brutaltruth000: From your article: “Winning the favor of the Jewish voting block was an obvious necessity for a...
Christiana: We had to read Night for English class. I’m doing a project and wanted a picture of Elie’s...
Anonymous: Seems to me like Carolyn doesn’t even believe that Elie went through the Holocaust at all
Paul: New York Times from May 6th 1945 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =4njwU3sbvx0
brucewhain: They should change the name to Mass Murder Memorial (MMM) – then we could include the Bolshevik...
“Never shall I forget that first night in camp, which has turned my life into one long night, ... Never shall I forget that smoke. Never shall I forget the little faces of the children, whose bodies I saw turned into wreaths of smoke beneath a silent blue sky.” Elie Wiesel, Night (original edition)
“Not far from us, flames, huge flames, were rising from a ditch. Something was being burned there. A truck drew close and unloaded its hold: small children. Babies! Yes, I did see this, with my own eyes ... children thrown into the flames.” Elie Wiesel, Night, p. 32
“The thousands of people who died daily in Auschwitz and Birkenau, in the crematoria, no longer troubled me.” Elie Wiesel, Night, p. 62
“Dr. Mengele was holding a list: our numbers. [...] I had but one thought: not to have my number taken down and not to show my left arm.” Elie Wiesel, Night, p. 72
Primo Levi, on page 27 of his highly-quoted book Survival in Auschwitz, writes that every prisoner had to have a tattoo. “It seems that this is the real, true initiation: only by showing one's number can one get bread and soup.” Without a tattoo, how did Wiesel survive?
Observation by a Jewish sociologist/camp survivor:
“...most of the memoirs and reports [of 'Holocaust survivors'] are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks...” —Samuel Gringauz, "Jewish Social Studies" (New York), January 1950, Vol. 12, p. 65.
Theater J (for Jewish) "caved" to the Nobel laureate when he FedExed a letter to the playwright that his lawyers would make sure her play, Imagining Madoff, featuring Bernie Madoff, Elie Wiesel and a secretary, never reached the stage. According to the Washington Post, Wiesel used the words "obscene" and "defamatory" and added, "Nothing of me is in your script!" The story, written by Ted Scheinman and Jonathan L. Fischer, is here.
How the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC uses our money to further goals that serve International Jews.
Elie Wiesel and the above-named holohoax museum are as linked together as the military-industrial complex. Wiesel serves Israel and the International Jewish power structure, and in turn, it looks after him and ensures that he is not only wealthy, but famous and covered with honors and decorations that bring him respect.
The United States, since Woodrow Wilson and the 1913 takeover of the U.S. Treasury by the Jewish banking cabal’s Federal Reserve System, has been a captive nation. Even though it appears to be the most powerful nation on earth – that is appearance only if you define a nation as being governed by and serving the people who formed and created that nation.
The truth is, the American people have a foreign parasitical entity attached to our nation, which has changed its very demographic make-up and just keeps spawning more and more anti-American policies. One of the spreading tentacles of this parasite is the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
When one studies this museum, how it came into being and how it operates, one can clearly discern it’s parasitical nature – and why, rather than contributing to the national well-being, it takes away from it.
This week, Sunday and Monday April 28-29, is the culmination of several months of “commemoration” of the museum’s 20th year of existence.1 It celebrated its 10th anniversary in 2003, so I assume there will be a propaganda-filled anniversary commemoration every 10 years from now on – and maybe they’ll throw in a 25th too – unless it is put out of business. Following are some reasons the USHMM should be closed down.
It was organized and brought into being under false pretenses and for illegitimate reasons
In the 1970′s , a group of Jews (Elie Wiesel among them) began meeting for the purpose of organizing into a cohesive force to bring about a major memorial to “holocaust survivors” located in the United States.
No Americans had been involved in the deportations or internment in camps in Europe between 1941-April 1945, so a memorial in the U.S. to the people who were had no justification. However, many European Jews had managed to emigrate to the U.S. in the 1950′s and 60′s and formed in enclaves. These Jews were encouraged to use their time-honored tactic of eliciting sympathy for their alleged persecutions in order to win non-Jews over to the cause of Israel.
Since Americans are so highly propagandized (by Jewish Hollywood and Jewish media), it worked. During the 1970′s a highly-watched television miniseries “Holocaust” and lots of magazine and book attention preceded their proposal to President Jimmy Carter to appoint a special commission to look into a U.S. memorial to “The Holocaust.” In 1978 Wiesel sold the idea to Carter, when Carter was having difficulty showing successes by his administration. Winning the favor of the Jewish voting block was an obvious necessity for a second term. In this atmosphere, Carter appointed Wiesel to head The President’s Commission on the Holocaust to explore the idea of a memorial, with the aim, as Wiesel wrote to Carter, of “fighting genocide.” The American people had nothing to say about it.
A report was submitted to Carter on Sept. 27, 1979, recommending the establishment of a museum, an educational foundation and a Committee on Conscience. (Did the American people need the Jewish immigrants they had treated so graciously to “prick their conscience” to help them become aware of guilt they didn’t know they had?)
Right: Jewish contributors, The Meeds, meet Pres. Carter as he officially receives the holocaust commission report from Elie Wiesel, standing behind Carter. It’s all politics.
One paragraph taken from the very long report reads:
Granted that we must remember, Mr. President, the next question your Commission had to examine was whom are we to remember? It is vital that the American people come to understand the distinctive reality of the Holocaust: millions of innocent civilians were tragically killed by the Nazis. They must be remembered. However, there exists a moral imperative for special emphasis on the six million Jews. While not all victims were Jews, all Jews were victims, destined for annihilation solely because they were born Jewish. They were doomed not because of something they had done or proclaimed or acquired but because of who they were: sons and daughters of the Jewish people. As such they were sentenced to death collectively and individually as part of an official and “legal” plan unprecedented in the annals of history. [my underlining -cy]
And you might be surprised at the names of the 34 members – some quite recognizable, but all Jews, except maybe Telford Taylor of Nuremberg fame … or is he too?2
Consider that Carter was now gearing up for his re-election campaign, which was going to be very tough, and the members of the House of Representatives were also facing re-election, plus a third the Senate. Congress voted unanimously to establish the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, with Elie Wiesel as Chairman.
Once they got that far there was no turning back.
From 1980 to 1993,3 Jews put their plans in motion
Almost 2 acres of land adjacent to the National Mall were freely given by the federal government (again, without the people’s consent) for the construction of the building, which was paid for by private donations. This way, Jews had total control over the design.
You can see from the model at left (which apparently the museum directors do not want to be seen as it’s not on the USHMM website) how close the museum (which you can recognize by the temple-shaped structure on the Plaza side) is to the Washington Monument, arguably the most defining national monument in the city.
Groundbreaking ceremonies took place in 1985 – you can be sure officiated by plenty of rabbis blessing the effort. They even got one of the streets that bordered the construction renamed Raoul Wallenberg Place.4
Dedication ceremonies took place on April 22, 1993 (pictured right), and included speeches by President Bill Clinton, Chaim Herzog, president of Israel; Harvey Meyerhoff, Chairman of the Memorial Council; and the museum mascot Elie Wiesel. The sell-out of a nation!
In the following year, 1994, seeking to make more of a connection to American citizens (perhaps there was some criticism as to why this grotesque edifice even existed amongst our national monuments in the prime “tourist” section of our nation’s capitol?), the plaza shown here was dedicated to General Dwight David Eisenhower and the “soldiers who fought under his command.” Guess they had forgotten to do that earlier, caught up as they were in their self-love and self-congratulation.
Twenty years later, the “after the fact” narrative and the guilt-tripping just gets bigger
To mark it’s 20th anniversary, the museum is having a “historic gathering” of ” survivors” and WWII vets, plus a four-city traveling exhibition tour with the aim of impressing into impressionable minds the “continuing relevance of the Holocaust.” The four cities are Boca Raton, Los Angeles, New York and Chicago. It costs a lot of money to send full-scale museum exhibitions around the country like this.
Today, Monday, April 29, is the big “geriatric parade” at the museum, with speeches by former president Bill Clinton and Elie Wiesel, who were both on hand 20 years ago. They make the claim it was WWII veterans who “ended the Holocaust.” The purpose for that claim is to connect the holohoax to America via the American GI’s who allegedly liberated some of the camps. That’s why Susan Eisenhower (pictured right), granddaughter of ‘General Dwight David,’ was awarded this year’s “Elie Wiesel Prize”, their highest honor. (By engineering a Nobel Peace Prize for Wiesel in 1986, “holocaust survivors” assured themselves of a greater perception of legitimacy.)
Museum Director Sara Bloomfield emphasized that the museum’s main goal is to honor the memory of the 6 million murdered Jews. “We felt it important (while the vets are still with us) to make a commitment to them that this institution will carry forward this legacy.” Thus, the theme for this 20th anniversary is “Never Again: What you do matters.” It’s actually a giant guilt trip on White Euro-Americans.
The special anniversary exhibition is titled “Some Were Neighbors: Collaboration and Complicity in the Holocaust” (poster for the exhibit pictured right), an allusion to all those guilty ones who stood by and did nothing to prevent the “terrible treatment” of the Jews. What they never consider however, is how many thought the Jews deserved it. Of course, it must be understood that the narrative of the horrendous suffering of Jews has been wildly exaggerated beyond all semblance to the reality. This, however, is not allowed to be said.
