just a denser area of spots and discoloration on Wiesel’s arm, not in any way a number. See here.

Wiesel keeps his arm covered at all times in public and is never asked about it by the complicit media. However, on a few occasions he must have forgotten and did allow himself to be photographed with bare arms, so we do have a few photos of this part of his anatomy—but with no tattoo visible at all! When asked to comment on that fact, not only Mr. Wiesel, but Mrs. Wiesel, and all Wiesel’s friends and business and academic associates remain totally silent. Even Oprah Winfrey has said nothing about it. This is not a reasonable way to behave.

Now put together the above with the knowledge that Wiesel’s entire fabulous career, success and wealth (including the Nobel Peace Prize and other coveted awards) is dependent on his being Auschwitz prisoner A7713, and you easily see the crucial importance it has for him. There is no debate about it.  A7713 is essential to Wiesel’s life story and the prestige and book sales he enjoys today.

Even with all that at stake, he won’t show it to anyone.

This can only be interpreted as an admission that he doesn’t have it. And he knows it. He knows that he has admitted by default that he does not have that tattoo (and therefore is not who he says he is) but he obviously prefers not to say so. He will keep the charade going as long as he lives, which is not much longer.

At this point his admirers and supporters start coming up with harebrained reasons for why he doesn’t have it or why he doesn’t show it. Their “reasons” ignore known facts and common sense, and are easily knocked down. I look forward to receiving some in the comments, although defense for Elie doesn’t have much staying power. His supporters may be starting to realize that it is he who makes them look foolish because of his refusal to engage on the issue. Especially, he refused to engage with Miklos Grüner on the issue—Grüner whose registration and other documentation at Auschwitz is in perfect order and who actually has a tattoo to match.

It was a fateful day for Elie Wiesel when, just off his great triumph at the Nobel Prize ceremony in Oslo in 1986, he went to Stockholm to meet “fellow Buchenwald child survivor” Miklos Grüner on a television show. That short meeting (“Wiesel refused to show me his tattoo”) and the book Night he was given raised Grüner’s suspicions. He began his search for documents relating to Elie Wiesel and Lazar Wiesel.

The result is that we discovered there are no documents at Auschwitz for Elie or Eliezer Wiesel with the birthdate 9-30-1928,  nor is there a single photograph of him in any camp. Without the tattoo, Wiesel’s got nothing at all to show he’s a survivor except his own fake memoir.

So let’s stir things up and get the information out there. A huge number of people, institutions and governments are guilty of being complicit in the fraud. It has become one of those “too big to fail” things, and in truth, without Grüner hunting down the documents (which only a former inmate could access), Wiesel would have gotten away with it.

Hats off to Michael Grüner! He’s not perfect but he’s done the world a great service.

 

 

Elie admits his true stories never happened

Sunday, December 27th, 2015

 

night-puzzle pieces

By Carolyn Yeager
copyright 2015 Carolyn Yeager

The pieces to the puzzle of Elie Wiesel and his book Night will never come together to form a coherent image.  Readers and critics have long puzzled over the nightmarishly grotesque events that Wiesel presents as real, and refuses to repudiate. But he has actually given us the explanation all along—it’s just that it’s one so many don’t want to believe.

In his autobiography, Wiesel recounts a time when, visiting Israel, he went to see the “young” Rebbe of Wizhnitz, whose father he remembered with reverence from his childhood. At the end of the visit, which took two pages (273-75) to tell, the Rebbe questioned the young writer without being satisfied with his answers. Then:

The conversation became more relaxed. He asked me about my work. He wanted to know if the stories I told in my books were true, had they really happened. I answered not too convincingly: “In literature, Rebbe, certain things are true though they didn’t happen, while others are not, even if they did.”