A feature of the exhibit is sound recordings of “survivors” telling their strange stories – like Stanislaw Ochmann who, in Poland, says he transported Jews in a wooden wagon to a cemetery to be shot. As the mothers were raked by machine-gun fire, their little children clinging to their skirts were not hit, but all fell together into the pit and were covered over with dirt. Then – “the earth was moving” because “they were still alive!” This is the typical make-believe these “historians” and “researchers” at the USHMM want Americans to believe.
The museum spends an inordinate amount of time and resources talking about Nazi Germany. Yet the curator of “Some Were Neighbors,” Susan Bachrach, says she is challenging the idea that the “Holocaust” was primarily about Hitler and other Nazi leaders. “The Holocaust wouldn’t have been possible without enormous indifference (Wiesel’s favorite word) throughout Germany and occupied Europe, but also thousands of people who were ‘just doing their jobs’.”
All of the above indicates that the goal of the powerful Jewish holocaust lobby is to convince Euro-American Whites that it is their duty to forever protect the rights, interests and privileges of Jews in non-Jewish societies. They want to convince us that Jews are the people most vulnerable to persecution, through no fault of their own.
This is the game plan. How is it working?
What does it cost the nation and why not let them do it all themselves?
According to their own accounting, which you can see here, their 2011 financial report5 shows this:
2011 - $48,400,000 Federal …. $36,500,000 Non-appropriated Total $84,900,000
2010 - $48,000,000 Federal … $33,600,000 “ “ Total $81,500,000
Sept 30, 2011 Financial Position
Cash balance: 16,000,000
Long term investments: 205,179,192
The museum is exempt from income taxes, and presumably property taxes on their prime real estate.
The museum received $48.4 million from the federal government, but they raised $36.5 million on their own. It also has “long term investments” – money invested in stocks and securities - totaling over $200 million. With that kind of money available to them from private sources, they can support this entire project on their own. Without the federal funding, they would get even more money from private donors. The reason they went after federal government sponsorship is to give themselves the legitimacy it brings to their cause: eternal “Holocaust Remembrance.” To be able to present themselves as “speaking for the American nation,” not as speaking for Jewry, which is what they are actually doing.
In the now-official mission statement of the U.S. Holocaust Council, it’s first and only requirement, along with creating a museum memorial, is to conduct the annual civic observance of the “Days of Remembrance.” But they want to go way beyond that. They keep increasing their goals to be achieved. For instance:
In 2011, they continued to expand the victim’s names list and shared the information with Yad Vashem. Assisting a government institution of another nation, using our nation’s funds! In the world’s only Jewish state too. This is clearly Jews helping Jews in a Jewish project that only Jews care about. But also, who cares what the victim’s names are? Add the fact that this is totally unreliable information, but neither the USHMM or Yad Vashem care one bit about reliability, but only whether it’s good-sounding propaganda for their cause.
Another costly project of 2011 was the distribution of 6,500Days of Remembrance DVD Planning Guides – an increase of 30% over 2010. The Guide was sent to 67 military installations abroad, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany and South Korea. These are elaborate how-to packets, featuring historical background material (lies), poster sets, videos, readings, personal histories and even that victim name list. This is pure Jewish propaganda from their point of view only, all coming under the auspices of a U.S. government-approved program.
The museum also “served” over 3000 members of the judiciary in nine states, giving them Continuing Legal Education credits in Ethics (?! Jews are the least ethical people) for completing their course of study. Can it get any more obvious what is going on? The USHMM is in the same business as the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. The report also brags that over 2000 law enforcement officials completed “training,” including 150 Chiefs and top leaders.
Finally, they implemented a Propaganda Initiative aimed at journalists and diplomatic officials via special programs such as:
DVD on propaganda distributed nationally to educators,
A Fred Friendly program on “The Context and Consequences of Propaganda” distributed by the leading distributor of college, university and secondary school resources (films) in the U.S.
A final note: For their 20th anniversary, the museum launched a campaign to raise $540 million by 20186. It has already secured gifts totaling $258.7 million. The campaign will double the sizeof the museum’s endowment. Also, a $15 million gift from “holocaust survivors” David and Fela Shapell will help build a new Collections and Conservation Center. This shows the limitless amount of money available to them.
Should the American taxpayers, who are overwhelmingly NOT Jewish and never involved in the holohoax in any way, be used to promote a singularly Jewish perspective on world history and current affairs? The answer has to be no, but then there is that fear of the jews ….
1. Some interesting numerology on the date carved into the museum plaque (first picture). Note that the date on the museum is April 22, 1993. That adds up to 4 (april) plus 4 (22=2+2= 4) plus 4 (1993 = 1+9+9+3 = 22 = 4). So it is 4+4+4 = 12. The Twelve Tribes of Israel? Do you think Jews would let their museum founding fall on just any old date?
2. Telford’s second wife, Toby Golick, is Jewish. They had two sons, Benjamin and Samuel.
3. 1980 to 1993 is 13 years. Again, 1+3 = 4. Coincidence, I guess.
4. Wallenburg, a Swedish diplomat, is one of the the “Christian” heroes who “rescued” many Hungarian Jews, according to their narrative.
Wiesel demonstrates he has nothing to say to the world when the only news outlet to write anything at all about his speech is the Cleveland Jewish News.
This much-ballyhooed return visit to Kent State University on the April 11 anniversary of the “Buchenwald Liberation” in 1945 proved to be as “much ado about nothing” as the earlier event 68 years ago really was in retrospect.
Wiesel, 83, looking tiny and munchkin-like sitting in a big yellow chair on the stage, uttered the same phrases we’ve heard for decades and they are sounding more hollow than ever. At kentwired.com, a University website, we find this summing up of the speech:
One of the major themes of Wiesel’s speech was the importance of having hope and his struggle with believing there is such a thing.
“Where there is no hope, our road and our path is to invent it,” Wiesel said. “I am here to teach you my hope because without it, I wouldn’t be here today.”
Invent it. That’s what Wiesel is good at: inventing things. He offered other similar thoughts that Kentwired considered worthy of quoting but are, in my opinion, devoid of any relevance when pondered for a few seconds, such as:
“For every word that a holocaust survivor writes, there are 10 more that haven’t been written,” said Wiesel. “Whoever listens to a witness becomes a witness.”
My comment on the first sentence: This is true of everyone’s written words. On the second: This well-worn phrase of his might be what is engraved on his tombstone – he has used it so often. Of his supposed liberation by U.S. soldiers at Buchenwald, he said:
We had lost every concept of how to feel. We did not know what it was like to be free.
“I believe in the virtue of gratitude,” Wiesel said. “Simply to say to each other, thank you.”
The first is patently false. It discounts all the uprisings that supposedly took place, all the resistance activity in the camps, and the fact that Wiesel only claims to be a prisoner for one year. One doesn’t lose memory of freedom in one year. The second bit of wisdom takes care of not answering questions about Buchenwald nicely, doesn’t it.
At the Cleveland Jewish News (CJN), reporter Carlo Wolff (email@example.com) tries to build up the importance of Wiesel’s utterances by writing that he “delivered a lesson in history, literature, philosophy and morality, demonstrating his didactic prowess and his belief in the power of continuity.” I must not be intelligent enough to grasp the greatness of this speech, which Wolff tells us was appreciated by “a rapt, sell-out audience of 5000″ … mostly fellow Jews, I would say. I’m convinced that Jews from all around the broader area drove to Kent to see, hear and support one of their own, who has always fought for Jewish and Israeli interests.
No one noticed Wiesel’s mic was off for first 20 minutes
But Wolff had enough of the journalist in him to tell us about the following screw-up that must have embarrassed Kent State President Lester Lefton, also a Jew and the man who invited Wiesel to the campus.
The first 20 minutes of Wiesel’s April 11 talk almost fell on deaf ears because his microphone wasn’t turned up; most followed his eloquent words as they scrolled out on giant screens flanking the stage.
According to Wolff, Wiesel didn’t refrain from his familiar finger-pointing at the Germans.
He remains appalled by the Nazis. “The enemy managed to push its crimes beyond language,” he said, explaining the difficulty he has (and the obsessions that dog him) in telling a story that can never ultimately be told.
“They had education. They had degrees. So what happened?”
What happened? Their education helped them see clearly that Jews were a danger to their German social order – and so they were, and are. It is really only Jews who commit crimes “beyond language,” if such a thing exists. It is Jews in Israel that force pornography into Palestinian homes via their television sets, at the same time they are attacking them militarily. Only Jews would dream up something like that. Likewise, only Jews would dream up the kind of concentration camp atrocity stories they tell, atrocities that Germans, Nazi or not, would never think of themselves, and therefore never do.
Tweeting the most pithy remarks of the evening
Kentwired had someone tweeting the highlights of the evening as it progressed. Here is an example of the “best of Elie Wiesel”:
“My first passport was an American one. It’s still a symbol of human passion,” said Wiesel. “I owe America.”
“Remember there will always be questions that have no answer,” Wiesel speaking about his experience as a Holocaust survivor.
“I believe in memory because without it nothing is possible.”
“The moment we stop remembering, we stop believing.”
“Could humanity get Alzheimer’s? Could history get Alzheimer’s?”
“History has gone beyond its limits and therefore forget it no more,” Wiesel says on making sure people don’t forget.
“The love of children is the purest of all,” says Wiesel on trying to understand why children were killed during holocaust. [Wiesel had one child who grew up to go to work for Goldman Sachs - cy]
The following were probably answers to softball questions from the audience:
“History has not found balance,” said Wiesel on all the chaos in the world. “We are still waiting for redemption.
“I simply feel, again, that I have done something,” said Wiesel on his many honors and awards
“I couldn’t be who I am if not for those books,” said Wiesel on the many books he’s written
Have you had enough? It doesn’t get any better. And it all sounds very similar to Wiesel’s speech last year at Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio. To sum up, Wiesel is a fading star who may not last much longer. What can last is the incredible mythology built up around him unless we work very hard to separate reality from nonsense. This takes a consistent effort, not once-in-awhile comments about the same old themes. As we can see, that is actually Wiesel’s style and it’s not very effective. When it comes to the Elie Wiesel myth, it’s the media that has done all the heavy-lifting, not E-lie himself.
This time, even the media didn’t have an appetite for it.
Just recently, the Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, has admitted to plagiary and lying about it.
He is a 60 year-old “trained philosopher” who was elected in 2008 as the religious leader of the third-largest Jewish community in the world, numbering approximately 600,000. (Note the two symbolic sixes in the foregoing.) At issue were several parts of his book Forty Jewish Meditations that were found to be taken from other sources.
Right: The Great Rabbi of France Gilles Bernheim attends the UMP party‘s debate on secularism in Paris, France, April 5, 2011. No, he’s not blind, maybe just exhibiting his affinity for denial.
The plagiarizing is one thing; the trail of lies this flawed man came up with to deny it is the real scandal. Just last December, Pope Benedict XVI quoted from a recent essay by Bernheim on same-sex marriage; now there are charges that parts of that essay, too, were similar to the work of others. On Monday, a French Web site, Archeology of Cut and Paste, accused the rabbi of using passages in his essay that were close to those in a book by a priest, the Rev. Joseph-Marie Verlinde. No wonder the Pope liked it!
The exposure of the plagiarism started in March (last month) when a website named Strass de la philosophie discovered similarities between Bernheim’s work and an interview of the philosopher Jean-François Lyotard in the 1996 book Questioning Judaism by Elizabeth Weber.
A few days later, in a childish, yet cynical attempt to cover for himself, Bernheim answered by saying that some of the meditations in the books were transcripts of lessons he gave in the 1980s, as a chaplain for Jewish students, and that these lessons were often recorded while copies of his personal notes were handed to pupils – thus implying that Lyotard, who died in 1998, plagiarized him, and not the opposite.
But Elizabeth Weber subsequently refuted Bernheim’s version, saying that Lyotard had answered her questions without any notes. Also, Jean-Noel Darde, a senior lecturer at Paris 8 University, who runs a website that specializes in academic plagiarizing, suggested that the Chief Rabbi might have also used fragments of other books, written well before the 1980s, by authors such as Elie Wiesel, Jean-Marie Domenach and Charles Dobzynski.
Faced with this, the rabbi then blamed inadequate oversight of a student who did some of the writing. He said he had hired the student because of a busy schedule and had not informed his publisher of the arrangement. “It is the one and only time I made such an arrangement,” he wrote in a statement. “It was a terrible mistake. I have been fooled. However, I am responsible.” He also apologized for initially denying the accusation, calling his reaction “emotional, hasty and clumsy.” He said. “I retrospectively analyze it as denial.”
However, further proof of the man’s lying nature emerged when it was shown that Rabbi Bernheim had claimed an academic achievement that he had not earned. His Who’s Who entry, based on information he provided, says he was awarded from the Sorbonne an “agrégation de philosophie,” an elite and highly competitive academic distinction. But there is no record that he won such an honor. (Who does that remind you of?)
Left: Bernheim with former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, also a Jew, who awarded him the Legion of Honor in 2010. Sarkozy said twice that Bernheim is an “agrégé de philosophie,” a very competitive academic distinction in France.Bernheim did not contradict him.
There is growing pressure for Rabbi Bernheim to resign, but in a radio interview Tuesday night, he said he would not step down, adding that although he had made mistakes, “I have not committed fault in the exercise of my functions” as France’s chief rabbi. [UPDATE: On Thursday, the rabbi-in-denial faced reality and resigned. See here.]
At the same time, some fellow Jews rush to defend him. Richard Prasquier, a friend of the rabbi and president of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France, appealed to him to set the record straight and spoke movingly of the “torment” the rabbi must feel. Oy vey.
“Gilles Bernheim is my friend,” Dr. Prasquier said in an editorial on Tuesday in the organization’s newsletter. “A life like his cannot be hostage to a few failures in an area of intellectual or academic qualification related to his activity as a rabbi.” Dr. Prasquier said Rabbi Bernheim ought to be able to continue in his job, “where he has presented, in an eloquent voice, a Judaism open to the city and rigorous in its principles.”
The position of Chief Rabbi of France comes via the Centrale Consistoire, which was created in 1808 by Napoleon to oversee Jews in France. It was intended to make sure the unruly Jews followed the laws of France concerning military service, especially, and should take up mechanical trades; but that was lost sight of long ago.
Nobody ever said that Jews held high standards for themselves. The fact that Bernheim told pathetic lies implicating innocent persons in wrong-doing that he knew was his own doing, is inexcusable in a religious leader of any rank, let alone the highest rank. However, lying about his record at the Sorbonne, giving himself high academic distinctions that were never his, is actually typical Jewish behavior. We see it with Elie Wiesel, too.
How does this relate to Elie Wiesel, or to Kenneth Waltzer?
It relates to Jews who hold respectable, responsible positions in society, who are not really qualified, in spite of degrees from the Sorbonne or Harvard. These men WILL make mistakes and will cheat. In the case of Wiesel, every degree he has is honorary, and not much is expected of him. But in the case of Waltzer, he’s expected to demonstrate serious academic ability which, so far, he has not. I will be returning to this theme, and to three photographs which have been claimed to be Elie Wiesel, that are tied to key elements in the story of Elie in Buchenwald. These three photographs can be seen here, here and here. All three have been mislabeled, and there is no effort at all to correct the record. Just as there has been no effort to answer to Verena Dobnik’s false claim that she saw Elie Wiesel’s “death camp” tattoo during her interview of him in October 2012.
All of this will be tied together under the banner of perpetual lies by people in high places. But to what degree is Elie Wiesel the source of them? Who is running the show?
Kenneth Waltzer is a professor of history at Michigan State University since the early 1970′s. He helped to create the Jewish Studies program which opened in 1992, and which he heads. In the photo at right, he is looking at a Buchenwald registration card at The International Tracing Service in Bad Arolsen, Germany. Waltzer has been researching into evidence of a special ‘boy’s protection program’ run by prisoners at Buchenwald for going on 10 years now. As an “approved” researcher, he is allowed to peruse all the files there, something that is made much more difficult, if not impossible, for revisionists.
Waltzer is considered one of the top scholars in the U.S. of the ill-named holocaust but his work has been sloppy, and his attempts to cover up the sloppiness amount to fraud. This, along with his continual promotion and defense of Elie Wiesel as a Buchenwald survivor, is what has drawn me to study him ever more closely.
Because of the seriousness of the charge I am making against him, I will list right up front my reasons for thinking it is time for such a call. They are:
Waltzer habitually tells fibs in the form of false information which is intended to mislead. When called out for it, he tells more fibs to cover for the first ones.
He has been in the service of the “Holocaust Industry,” not academic rigor and fair-mindedness, from the very start of his career.
He knowingly defrauds his students, his university and the public (you and I) with his dishonest “holocaust scholarship.”
While he is drawing high pay as a tenured American professor of history at MSU, he is working to advance the State of Israel.
I am going to show that these charges have a strong basis in fact. Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features. (see here)
Legally, fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant’s actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact, (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.
I am not intending to bring legal charges of fraud against Prof. Waltzer, but to try him in the court of public opinion. Therefore, it will be up to Waltzer to defend himself against my charges.
* * *
Two years ago, I asked the question on this web site: “What happened to Ken Waltzer’s book about the boys of Buchenwald?” It was claimed to be, at that time, in it’s final stages. Eight years after he publicly announced he was researching for a book about the so-called children’s barracks at Buchenwald (Barracks #66 ), it still has not materialized. Five years after his book was described as “upcoming,” it still has not materialized. During this time, he has not produced another book, or any major work that would have taken precedence over this book. So what is the delay?
It’s pretty plain that the book’s thesis has shifted considerably since 2005, when his MSU website featured Elie Wiesel as the most recognizable and famous child survivor from Buchenwald. That website was taken down between one and two years ago and is completely wiped clean from the Internet. The banner on all the six to eight pages that were included showed a photograph very similar to the one below of the “boys” being marched out of the main Buchenwald camp to temporary quarters at the former SS barracks.
The USHMM (national holocaust museum in D.C) website dates this picture as being taken on April 17, 1945, six days after liberation.1 At this time, Elie Wiesel, by his own account in two books, was laying in a hospital sick almost unto death from food poisoning. Details like this don’t deter Prof. Waltzer from backing up in every instance the standard holocaust narrative. “Elie Wiesel in Buchenwald” is the standard narrative, so evidence must be found for it.
Ken Waltzer claimed for years that one of these boys was Elie Wiesel. But Wiesel is not in this picture!
From at least 2005 (eight years now), Waltzer has identified the boy third or fourth from the front (hard to tell) in the left-side column (dressed in a black suit and in front of the tall boy wearing a beret) as Elie Wiesel, based on nothing but his own fraudulent intention that there was enough resemblance that people would believe it if he said so. In this article , I exposed this lie. Waltzer has never admitted that he was mistaken or was perpetrating a falsehood that he intended to put into his book. Instead, what he did when his fabrication was sufficiently exposed was to take the entire site down and not mention it again.