I would have loved to have received his blessing.1

Notice that he first says he is writing “literature”2, not faithful accounts of his own experience. Next, we understand that by withholding his blessing, the noted Hasidic rabbi conveyed he was not pleased with the evasive answers of the Hasidic Jew Elie Wiesel. Wiesel himself says his answer to the final question was “not too convincing.” And finally, since Wiesel admits that he writes about things that never happened as being true, we can’t even be sure that this event happened, can we. This is the problem with everything in the life and work of Elie Wiesel.

legends of our timeIn a book first published in 1968, Legends of Our Time, Wiesel tells the story of that same visit to the rabbi this way: The Rebbe is troubled to learn that Wiesel has become a writer, and wants to know what he writes. “Stories,” Wiesel tells him, “…true stories”:

About people you knew? “Yes, about people I might have known.” About things that happened? “Yes, about things that happened or could have happened.” But they did not? “No, not all of them did. In fact, some were invented from almost the beginning to almost the end.” The Rebbe leaned forward as if to measure me up and said with more sorrow than anger: That means you are writing lies! I did not answer immediately. The scolded child within me had nothing to say in his defense. Yet, I had to justify myself: “Things are not that simple, Rebbe. Some events do take place but are not true; others are—although they never occurred.”

What are we to make of this? Truth loses all meaning; Wiesel acknowledges he tells tales that he wants you and me to believe really happened when he himself knows they didn’t. He doesn’t apologize either. He justifies. He deflects the rabbi’s sharp moral denunciation with his own measure of pseudo-mystification, in spite of the fact that his rebbe sees through him. And that is the way he is with the public too—even though it is understood by the intelligent critics that he is writing fiction, he keeps up the “witness” pretense for the gullible and the young.

One Generation AfterIn another book, One Generation After, first published in 1965, he wrote the same thing. He referred to it in a conversation with Giles Lapouge in 1970, which became a chapter in the book edited by Robert Franciosi, Elie Wiesel: Conversations (2012). The chapter was titled “Elie Wiesel, The Witness.” On page 33, Lapouge quotes Wiesel:

In [my] book “One Generation After” there is a sentence which perhaps explains my idea: “Certain events happen, but they are not true. Others, on the other hand, are, but they never happen.” So! I undergo certain events and, starting from my experience, I describe incidents which may or may not have happened, but which are true. I do believe that it is very important that there be witnesses always and everywhere.

There you have it—Wiesel’s method. He makes it up! And the overarching purpose of his efforts is to contribute to the well-being of the Jewish State of Israel. To Wiesel this is the greatest cause of all, for which he offers his writing ability to contribute to the “Holocaust” stories that are so crucial to Israel’s success. In this, Wiesel has joined a horde of other Jews who do the same, copying from one another, but no other “witness testimony” has had the impact of Night.

It should be understood that Wiesel has been a fervent Zionist since his youth—well before the deportation of Hungarian Jews. His whole family were Zionists, and his Father, according to Elie in several books, had spent time in a Budapest jail for involvement in smuggling operations, sending Jews, money, and probably weapons to Palestine.

Then he adds how necessary it is to have witnesses—all the time and everywhere! Sure, because the Soviet-Jewish-originated ‘Holocaust’ narrative, made up of outlandish events that never occurred, many of which Elie continues to insist did, needs witnesses to make it seem believable. It needs witnesses who cannot be easily doubted, so Wiesel paints all “survivors” as saints and martyrs who could not possibly make up the horrendous stories they tell. Elie is one of these martyrs.

It’s true, one of the most common questions one hears is: What reason would they have to lie? “A person would not lie about this kind of thing,” says charles, a commenter to this site. I’ve heard and read that many times. Yet, Elie Wiesel admits that he does! He just doesn’t call it a lie—but a lie by another name is still a lie. And many others have been caught at it: Fragments by Binjamin Wilkomirski, Angel at the Fence by Herman Rosenblat, Misha: A Mémoire of the Holocaust Years by Misha Defonseca, the Ovitz dwarf family’s story, to name just four that are well known.

Wiesel has repeated his idea that “some things are true than never happened and other things that happened are not true” too many times for us to ignore it. He has written it in four books documented here, and probably more that I don’t know about.3 It’s the key to what has been called “the riddle of Elie Wiesel.” But it’s no riddle, just that familiar Jewish talent for telling big whoppers … what he calls “storytelling.”