Leftis a close-up of the boy Waltzer has maintained for several years is Elie Wiesel. Anyone can tell it is not and that’s why no one else ever publicly agreed with him.
I have some of what was on that site copied into articles here at EWCTW and also in my files. At left is the cropped section of the photo that Waltzer used on the banner of his MSU-Newsroom/Holocaust website that was very much dedicated to Elie Wiesel. (Another reader, Chris, informed me that he had found pages from the site using the Way Back Machine. Many thanks to him.) This shows that Waltzer definitely identified the boy in the black suit as Elie Wiesel. In addition, Jack Werber, a known dishonest survivor, was the supposed supplier of the picture.
Below right, a screen shot of one of the pages as it existed then, sent by a friend of EWCTW. It shows more of the emphasis on Elie Wiesel.
When I pointed out much of this in a podcast of March 25th, Waltzer sent me an email on March 28th stating,
My websites at UM FLint are down because I was appointed there one year and am now back at Michigan State.
Of course I never mentioned UM Flint and never even saw his website there. I was speaking about his MSU website, which was titled something like Ken Waltzer’s “MSU Newsroom Special Report.” It was full of information about his projects and especially what he calls “the rescue operation of children at Buchenwald.” It was up on the Net since at least 2008 2, then suddenly disappeared, with not even cache pages to be found. Did Waltzer tell me a fib, or did he just read the podcast program description and misinterpret what it said about “taking down web pages?” By now, he will know what I mean and may answer.
I think it is very possible that he timed the take-down of his MSU “Newsroom” site with his one-year visiting professorship at UM Flint — putting up a temporary website there which he could take down when he left. This is a way of confusing the picture in order to distract as much as possible from his more recent decision to put more distance between himself and his prior (false) assertions about Elie Wiesel.
His intention was and is clearly to deceive. The harm is caused to ordinary people who believe and trust that they are getting knowledgeable answers from a professor of history and a holocaust scholar. In this particular case, all five of the elements necessary to prove fraud are there.
First, he sets up a University-sponsored website maintaining falsely that Elie Wiesel is the boy in the photograph of youthful “survivors” marching out of the camp (1). He knows it is false because he has no evidence or proof, only his own “wishful thinking.” The USHMM never identified Wiesel in that group of boys, nor did anyone else (including Wiesel himself), unless they did so from following Waltzer’s example (2). Waltzer’s intent was to make the public believe something that was not true – that he had proof of Elie Wiesel being one of the “rescued children” (3). Because Waltzer is a Professor of History and “holocaust expert” at a major university, and is at all times written up very favorably in the media, the public (you and I ) and his students will rely on his statements (4). These same students and public are injured when photographs are mislabled in order to foist on them a certain belief about an influential historical event that affects their entire world view (5).
* * *
This is just one instance of the untruths that Ken Waltzer has told over the years. Another tactic he uses is to promise an upcoming answer to your doubts which he cannot or does not produce now. As we have seen, we continue to wait as he continues to promise. Still another tactic is to accuse others of lying when it is he who is doing so. But only people who are knowledgeable enough about these complex and purposely obscured issues can see who is doing the lying. In this same email, he wrote:
The book is on track, and I have also completed a separate essay to be published on Elie Wiesel and Buchenwald.
Completed, he says. And separate. Why separate? I wrote back to him asking where I could find his essay because I wanted to read it. No reply – which is typical because factual information is not his forte, emotional rhetoric is. I feel it’s quite possible he wrote a separate essay on Elie Wiesel so as not to tarnish his book with the false “facts” about Wiesel in Buchenwald. He can always get rid of an essay, if necessary, later – but not his entire book. What might there be in this essay? Will it be the same or quite different from what he wrote in a March 6, 2010 comment at Scrapbookpages Blog, when he said [my underlining-cy]:
For the skeptics [I was using the name skeptic then -cy] and know-nothings who have written in suggesting Eli Wiesel was not in the camps, that Night is purely fiction, you are all dead wrong. The Red Cross International Tracing Service Archives documents for Lazar Wiesel and his father prove beyond any doubt that Lazar and his father arrived from Buna to Buchenwald January 26, 1945, that his father soon died a few days later, and that Lazar Wiesel was then moved to block 66, the children’s block in the little camp in Buchenwald. THese documents are backed up by military interviews with others from Sighet who were also in block 66, and by the list of Buchenwald boys sent thereafter to France. All of this is public domain.
Wishful thinking by Holocaust deniers will not make their fantasies true. While Wiesel took liberties in writing Night as a literary masterpiece, Night is rooted in the foundation of Wiesel’s experience in the camps. The Buchenwald experience, particularly, runs closely to what is related in Night.
Comment by kenwaltzer — November 14, 2010 @ 6:57 am
How much untruth is contained in this, in order to defraud us all in his devoted service to the “Holocaust Industry” and the state of Israel? Plenty. As proof that Elie Wiesel was in Buchenwald, he points to documents for Lazar Wiesel and “his father.” It is even more absurd because Lazar Wiesel’s relative was only 13 years older than Lazar – it was in fact his brother Abram! Waltzer is passing off Lazar for Elie simply on the basis that Lazar also came from Sighet, Elie’s hometown and carries the same name. Sighet was a city of 50,000 or so with a very large Jewish population, and Wiesel was a common name. But the “scholar” who has taken years to research this and still isn’t finished, wants us to believe there can be only one Lazar Wiesel, who is Elie. He attributes the difference in their birthdates to bureaucratic error.
Previously I may have called this stupidity, but now I’m calling it fraud, based on the above-given definition. Of course Waltzer can see the discrepancies here, but he hopes he can convince you not to see them. The Military Interview mentioned with Lazar Wiesel’s name on it also does not have the right birthdate for Elie Wiesel, nor does the signature match Elie’s handwriting.
Will Waltzer repeat this nonsense in his latest “completed” essay? Notice that Waltzer never fails in the name-calling department, here calling his critics names such as “know-nothings” and “Holocaust deniers.” Several months later, he wrote a similar comment at EWCTW to the blockbuster article: “Signatures Prove Lázár Wiesel is not Elie Wiesel”
On November 14, 2010 at 10:34 am
Contrary to Carolyn Yeager’s wishful thinking, Eli Wiesel was indeed the Lazar Wiesel who was admitted to Buchenwald on January 26, 1945, who was subsequently shifted to block 66, and who was interviewed by military authorities before being permitted to leave Buchenwald to go with other Buchenwald orphans to France. Furthermore, there is not a shadow of a doubt about this, although the Buchenwald records do erroneously contain — on some pieces — the birth date of 1913 rather than 1928. A forthcoming paper resolves the “riddle of Lazar” and indicates that Miklos Gruner’s Stolen Identity is a set of false charges and attack on Wiesel without any foundation.
The promise of a forthcoming paper turned out to be a fib. From Nov. 2010 to now, there has not been any paper. Maybe it the the essay he mentioned in his March 28th email. “Forthcoming” to Waltzer means up to two and a half years, it seems. That in itself is the sign of an unreliable person.
There can be only one reason Ken Waltzer allows himself to look like a buffoon and a shyster. He doesn’t need to do it to keep his position at Michigan State University. He does it because it is his larger job to keep the Buchenwald atrocity stories and Liberation lies, including the Elie Wiesel myth, alive and well in the mind of the public. He works for purely Jewish interests – I will be writing a future article on the priority, meaning and funding of Jewish Studies programs in American universities. For now, I can add that Waltzer is more of a public relations (PR) worker for the Holocaust Industry, the State of Israel and maybe AIPAC, than he is an honest-to-god academic. Another organization connected to Israel that he serves is Scholars for Peace in the Middle East. He has written four attack-dog articles for them since 2009, functioning in a sort of Abe Foxman-pitbull style.
In Nov. 2009, he attacked Alison Wier as another “know-nothing” because she speaks up for Palestinian rights on college campuses, where she is popular.
In May 2010, he went after John Mearsheimer for calling Israel “an apartheid state” and also took out after Noam Chomsky, Norman Finklestein, and “the crackpot Phil Weiss.”
Also in May 2010, another target was Judith Butler, who campaigned at the Berkeley campus for the university “to divest from companies making military weapons which Israel employs to commit war crimes.”
In August 2011, he wrote on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, arguing for Israel’s interests to be well and strongly presented on college campuses.
But this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Walzer’s pro-Israel activities. I will be writing further articles that present the evidence for Ken Waltzer being guilty of fraud in his public writings and during his entire career. Much of it revolves around Elie Wiesel and the Industry’s need to place him at Buchenwald. My position, if you have somehow missed it, is that Elie Wiesel was never at Buchenwald. I am also saying that Waltzer is backing down or “stepping back” from his blatant, dishonest claims about Wiesel, but he can’t back down altogether. This article will become Part One.
1. I have also seen it dated April 27 at the USHMM and have used that date in other articles here. Now I have only found this one picture which is very officially dated the 17th. There may have been an attempt to move the date to the 27th so that Wiesel could be in the picture (though he supposedly would not have been released from the hospital until the 28th). It is really too bad the USHMM cannot be relied upon; nor can Yad Vashem. When the museum “researchers” are involved in lying or in complacency, one really has nowhere to turn.