The Storyteller – an honored Jewish tradition

a jew todayIn another book, A Jew Today, a collection of essays published in 1979, the second essay is titled “An Interview Unlike Any Other.” In it he explains how he became a storyteller:

How did I become a writer? What was it that drove me to […] the role of storyteller. […] Everything hinged on chance, Birkenau, Auschwitz, Monowitz-Buna, Buchenwald: that very first night I might have joined the procession of old men and children.4 I might have remained in one camp and not reached the next. I might have passed through all four and followed my father into icy nothingness before the end of night. Liberated by the American army, ravaged by poisoned blood, I might have succumbed on a hospital bed, a free man. After being reunited with my comrades I might have missed the children’s transport leaving for France; I might have gone back to Translvania or elsewhere, done other things. I might have engaged in or endured other battles.

Yes, as a storyteller he has control and could have told it other ways, or not told it at all. Remember, true stories need not have actually taken place. In the first essay of A Jew Today, titled “To Be a Jew,” he tells a story of the hated “other” that he swears is true.

Once upon a time, in a distant town surrounded by mountains, lived a small Jewish boy
[…]
Naturally, this little boy felt at ease only among his own people, in his own setting. Everything alien frightened me. And alien meant not Moslem or Hindu, but Christian. The priest dressed in black, the woodcutter and his ax, the teacher and his ruler, old peasant women crossing themselves as their husbands uttered oath upon oath, constables looking gruff or merely preoccupied—I understood and considered normal, and therefore without remedy.

I understood that all these people, young and old, rich and poor, powerful and oppressed, exploiters and exploited, should want my undoing, even my death. True, we inhabited the same landscape, but that was yet another reason for them to hate me. Such is man’s nature: he hates what disturbs him, what eludes him. We depended on the more or less unselfish tolerance of the “others,” yet our life followed its own course independently of theirs, a fact they clearly resented. Our determination to maintain and enrich our separate history, our separate society, confused them as much as did that history itself.
[…]
All I knew of Christianity was its hate for my people. Christians were more present in my imagination than in my life.
[…]
Painful irony: We were chased from country to country, our Houses of Study were burned, our sages assassinated, our school-children massacred, and still we went on tirelessly, fiercely, praising the inviolate sanctity of life and proclaiming faith in man, any man.
An extraordinary contradiction? Perhaps. But to be a Jew is precisely to reveal oneself within one’s contradictions by accepting them. […] it means fervently exploring the Talmud, with its seemingly antiquated laws and discussions, while outside, not two steps away from the heder or the yeshiva, one’s friends and parents are rounded up or beaten in a pogrom; it means asserting the right of spirituality in a world that denies spirituality;
[…]
All this was really so. The small Jewish boy is telling only what he heard and saw, what he lived himself, long ago. He vouches for its truth.

Yet truth is malleable to the Jewish storyteller—like God, he forms the clay according to his pleasure. The God of Abraham is all-powerful and a worker of miracles. When Wiesel refers to Jewish “spirituality in a world that denies spirituality” he’s referring to these very contradictions that Jews allow each other, but Gentiles call lies.

To be a Jew is to live with contradiction

Let’s look at a few more quotes that show Elie’s contradictions:

Elie Wiesel was questioned under oath in a California courtroom in 2008:
Q. And is this book Night that you wrote a true account of your experience during World War II?
A. It is a true account. Every word in it is true.5

Night was classified by its publishers and booksellers as “literature, fiction, novel” from 1960 until 2006 with no objection from the author. Yet Wiesel confidently swears to this lie on the witness stand in a US court of law two years after his book was switched to “autobiography” – no  doubt because he has convinced himself that things which never happened can be more true than things that did happen. Or, in other words, truth is in the eyes of the teller.

Night, pg 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.”

Night’s main character Eliezer is 14 going on 15 when he arrives at Birkenau. “Father” is 50. But Elie Wiesel himself is 15 going on 16 in May/June 1944. It’s possible he wanted to make Eliezer seem more vulnerable3 by being younger, and Father also more vulnerable by being older. Because in real life, Elie’s father would have been more like 40 to 45 years old at the time. But the father in Night rather quickly becomes a worn out, sick old man. This means every word is not true, and it is not a true account of his experience. But Wiesel will insist it is true, nevertheless. [Marion Wiesel changed that sentence I underlined to simply “Fifteen” in her 2006 translation, page 30. She also changed “tense” to “warm.”]

Un di Velt hot geshvign, Page 213: (Speaking of Jan. 1945) I was fifteen years old then. Do you understand—fifteen? Is it any wonder that I, along with my generation, do not believe either in God or in man; in the feelings of a son, in the love of a father. Is it any wonder that I cannot realize that I myself experienced this thing, that my childish eyes had witnessed it.

More of Wiesel’s “truth” is his answer to a student’s question, as reported in the Dayton [Ohio] Daily News:

A student asked Wiesel if he still has his concentration camp number and if it serves as a reminder of those terrible experiences. “I don’t need that to remember, I think about my past every day,” he responded. “But I still have it on my arm – A7713. At that time, we were numbers. No names, no identity.”

I assume that with that question the student hoped to get Wiesel to show his tattoo, but no luck. Apart from the fact that he told the student a lie about having the number tattooed on his arm, the rest of his statement is not factually true either. Yes, the inmates had a number just as in every detention or prison facility anywhere in the world. But their names were still known, and they might be addressed by their name, also, depending on the circumstance. [They were not tattooed at Auschwitz to replace their name with a number, but as an identifying mark in case of escape.] And since they were selected for work based on their history and abilities, their identity and history had to be known. Plus, all the documents from the camps included their name, birthdate and sometimes the name of their parents. Wiesel’s purpose for saying they were only numbers is not to testify to actual life in the camps, but to gain sympathy for Jews and condemnation for Germans.

This interesting passage is on page 27 of the Yiddish And the world remained silent, but is not included in the shorter French or English Night:

We had opportunities and possibilities to hide with regular goyim and with prominent personalities. Many non-Jews from the surrounding villages had begged us, that we would come to them. There were bunkers available for us in villages or in the mountains. But we had cast aside all proposals. Why? Quite simple: the calendar showed April 1944 and we, the Jews of Sighet, still knew nothing about Treblinka, Buchenwald and Auschwitz.

Two things here. It again says it was April, not May, when the Jews first learned they would be deported. It confirms the passage on page 83 of the Yiddish book: “It was a beautiful April day,” stated about one of their first days in Auschwitz-Birkenau!

The second thing—it is not true the Jews of Sighet knew still knew nothing, which is what Wiesel writes in Night. In his later real memoir he tells us that non-Jews offered the Wiesel family places to stay. Their Christian maid Maria begged them to come to her village and she would keep them safe. How many Jews may have taken advantage of those offers? But Shlomo Wiesel refused to accept this kindness of Christians, and Elie’s only explanation is that they still didn’t believe the stories they were hearing. Then he blames the world for not warning them! Elie describes it in more detail in his autobiography, All Rivers Run to the Sea, on page 63 and 68-69.

Wiesel uses excess, exaggeration and defamation

I’ll now return to the book One Generation After mentioned above [copyright 1965, 1967, 1970, and 2011 by Elie Wiesel] and the new introduction he wrote for it in 2011. Here we find some of the more exaggerated of his prose continuing to be put forward, not just back in the past, but as recent as 2011. He is standing by the wild statements and grotesque images that he first conjured up in the 1950’s.

Page vi
When speaking about that era of darkness, the witness encounters difficulties. […] For there are no words to describe what the victims felt when death was the norm and life a miracle.
[…]
Let me evoke those times:
Babies used as target practice by SS men … Adolescents condemned to never grow old … Parents watching their children thrown into burning pits …

Page vii
As I have said many times: Not all victims were Jews, but all Jews were victims; for the first time in recorded history to be became a crime. Their birth became their death sentence. Correction: Jewish children were condemned to die even before they were born. What the enemy sought was to put an end to Jewish history; what he wanted was a new world, implacably, irrevocably devoid of Jews. Hence Auschwitz, Ponar, Treblinka, Belzec, Chelmno, and Sobibor: dark factories of death erected for the Final Solution. Killers came there to kill and victims to die.
That was Auschwitz, an executioner’s ideal of a kingdom of absolute evil and malediction, with its princes and beggars, philosophers

Page viii
and theologians, politicians and artists; a place where to lose a piece of bread meant moving a step closer to death, and a smile from a friend, another day of promise.