Elie Wiesel is known for putting big ones over on the American (and other English-speaking) people , so it is no surprise to us that he is also faking his knowledge of Hungarian. I had already noticed that on the rare occasions he is shown speaking that language, he doesn’t go beyond short phrases or even just one-or-two-word questions and answers. Not being linguistically gifted myself, I didn’t feel I could say much about it.
Image right: The pretentious Tom Lantos Human Rights Prize for 2010 was presented to the pretentious Elie Wiesel (shown with Lantos’ widow) in November 2010. [Photo by Babette Rittmeyer & Brittany Smith]More about Tom Lantos below.
But now a Hungarian-American reader named John contacted me about the video “Elie Wiesel Goes Home.” He began by watching the short segment (2 min 29 sec) that is available on Youtube. He noticed discrepancies right away.
According to John:
Wiesel is speaking Hungarian words, but they are not spontaneous and his “inflections” are all wrong. The person he is speaking with IS speaking spontaneously, with proper Hungarian (very language specific) inflections, and using the proper idiomatically correct sentence structures. Wiesel is speaking in a short, pressured, and monotone manner – more like if a foreign-born person would have studied a travel guide.
Also, Wiesel’s accent while speaking English is not like a native Hungarian who is speaking English. Listen to former Senator Tom Lantos – he was from Hungary and also of Jewish descent; his accent, while speaking English, has the distinctive Hungarian characteristics that I am familiar with.
John told me why he thinks he is a competent judge of Wiesel’s language skills:
I was born in Hungary and escaped from there in 1956. I am fluent in Hungarian (without any accent) and I am fluent in English (without any accent). I was educated both in the U.S. and (some) in Europe, I have traveled a lot and I understand “cultural idioms.”
In his first message to me, John detailed a few translation errors in the video segment.
Video captions vs. the correct translation:
@48 seconds into the video the caption reads “This is the most important” – the correct translation is “This is the most interesting”
@ 54 seconds into the video the caption reads “A farewell letter. When they knew they’d be taken away.” – the correct translation is: “This is a farewell letter, [written] while they were alreadywaiting, to take them away”
@ 57 seconds into the video the caption reads “I had a Christian employee” – the man simply says “I had an employee.”
John then did an exact word for word comparison of the captions on the film segment versus what was actually spoken between the two men. The Hungarian is showing some family photos to Wiesel as they speak. What we notice is that Elie Wiesel said very little, and at times the Hungarian man didn’t seem to understand Wiesel’s words. In order to demonstrate that, I will now copy just the actual words that passed between the two, leaving aside the captions. Wiesel’s speech is in blue boldface.
My brother’s family. You said you knew them? Yes. This is with his wife. His children, my oldest brother, who might have known you. [Note that Wiesel does not answer.-cy] And, ah, did they go to Auschwitz? What’s that?
They went to Auschwitz.
Everyone. They don’t exist to anyone. I would remember. They don’t exist.
This is my mother. Mother.Did she die here in Sighet or Auschwitz?
Iske died in Sighet, she lived until ’34.
This is our entire family … as we were [as all of us that were around]. And this?
This. This is the most interesting. This … is a farewell letter, while they were already waiting, to take them away. Yes.
Then … I had an employee … [Wiesel interrupts as if he doesn't know what was said about the employee.-cy] They didn’t know about Auschwitz.
They didn’t know, of course no one knew, and it came to us [later] what was to be.
Then they, the children, wrote me a farewell letter, because they knew then that … I had sent the man from the forests to find out what’s going on … [“forests” could refer to a region, i.e. Transylvania in Hungarian is “Erdély” meaning “The Forests” - John] and afterwards, on the last day, they sent me this letter — that the children, he, his wife and my father say farewell to me. This is very important.
Wiesel turns to one of his crew near him and says in English: “This is a collective letter of farewell that the entire family wrote to him the day of the deportation, this is very important.”
This is very important.
Yes. From the content you’ll see – Exactly.
what kind of mood, sadness, they didn’t know what was going to happen … they were sitting on their luggage and waited for them to come … poor things … and then, well, the rest of it we already know … we didn’t know what would be desired to happen, or what will happen. I told all of this stuff to Militka in English. No one came back?
What? No one came back?
No one in the world. No one.
There would still be a lot more, but these are the most important. I am very happy for this because it would have been lost. This … it was left.
It is clear from this that Wiesel’s part in this conversation consists of very few words, spoken repetitively. Add to this the claim by Nikolaus Grüner that Wiesel declined to speak with him in Hungarian when they met in Stockholm in 1986, and other situations wherein Wiesel had the opportunity to show off his Hungarian but didn’t … and we have to assume that he is simply unable to speak it with any fluency.
What else can explain Elie Wiesel’s lack of understanding of the Hungarian language?
As I have written in earlier articles, Elie Wiesel did not like public secular school, but he loved Jewish religious school. As a youth, he often played sick and missed school. Yiddish was the common language spoken in the home and in the community. Wiesel learned Hebrew and devoted himself to the Talmud and other Jewish religious texts. He did not like Gentiles and avoided them; Hungarian was the language of the enemy. Later, at age 17 (or earlier?) he went to France and became a French speaker.
But why doesn’t he just say so? Why does he prefer to give people a false impression about himself? Is this just another aspect of his need to lie — to make up stories, to see that which didn’t happen as if it did happen, and that which did as not having happened? Is Elie Wiesel just an inveterate, or compulsive, liar?
“Holocaust survivors” are mostly people who tell lies. The late Senator Tom Lantos (below left) is a good example. It turns out that he and Elie Wiesel are the same age — both born in 1928, in February and September respectively, and according to their own accounts (no other confirmation) were arrested in Spring 1944 in the Jewish round-up in Hungary. Wiesel says he was sent to Auschwitz and got tattooed, along with his father. Lantos tells a different story.
Is there any reason to believe the story Tom Lantos tells of being a “holocaust survivor?”
Tom Lantos was born in 1928 (same year as Elie Wiesel) to a Jewish family living in Budapest. According to his Foundation biography, “as a teenager he was sent to a forced labor camp by the German Nazi occupant military. After escaping the labor camp, he sought refuge with an aunt who lived in a safe house operated by Raoul Wallenberg …”
In March 1944, [Lantos] was sent to a labor camp in Szob, a small village about 40 miles north of Budapest. He and his fellow inmates maintained a key bridge on the Budapest-Vienna rail line. Lantos escaped, was captured and beaten, then escaped a second time and returned to Budapest.
Do we know that Lantos was not paid for this labor – as so many were – but still “ran away” and returned to Budapest, where he met up with some form of resistance organization? No we don’t. No research has been done; no proof or records of any of this has been presented. It is simply accepted that Tom Lantos is a holocaust survivor and entitled to the sympathy and prestige that accompanies that status, plus payments for life from the “perpetrators.” His Foundation biography continues:
“After the Russians liberated Budapest in 1945, Tom tried to locate his mother and family members but came to realize that they had all perished …”
Tom was in Budapest all that time and didn’t try to locate his mother?! His story is that he was “able to move around freely due to his having blond hair and blue eyes, which to the Nazis were physical signs of Aryanism” … as if the German police were even in Budapest and, if they were, would be unaware that Jews could also have blond hair and blue eyes. “As a result, he acted as a courier for the underground movement and delivered food and medicine to Jews living in other safe houses.” Naturally, he is presented as a positive figure, similar to Max Hamburger.
There is nothing finally said about what befell his family members, yet Wikipedia states, without any source or reference whatsoever, that “his mother and other family members had all been killed by the Germans, along with 450,000 other Hungarian Jews during the preceding 10 months of their occupation.” Believable? The source of all this can only be Tom Lantos himself, who has already been outed (by Eric Hunt, for one, in his film “The Last Days of the Big Lie“) as a practiced liar in hearings about Iraq on Capitol Hill. But heck, we all know …
His experiences in the Holocaust and afterward were highlighted in the Academy Award winning documentary The Last Days (1998) produced by Steven Spielberg‘s Shoah Foundation.
Some things we can learn from all this:
Sixteen-year-old boys in Hungary were just as likely to be sent directly to nearby labor camps, and not to Auschwitz, in which case they would NOT have been tattooed with an Auschwitz camp number. This could explain something about Elie Wiesel.
It was not too difficult in 1944 to escape custody and join the “resistance” without being discovered, especially if you had close relatives who had managed to avoid deportation.
These 16-year-olds had fathers, mothers and siblings that were also capable of work, but supposedly were not sent to labor camps as Tom Lantos was, but for some unexplainable reason to Auschwitz to be killed. In any case, it is always said that none survived.
Have you ever wondered that? I sure have. If this website Elie Wiesel Cons The World is telling lies about him, it would be the natural thing to do. In the same vein, if Elie Wiesel has the number A7713 tattooed on his arm, as he says he does, it would be very easy to show it to the world and put me out of business. It is inexplicable that he doesn’t do it if he could. The only logical conclusion to reach is that he can’t … because he doesn’t.
Not only does Elie Wiesel not sue me, he doesn’t go after Nikolaus Grüner either, who called him a liar before I did. Grüner did try to sue Elie Wiesel, though, but was prevented from doing so by the courts and legal systems that protect Wiesel according to Zionist orders.
I’m told the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum closely follows this blog. I have said many negative things about the museum, too. For instance, that it is a criminal conspiracy to defraud the American people — certainly to defraud the American taxpayers out of fifty or so million dollars a year. I have accused the USHMM of blatant lying, of perpetuating false information even after it knows it is false, of creating an atmosphere of hate against anyone Jews don’t like. And, yes, of being totally run by Jews for Jewish interests — not the interests of history — very similar to the OSI (Office of Special Investigations) in it’s disreputable and downright illegal tactics.