At the time, the witness [EW] tried to understand; he still does not: How was such calculated evil, such bottomless and pointless cruelty possible? Had Creation gone mad? Had God covered his face? A religious person cannot conceive of Auschwitz either with or without God. But what about man? How could intelligent, educated, or simple law-abiding citizens fire machine guns at hundreds of children and their parents, and in the evening enjoy a cadence by Schiller, a partita by Bach?

Page ix
And now, sixty years later, the entire world listens to the words of the witness. Like Jeremiah and Job, we could have cried and “cursed the days dominated by injustice and violence.” We could have chosen vengeance. We did not. We could have chosen hate. We did not.
[…]
But it is not too late for today’s children […] for their sake that we are duty-bound to denounce anti-Semitism, bigotry, racism, and religious or ethnic hatred. Those who today preach and practice the cult of death, using suicide terrorism, the scourge of this new century, must be condemned for crimes against humanity.

But … will the world ever learn?

(Signed) Elie Wiesel, 2011

Ah, Wiesel’s favorite ending, putting himself in the morally superior position to “the world.” Also notice that he has gone from the German enemy to the Palestinian and Arab enemy. And that he “denounces” anti-Semitism first, though it is a part of the other three so doesn’t need to be specifically mentioned at all.

And from pages 43-44 of that book:

At Auschwitz one breathed contempt and indignity; a crust of bread was worth more than divine promises, a bowl of soup transformed a sensitive human being into a wild animal.
[…]
A killer, for his amusement, simulated the execution of a Jew; he knocked him unconscious and fired a shot into the air. Opening his eyes, the Jew saw his killer bent over him, sneering: “You thought you could escape us by dying? Even in the other world we are the masters!”

An anecdote which contains a part of truth: in dealing with the victims, in an effort to break their morale before annihilating them, the executioners assumed the role of God. They alone could, by decree, proclaim the limits of good and evil. Their idiosyncrasies were law and so were their whims. They were above morality, above truth.

Notice that Wiesel invents greater cruelties than ever existed in the camps, such as a desire to break the inmates’ morale before killing them. There can be no reason for this other than pure viciousness. Indeed,  this is what Wiesel wants his readers to believe about the Germans because it’s the only acceptable explanation for this educated people’s wholesale rejection of Jews. Since Jews are held to be blameless, it had to be the madness of those who had succumbed to anti-Semitism, bigotry and racism, with no other serious explanation ever considered.

This book, One Generation After, is typical of most of Wiesel’s books. He repeats the same themes over and over; one finds even the same wording in passages he has taken from earlier books. His favorite themes are Jews and Jewish history, his Jewish childhood with Jewish relatives and rabbis, the Jewish Holocaust, Israel and his great affection for it. He also likes to write about the depravity of the Germans of the Third Reich. You really have be a firm believer that the Shoah was just as he says it was to be able to connect with his writing. Once you learn that most of what he writes is not true, it loses its fascination and becomes tiresomely repetitive.

The next step

When we understand and accept that Wiesel is not telling the truth—that he is not recording what he actually saw and heard at all, but is writing literature in support of Israel and Jewish profiteering—then we are free from the exaggerated guilt that Elie Wiesel’s writing heaps upon us. Since he has disqualified himself by his answers to the Rebbe of Wizhnitz, it’s our duty to bring this to the attention of as many others as possible in a serious way. For when a man says and writes things that could not possibly have happened but insists they’re true and gets a Nobel Prize for it, that’s no joke.

What’s interesting is that Wiesel has never tried to hide his words to the rebbe—as though it is not a failing at all. I’ve come to believe that it has to do with being a Jew. “To be a Jew is precisely to reveal oneself within one’s contradictions by accepting them,” he wrote in his essay “To Be a Jew.” The Kol Nidre prayer is another example of being a Jew. Has Elie Wiesel here revealed the secret weapon for Jewish success? – it being their fantastic ability to tell lies – to accept contradictions – and call it spirituality?

Elie Wiesel likes to portray Jewishness as an embrace of a superior spirituality that Goyim are too dense to appreciate. But “To each his own” and also “Oil and water don’t mix.” Jews are the oil and always rise to the top. For we Occidentals, how we view truth is the essence of who we are. We know the difference between true and false just as we know that 2+2=4 by just being able to count. We’re a light-loving scientific people more than a mystical-minded people and we don’t function well when confused by the Oriental slant of the Jewish mentality. We do have the right and duty to experience our own world view and our own natural understanding in our own way. That means we should no longer allow ourselves to be trapped in a Jewish world view … such as the Old Testament and the Talmud. Or Holocaust literature. A separation from Jews and their lies is what we need.

We can begin with rejecting Elie Wiesel and all his writings in total. That would be a great start on the road to recovery from a long illness.~

Endnotes:

1. All Rivers Run to the Sea, Memoirs, Elie Wiesel, Knopf, 1995, page 275.

2. Literature: n. American Heritage Dictionary: Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value.
Merriam-Webster dictionary: written works (such as poems, plays and novels) that are considered to be very good and to have lasting importance.

3. Being interviewed by “The Paris Review” in 1984 about his writing, Wiesel said his favorite subject was his childhood and “Sighet, my little town, all the characters that I am inventing or reinventing …
http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/2995/the-art-of-fiction-no-79-elie-wiesel

4. Referring to his tale of seeing old men and children being forced into a pit of fire on the night he arrived at Birkenau. He has later said he is not sure that he was dreaming, but no, he insists he saw it. Along with a truckload of Jewish babies being thrown in. Night, Marion Wiesel translation, 2006, pages xiii-xiv.

5.  Source: Superior Court of California. County of San Francisco. Before the Honorable Robert Donder, Judge Presiding, Department Number 23. People of the State of California, Plaintiff, vs. Eric Hunt, Defendant. Testimony of Elie Wiesel, July 8, 2008, p. 7.

Tattoo criminals – Elie Wiesel should be investigated for holocaust fraud

Wednesday, December 23rd, 2015

holo tattoo

This is the tattoo that, if seen by the public, will incite hatred for Jews, according to prosecutors and courts in Brandenburg, Germany. But why wouldn’t it incite sympathy just as well?

By Carolyn Yeager

In a Berlin court, a German man is convicted for having a tattoo resembling a concentration camp entrance on his body.

Why then is Elie Wiesel not convicted in Germany for not having a concentration camp tattoo on his body, but saying he does?

Wiesel was in Germany at least three times impersonating a “nazi” concentration camp survivor. His first visit was in June 1986 when he spoke in Loccum, West Germany as the author of the book Night, which he claims to be a record of his own experience. In Night, the main character is  tattooed with the number A7713 on his left forearm, which Elie claimed under oath in California is still there on his arm. Apparently, no one in Loccum asked to see it.

He returned the next year in November 1987 and spoke in a modern conference center inside the shell of the destroyed Reichstag. The title of his talk was “Reflections of a Survivor” in which he, as in the prior year, couldn’t keep from speaking words of blame toward the German people.

On June 5, 2009 he was at the Buchenwald Memorial outside of Weimar, accompanying the President of the United States and the Chancellor of Germany in the guise of a former resident of the camp. I know this for sure because I was in Dresden on this very day and watched it on German television.

Elie Wiesel's left arm in bright sunlight, from his video "Elie Wiesel Goes Home"

Elie Wiesel’s left arm in bright sunlight, taken from his video “Elie Wiesel Goes Home”

Elie Wiesel’s main authentication for being interned at both Auschwitz/Birkenau/Monowitz and at Buchenwald is the tattoo A7713 which matches records for a Lazar Wiesel from Sighet. Elie says he has it on his arm but he has never allowed the public to see it! He does not confirm his claim by showing his forearm, as do so many survivors – the very survivors he claims to be one with.