Elie Wiesel and the USHMM – a mutually beneficial relationship
I have previously written about the symbiotic connection between Elie Wiesel and the national holocaust museum he was instrumental in creating in this country – the USA. Built in Washington D.C. on federal ground amidst the national monuments to American history, this parasitical monstrosity pretends to be something that helps to insure the American idea of freedom and democratic principles around the world!
A faithful reader recently wrote to me:
Did you know the USHMM was closely following your blog?
Two weeks ago, I landed on the Oral History site; I did not intend to watch the VDO, but scrolling down the page, saw there was a clickable link to the transcript of the interview in .doc or .pdf format. That’s quite handy and I downloaded a couple every day till the 26th, when I posted my comment [here at EWCTW] with a link to their site on one of the rare pages without a clickable link. Guess what? – on the evening of the very same day each and every link had been disabled.
Well these testimonies have been recorded in the late 80s or early 90s, before the advent of the net and they believed they could get away with telling anything … (Bomba tells he dug a bunker in the ghetto for 50-60 people, loading it with food for 2 YEARS, apparently in a matter of days … to fifth-graders).
I am not surprised at that. I too see changes based on what is exposed on Elie Wiesel Cons The World. Just one example is Wiesel’s now more secret visits to Chapman University after I so effectively panned his first visit as a “Distinguished Presidential Fellow” in March 2011, based simply on what I read in the local and campus newspapers. We also had a fellow, Steve, pass out flyers at a Wiesel talk during that same visit. Since then, Wiesel’s visits and talks have been handled differently. In his 2012 visit to Chapman, there was no publicity and Wiesel only appeared to students in very private and secure settings. So far, there have been no announcements of his 2013 visit that I have seen.
So they react, but they are careful not to ever mention this web site or my name in any way. To object in any way about it or me would mean they would have to show, demonstrate, prove, provide evidence or give testimony that I am wrong. They know beforehand they cannot do that because they know they are the liars, not me. They depend on the news and entertainment media to keep the public believing they have noble aims.
I would have to say that Elie Wiesel and the USHMM are afraid to touch this web site because of the deep research I have done, to which they have no answers or rebuttal. Without the power of the media covering for them, and all branches of the U.S. government backing them, they would wither and die from their lack of credibility.
Their chosen method is to stay in generalities and avoid specifics
The powers that are behind Elie Wiesel and the USHMM know that they can only succeed by using generalizations like “hate,” “genocide,” “anti-Semitism,” “religious persecution,” “6 million,” etc. along with such vague “legal” language as “stirring up racial hatred” and “encouraging contempt for individuals or groups”. No legal system that has acquiesced to what the Jews want in the way of protections for themselves will allow for introduction of evidence that actually pertains to truth or falsehood of specific elements of the narrative.
Both Elie Wiesel and the USHMM make specific charges against those they call the perpetrators of evil, but they will never answer to the denial by said “perpetrators” that they committed these evils. Via the total postwar power assumed by the victors of World War II (those who brought about WWII in order to gain this power!), this question was never allowed consideration. Again, it was the media that did the job.
Legal Definition of libel
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others.
What I do here seems to fit that (apart from the word “untruth”), but there is no response from those who are so targeted. Of course, my intention is to discover and to tell the truth, not to slander. The only complaints I get are a few comments, and once in awhile an email, from ardent fans of Elie who chastise me for being insensitive to the man’s suffering — which to their illogic means to them he can have no reason to lie about it and would only tell the truth. (And if he doesn’t, well – that is excused on the same grounds.) To their thinking, Jewish suffering excuses all moral failings. These writers are mostly female and young, appearing as though they had looked up Elie Wiesel on the Internet, come upon this site and were shocked by it. Unfortunately, these young’uns would be the first to use the “chosen method” described above, that is, to judge harm done according to “selected” peoples’ feelings. That is the only way anyone will ever touch it.
Kent State President Lester Lefton said the university is expecting thousands of people from across the region to attend on April 11, 2013 when Elie Wiesel speaks as part of the “Presidential Speaker Series.”
The PSS is a project only in it’s second year that “seeks to bring high-profile, world-renowned experts to Kent State for serious, thought-provoking discussions and conversations,” according to the KSU website. But will there be discussion and conversation with Wiesel while he is there? I’m sure not, as Wiesel never takes any questions from an audience (or from anyone anywhere) since so many people have gotten wise to the big fraud he is perpetrating. Wiesel will be whisked in and whisked out through secret passageways with no chance for anyone to interact with him. Expect security to be very tight.
The speech will be given at Kent State’s main campus at 7 pm in the Memorial Athletic and Convocation Center(pictured right), which is located at 1025 Risman Drive, Kent, OH 44242. Detailed directions from all points can be found here. The center has a capacity for 6,327. Assuming an average of $10 per person, that could add up to $63,270. How much of that will Elie Wiesel get?
Wiesel charges a minimum of $25,000 per speech (as of a couple years ago), so those who go gaga over the man’s sentimental words, which are pretty much the same every time, should remember how much he’s being paid to utter them. If you think he ever does anything without getting the highest price the market will bear, you are just misled.
Fifteen hundred free tickets are available now to Kent State students (one ticket per student) on a first-come basis. After the first 1,500 free tickets are gone, Kent State students pay $10 for one ticket and the general admission price of $20 for any additional tickets. It costs $50 for preferred seating (where you can actually see the man). If you buy tickets for a group of 10 or more, the price goes down to $15 per ticket.
What draws Wiesel to Ohio?
It was April of last year, 2012, that Wiesel spoke at Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio. A little searching discovered it was sponsored by The Jewish Foundation of Cincinnati with their partners The American Jewish Committee, Cedar Village, Jewish Community Relations Council, The Jewish Federation of Cincinnati, Jewish Vocational Service and the Issac M. Wise Temple. In other words, it was an all-Jewish production.
There is undoubtedly a substantial Jewish community in Ohio that is active and well-organized. They provoke an artificial demand for Elie Wiesel, then much of the non-Jewish population is persuaded it’s a wonderful thing, too. Kent State is making every effort to build an increasingly multi-racial student population – it is evident from browsing through their website.
Is KSU President Lefton Jewish?
It is my opinion that Lester Lefton (left) looks Jewish. Neither on his Wikipedia page, nor on his official Kent State bio page was any religion or family background given – which is highly unusual for an academic and major university president. We’re only told:
Born in Brookline, Massachusetts, Lefton completed his bachelor’s in psychology from Northeastern University in Boston in 1969.
Lefton resides in Kent, Ohio with his wife, Linda. They have two grown daughters and three grandsons. Mrs. Lefton is an attorney who served as a state prosecutor in South Carolina and was an academic advisor for pre-law majors at George Washington and Tulane universities
News of a new partnership with Siauliai University brings Kent State’s total number of international connections to approximately 200. That number includes university partnerships, exchange programs, short-term study abroad arrangements and full semester study abroad programs.
This is just one of many indications of the direction President Lefton is taking Kent State. He has also been involved in scandal over his expense account charges to the university.
Between July 2006 and July 2007 Lefton expensed $36,741.93 on entertainment and $44,249.34 on travel. In a Sep 26, 2007 editorial in the Akron Beacon Journal Lefton was criticized for extensive travel to Europe, a portion of which was charged to the University, as well as hiring two additional vice presidents during a time when university tuition and fees increased for students.
Further controversy in 2007 included an agreement to pay $88,000 for a Vice President to pursue a doctorate at Case Western University. This came at a time when the university was raising student tuition and was of further concern because the same degree could be earned at Kent State University.
Unfortunately, links found in footnotes 28, 29 and 30 on Lefton’s Wikipedia page are no long viable; the stories have been removed. The power of Jewish media at work?
Do we have Ohio residents willing to protest Wiesel’s appearance?
If there were a large enough group (five or more) outside the Convocation Center, or at any good campus location in the week prior to Wiesel’s speech, it could be effective. Signs are sufficient; no need to hand out flyers, but some should be available for anyone who asks for it. Two items demand attention at this time:
What about the missing standing man in the Buchenwald Lie-beration Photo that Wiesel says he is in? We would like a comment from Wiesel on the photo in the article from the New York Times and the cover of Mel Mermelstein’s book that both show that photograph without the tall, naked man. And what about Mermelstein never mentioning Wiesel in his 1979 book about his internment at Auschwitz and Buchenwald when they were only 2 years apart in age and both were part of the Hungarian deportation in 1944?
Copying images from this website and getting blow-ups made to paste onto posters seems to me a doable thing. It’s best to start organizing now, contacting others you know in Ohio and especially the Kent, Ohio area. I know Ohio is well-populated with men and women who consider themselves part of the Truth Movement. Heck, even Gordon Duff lives in Ohio and he fashions himself on VT as some kind of “holocaust revisionist.” He should act the part and get out there and challenge Elie Wiesel’s version of history. And remember, you don’t have to be a “holocaust denier” to object to the false testimony of Elie Wiesel! Don’t let anyone get away with labeling you with that. Be brave, and spend some of your valuable time for the truth. This may be the last opportunity you’ll have to protest Elie Wiesel in person before death turns him into an eternal martyr and saint.
According to our esteemed correspondent Attila Kovacs, his reading of Mel Mermelstein’s survivor story reveals no mention of the famous Elie Wiesel, even though the book first came out in 1979 when Wiesel and his own story was already well-known among the general public.