Yet on some occasions he’s been photographed with short sleeves and there is no tattoo visible on either of his arms. This is absolutely incredible, right? That the world’s most famous holocaust survivor is in truth “the emperor wearing no clothes” … the “elephant in the living room.” The world media say nothing because they can’t—they pretend not to notice and hope you do the same.

To get to the point

But why is Marcel Zech, a 27-year old town council member representing the National Democratic Party (NPD) dragged into court and convicted of sedition and inciting hatred because of a tattoo on his lower back that no one would normally see anyway … while Elie Wiesel comes to Germany at age 57, 58 and 81, and with great publicity misrepresents himself as an Auschwitz and Buchenwald concentration camp survivor with the tattoo A7713 on his arm that he doesn’t have, and the German Justice system doesn’t even notice.

I demand that German prosecutors investigate Wiesel’s claim to have a tattoo, and bring charges against him when they find he doesn’t have one, never did have one—charges of defrauding the public and of inciting hatred against Germans as a people.

Let’s take a look at the “crime” of Marcel Zech. According to the photo taken at a pool party, Zech’s tattoo (see image above) is the likeness of a structure that resembles the entrance to the former Birkenau Camp in Poland but there is no name identifying it as such. Under the image are the words Jedem das Seine in large gothic-style letters. Jedem das Seine translates as “To each his own” and was on the gate of the Buchenwald camp entrance, not at Auschwitz or Birkenau.  So what is the connection, what is the message?

I would say there is no message since the image and the phrase don’t go together in the “holocaustian” sense. Is it illegal in Germany to use the words Jedem das Seine? Can’t be.1 Is it illegal in Germany to post or publish an image of the entrance to Birkenau? No, because it’s done all the time, especially by Jews. So what is the problem with Marcel’s tattoo?

The problem is that he is an office-holding member of the NPD, which the federal government in Germany is currently trying to ban. Yes, ban it as a political party. It has been a German political party since 1964!

On the other hand, Elie Wiesel is a Jew, and Jews are never investigated for anything in Germany, let alone found guilty of something. Have you ever heard of it? I did an internet search and came up with nothing.

State prosecutors had demanded that the accused [Zech] be sentenced to 10 months in jail without parole because, according to DW, he seemed to be “a politically motivated criminal, who had trampled on the core values of the German constitution.” What are the “core values” of the German constitution?

Consulting the German Basic Law (constitutional law), I come up with a few:

Art. 3:  No person shall be favored or disfavored because of […] political opinions.

Art. 4:  … freedom to profess a religious or philosophical creed, shall be inviolable.

Art. 5:  Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures.

But then there is also Article 139 [Continuing validity of denazification provisions]:
The legal provisions enacted for the “Liberation of the German People from National Socialism and Militarism” shall not be affected by the provisions of this Basic Law.

Get that?–The German people were liberated. At least we know that Germany is still functioning under the 1945 Military Control Council of Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower. Not much progress there.

But back to Elie Wiesel: What is the law against impersonating a concentration camp survivor? It appears there is none.  While it’s a crime to minimize the “Holocaust”, it’s perfectly okay to maximize it. Lying about the Holocaust by adding to the narrative is fine; just don’t take anything away from it. Not when you’re in Germany.

[By the way, the Deutsche Welle story repeated a falsehood from a previous story when it said that Buchenwald was “the Nazi regime’s largest death camp.” Buchenwald is not considered to be a “death camp” even by holocaustian historians. Martin Schultz was using the occasion of a 70th anniversary to advise that because of Buchenwald, Germans were obligated to welcome refugees.]

Endnotes

1. From Dictionary.com:  One has a right to one’s personal preferences, as in I’d never pick that color, but to each his own . Versions of this maxim appeared in the late 1500s but the modern wording was first recorded in 1713.

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