The first edition[top photo right] was 264 pages, published by Crescent Books. In 1981, a second edition of the book [lower photo right] came out, following Mermelstein’s dispute in 1980 with the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) over his claimed proof that even a single Jew was gassed at Auschwitz.
The second edition of By Bread Alone was published by the “Auschwitz Study Foundation” and retains the same cover design, but with some new text added referring to the author’s successful lawsuit. It is expanded to 290 pages from 264 pages in the first edition – an increase of 26 pages to include the lawsuit story. The new cover texts reads:
who, in 1981, filed a lawsuit for 17 million and 50 thousand dollars against the Institute for Historical Review, a Torrance, California-based organization of revisionists and pseudohistorians who claim the Nazi Holocaust is nothing but a hoax, a Zionist plot.
The only other change is that the price that was printed in red on the lower tab on the right side has been removed.
How well-known was Elie Wiesel in 1979?
It was 1978 when Wiesel was appointed by President Jimmy Carter as chairman for the Presidential Commission on the Holocaust (later renamed US Holocaust Memorial Council), indicating that he was at that time a recognized ‘authority’ on all things ‘holocaust.’ In fact, Wiesel claims that it was he who coined the term ‘Holocaust’ for the Jewish ‘Shoah,’ even though he doesn’t like the term. Typical Wieselspeak. That a term I just coined!
In 1979, Wiesel’s 15th book was published, the title beingA Jew Today, a collection of essays, letters and diary entries weaving together all the periods of his life up until then. To put out a book such as that, one has to have a substantial following. Fifteen books by 1979! It is unimaginable that a Hungarian ‘survivor’ such as Mel Mermelstein would not be familiar with Elie Wiesel.
Attila Kovacs tells us what he discovered reading Mel’s book
In his own words he writes:
First, I must admit that reading the book the second time was somewhat of a struggle as there were so many confusing items, too many irrelevant, random photos, and the quality of the story left a lot to be desired from a strictly literary sense. The author jumps around as to his own identity as a Jew, (he is) a Hungarian Jew, a Czechoslovak, a Karpatho-Rus, and a Czech – to the point that I was confused as to what his main claim was as to nationality, mother tongue, ethnic origin.
But as to his being Hungarian, there is little doubt:
Lajos, his brother, Magda, his sister, and friends Joncsi (probably just a typo as Jancsi is a common Hungarian name), Pista, and Moric are all Hungarian names; in this regard, Etu may be Eti. His labor camp documents all say Ungarn, which is Hungarian in German. In addition, he refers to his hometown as Munkacs, which is Hungarian. It is telling in that the author did not use the Czech or Slovak spelling of Mukacevo or Mukaceve or the Ukrainian/Russian name of Mukacheve. Then on p. 17, he calls out to his father as ‘apu’ which is Hungarian for father.
As such, one has to assume that his mother tongue used in the home and in Munkacs and in the camps with other Hungarian Jews is Hungarian. In “Youtube” videos of life in the 1930′s in Munkacs, the Jewish schoolchildren singing, a large town center wedding, and street conversations of the Jews are practically all in Hungarian.
Since in Elie Wiesel’s own “Youtube” video of his return visit to his hometown of Sighet he is speaking Hungarian with the old town folk, it seems that Moric (Mel) and Elie would have a lot in common and would converse in Hungarian at Buchenwald.
Yes, you would certainly think so. But one can get the impression that Wiesel is unable to converse comfortably in Hungarian because he often refuses to speak it in public. As he did with Nikolas Grüner in Stockholm. However, you would know this better than I.
The only reference in the book to Elie Wiesel is on page x, prior to the Forward, where it [quotes] a statement made by Professor Elie Wiesel of Boston University. So, apparently the author knew of Professor Wiesel at the time he wrote the book.
There is a mention on p. 195 of “walked from one barracks (at Buchenwald) to another until I found Elijah, a frail bent youngster from Sighet.” There were a couple of other name mentions of Elijah, but nothing other than the name. So if this was indeed Elie Wiesel, one would think that the author would brag about this important Holocaust celebrity or their common roots, or their common experiences in the Munkacs-Sighet Jewish community, or about what they did together in Buchenwald especially with respect to the famous Buchenwald Liberation photo.
Yes, indeed. “Elijah” cannot be Elie Wiesel. For one thing, Wiesel was not frail and bent. The man he purports to be himself in the Famous Buchenwald Lie-beration Photo on Mel’s book cover is not frail looking at all. (Of course, I should hardly mention that since it’s been proven not to be Elie Wiesel.) But also, photos of Elie Wiesel in France from July-Sept. 1945 onward show a sturdy, vigorous, smiling lad with a head full of longish black hair. PLus Elijah was not an uncommon name amongst the Orthodox Hasidic sect of Hungarian Jews, and some from this sect were in the camp.
Does Mermelstein give many dates in his book? According to this source, he arrived at Buchenwald on or about February 10, 1945, he remained in the camp until it was liberated by American troops on April 11, 1945. That is only a 2-month stay. He was born on Sept. 25, 1926, making him exactly 2-years older than Elie Wiesel. He is now around 85. (recent photo of Mermelstein at left)
By the way, the liberation photo is only mentioned on p. 223. Less than one solitary page devoted to the cover picture which shows the author in the upper, most distant spot in the photo. Oh, well.
This confirms my theory in the previous article that 1) it did not mean as much to be in this picture prior to the identification of Elie Wiesel in it, and 2) Wiesel was not identified in it until 1983, after both editions of Mermelstein’s book had been issued. Even though Mel used the picture on the cover of both editions (without the standing man), it was probably only to prove that he was there and that it was as bad as he said it was. That the photo without the standing man was used on both editions also proves that it was not a mistake or an oversight; if it were it would have been corrected on the 2nd edition (unless, of course, this was a real low-budget operation and making a change on the cover was cost-prohibitive).
A can of worms has been opened here, there is no doubt about it.
What is most interesting is the disclaimer on page iv of the book, which I quote: “About the Characters in This Book – Though the characters in this story are real, I felt their names had to be changed to protect their privacy. I have not consulted with any of the survivors mentioned here, because I know how some might feel if the story of their part in the Holocaust were brought to them once again to be dealt with.”
Wow! Go figure then: why he would use his own name rather than a fictitious name; not want to fact check with known survivors; be concerned about privacy when others had written their own books (cannot recall how many in the photo have written their own books about Buchenwald and/or Auschwitz, etc.)
I don’t know of any book by anyone who was actually there; a lot of fraud is involved with this photo. But nevertheless, he certainly would not have changed the name of Elie Wiesel, since this man had already made his own experiences at Auschwitz and Buchenwald very well known. Mel could not speak of Elie Wiesel in Buchenwald because he never met or saw such a person there! Just like Nikolas (Myklos, Michael) Grüner, Mel Mermelstein was actually in Buchenwald (although he lies about what happened to his family and others) and thus his silence on Elie Wiesel completely refutes the testimony of Wiesel.
Nikolas Grüner and Morik Mermelstein are probably in the Buchenwald Lie-beration photo, but the fraud known as Elie Wiesel is not.
The author, Mr. Moric Mermelstein, does NOT mention or say anything about who (names or descriptions) was with him in the photo of barracks 56 on April 16th around noon.
Query: Whether or not an author in an iconic photo of yesteryear would not mention that in the old grainy middle school team photo the fact that Michael Jordan was in fact the scrawny, short but smiling kid at the end or row two sandwiched between the team water boy and a forgotten assistant coach?
Yes, Attila is so right. If such an “iconic” person were with you during a period of your life that you are writing about, and even in the same room — and a photograph existed that showed it — well, anyone would certainly mention it. There can be no doubt that Mr. Mermelstein’s book has given us more proof that Elie Wiesel is a con man. I don’t suppose Mel will be too proud of helping our revisionist cause, but so he has. Thanks Mel! You won a battle, but you’re losing the war.
The interview with psychiatrist Max Hamburger that appeared in the March 2012 Dutch magazine Aanspraak was translated into English for me by Hasso Castrup. Some things that Hamburger said are revealing of his overall honesty when it comes to his statements about “the Holocaust.” Being a “holocaust survivor” who appears in the famous photograph is, after all, his only claim to fame.
Max Hamburger in 2012 pointing to himself in the Famous Buchenwald Lie-beration Photo from 1945 (Source: Aanspraak magazine)
I’ve already reported in a previous article (scroll down to end) that his father was an Amsterdam diamond merchant, Hartog Hamburger, who died from a bizarre accident when Max was only four years old. His mother, a fashion designer, worked even harder after that and often left him with his grandparents. When Max was ten, his brother died of leukemia, leaving Max alone with his mother. This is quite a lot of trauma in the first ten years of life, which couldn’t help but leave a mark on his psyche.
He says his brother’s death is what inspired him to study medicine, beginning in 1938 when he was 18. But in 1942, further public education was denied to him because he was Jewish. His job with the Jewish Council (Judenrat) allowed him to remain immune to deportation to Westerbork by getting a special stamp on his Ausweis (ID). In the summer of 1942, he went to work as an intern at the New Israelite Hospital, where he learned that when the substance ‘Pyrifer’ is injected intravenously it will cause high fever similar to what one gets with malaria or typhoid. Hamburger began injecting this into the Jewish patients so they would be declared unfit for deportation.
This, of course, raised suspicion among the Germans and Hamburger says in June 1943 the New Israelite Hospital was raided, in order to be emptied. He and other medical personnel hid patients under laundry and in the morgue, and led seriously ill patients into hiding (?). He is proud to describe himself as part of the Resistance and says he was later awarded with a memorial cross because of it. He tells a story that describes how in August 1943 he once again escapes deportation, but I’m not repeating it because there is no way to assure it’s true.
Working with the Resistance
He then moved to the Jewish Handicapped (Asylum) at Weesperplein, where he and other doctors again tried to”save” as many patients as possible by declaring them ill with contagious diseases. He says at the Portuguese-Israelite Hospital people in mixed marriages were to be sterilized. Along with most of the staff, he refused to cooperate and went through a hidden door into a neighboring villa and went into hiding. He and his girlfriend were married by a rabbi; they were both fully into the Resistance now. His mother was also brought to where he was, but she quickly hid herself elsewhere.
He says that “shortly afterwards we were betrayed and arrested, interrogated and deported to Westerbork. My mother was also betrayed.” On Sunday, February 6, 1944, he saw her for the last time in the penal barracks at Westerbork. They fell into each other’s arms and cried. But then … “In Auschwitz I met a fellow radiologist who was deported together with her. He told me that my mother was gassed on March 6, 1944. I arrived there on February 10, 1944 (his 24th birthday, but he doesn’t mention it), but did not see her again.”
Since we know there were no gassings at Auschwitz – this is a dead giveaway that he’s telling a big lie, although he’s putting the lie in the mouth of an unnamed “fellow radiologist.” This is a trick that is used often by so-called witnesses and “survivors.” The so-called informant should always be named; if they can’t name the exact source of the information, they should not be believed.
At Auschwitz, he at first failed, then succeeded in becoming recognized as a doctor. He began on a work detail where he says he was “poorly dressed in the icy cold damp weather, the work meant a maximum survival of 3 months.” (We hear so often that the life expectancy was “3 months,” but why did most inmates not only live until liberation, but into old age after it? Hamburger himself is 93 years old – Feb.10, three days ago, was his birthday.) As a doctor, he supervised the cleaning of the barracks during the day, in the afternoon handed out soup, evenings he did lice control. What’s so hard about that? Yet he says that in April he developed a fever, and on May 1st managed to avoid the medical inspection (a strange story of ‘luck’) in order to be included in a transport of Hungarian “forced” laborers headed to Silesia. He says this “saved his life” (considering his 3 months were almost up, don’t you know).
According to this, Hamburger was at Auschwitz from Feb. 10 to May 1, 1944 – a little less than three months. This was the usual length of quarantine at Birkenau for those who were then sent to other camps as labor. During the 2 to 3-month quarantine period the inmates did not work, so I do think his account has quite a bit of invention in it so as to not sound like quarantine. His mother would also have been in quarantine and he would not have seen her there, being the men and women were strictly segregated into separate camps. This is the usual situation from which “survivors” claim their relatives were gassed, the information so often coming from a nameless fellow inmate; sometimes from a “sadistic guard.”
After Auschwitz, the story gets more confusing
The train took them to Gross Rosen, where an old factory was assigned as their hospital. He says “we” had to vaccinate everyone against typhus in February 1945. Their only hope were reports of advancing Russians and Americans, which they knew of because a fellow prisoner secretly listened to the radio. At the evacuation of the camp they had to walk in the snow to the Czech Republic. From there they were taken by train from Prague to Flossenbürg camp in Bavaria.
According to USHMM, Gross Rosen camp was evacuated in early February ’45 and “about 40,000” from the main camp and sub-camps had to march west. This is a lot of inoculation to be done in a few days. But more important, the 9-month period he spent at Gross Rosen between May 1944 and February 1945 is blank. May 1944 coincides with the time of the large Hungarian deportation to Auschwitz; Hamburger says he was with a Hungarian labor unit that had already been to Auschwitz and sent out from there. Would not the new arrivals also have been sent out from there in like manner? From here on, his narrative remains very sketchy, and is mostly made up of vague horror stories.
He says, “The camp guards were shooting prisoners who were their live targets in the white landscape. Daily there were death sentences and prisoners were hanged before our eyes.” Yet the prisoners were needed to work in the quarries and Messerschmitt factories … and they had been innoculated in February against typhus, no doubt at some expense. So why would they be wasted as target practice for the guards? This is when survivor stories become really unbelievable. At the beginning of March 1945, he says they were deported to Ohrdruf, a work camp of Buchenwald. “Here were bombproof underground factories for assembly of V-weapons. After underground explosions with dynamite, we were to remove the big stones from the corridors by small-gauge trains.” But he doesn’t stay there. “We had to walk for four days and nights 80 km (approx. 40 miles) through the snow to Buchenwald.” Although he says he was practically “in a coma,” he’s clear about the dates and distances.
“On 11 April 1945, Buchenwald was liberated by the American army. Five days after the liberation our well-known picture (was taken). I lie down there, fourth from the left. As I lay there someone advised me to go to the hospital, because I otherwise would not survive. “If they do not record you, you go ‘under the grass.’ When an American goes by and sees you lying, he makes sure that you get recorded. And so I went. With DDT powder I was lice free. The lice and I got U.S. baby food! For me THAT was liberation. During a night in the hospital, I knew: ‘If I fall asleep, I’ll never wake up and I won’t be able to testify to what happened to us.’ I fought that night to the utmost against sleep and thereby I survived.”
From the beginning of March to April 11, Hamburger has nothing to say except that he spent 4 days walking from Ordruf to Buchenwald and that he was in the photograph taken on April 16. He doesn’t give the date that he arrived at Buchenwald. What he tells can be picked up from any number of accounts of the time period. Can we believe he was even at Buchenwald? Why was he in that barracks #56? How long was he there? Why did “someone” have to tell him to go to the hospital 5 days after the Americans arrived? All very implausible since he was a medical professional.
But beyond all this is the fact that the figure he says is him is indeed a retouched copy of the figure in the row above, 3rd from the left. He doesn’t claim any relationship to that person, who has been identified (inaccurately) by Yad Vashem Museum as Yehuda Doron or Yaakov Marton. This famous photograph has been proved to be a composite photo created by a U.S. military intelligence department to be used in the ongoing propaganda war against Germany and Hitler’s Third Reich, so everything about it is suspect.
The rest of what Hamburger said in the interview does not apply to the questions I have. Again, my primary question is: When did Max Hamburger first say he was in that photograph? Like so many others, it was not at liberation, nor in the years following. In fact, there is no information that I have found as to when this did occur. Why? Because it must be recent – too recent.
In 1945, Max was 25. He wrote that he and the loyal wife he married when he was 22 were divorced sometime around or after 1957, and he is now with his third wife.
“For a long time I have been a psychiatrist and I have helped many war victims thanks to my own experiences. Until I could no longer afford to listen to them. Unfortunately I never found a psychiatrist who could help me. I regret that I was a bad partner in the previous marriages, but that’s because I was in the grip of the past I had lived through. I find it annoying when people make demands on me and I can get angry.”
I bet he could sure get angry with me! I am making demands on Max Hamburger to fill in the blanks in his “holocaust survivor” story. I don’t have any reason to doubt the early part of his story but, starting with his and his mother’s arrival at Auschwitz, there is much to question.
He is, from all appearances, a loyal Jew with the typical Jewish desire to avenge the “wrong” done to his people and the interruption and pain in his own personal life. Telling lies to accomplish this is not, therefore, a wrong in his eyes. A wrong for a wrong is, for Jews, a fair exchange … nothing to be ashamed of. This may even be how he counseled his patients.
Elie Wiesel at the United Nations in January 2005. This is the photo accompanying his gun control comments in the New York Daily News. If he looked this bad then, what does he look like now, 8 years later. Is that why we don’t see him any more?
If Massacre of 20 children in Newtown doesn’t bring gun control, what will? by Elie Wiesel
So reads the headline in the New York Daily News on Dec. 17, 2012 – just three days after the Sandy Hook, CT, shooting event. Okay, I’m pretty late in commenting on this Elie Wiesel story but I just now happened upon it. The Daily News is as Jewish as it gets for a “mainstream” paper and we know (or can see) that removing American’s constitutional gun rights is part of the Jewish agenda that it is promoting.
We can see that the Jewish Mafia that runs this country put their big gun Elie Wiesel on it from the get-go. Even though Wiesel’s byline is attached to this story (he’s a journalist, remember), I suspect the words have been partially scripted for him and he just adds his own flavor and style to them. The news story reads (my comments in blue):
Disbelief, horror, revolt: This is what we all felt when the news arrived. By its magnitude and cruelty, it surpassed everything else. We were not ready for it. Earlier tragedies should have immunized us. But they didn’t. Not to this violence, to this bloodshed. Oy vey, The Children!
A young man assassinates his mother with her own weapons. Then, he goes to an elementary school and murders 20 children, one after the other, firing more and more bullets into their small bodies. Just three days after the event, he is sure of this. The story was prepared ahead of time, and was given out almost one hour after the deed supposedly occurred. Wiesel, of course, doesn’t question any of it.
The need, the desire to understand is as strong as the pain itself. Wiesel’s trademark is ‘trying to comprehend the evil.’
Propaganda inserted here:
Today, the Daily News is launching a petition to call for the ban of assault weapons. To participate, print and send in the form at the bottom of this page, or SIGN ONLINE HERE.
Somehow, in spite of the lost lives that we read about in street fights, in poverty-stricken neighborhoods, in faraway war regions such as Syria and Afghanistan, we were unprepared to see this kind of evil in action. Since there is obvious evil everywhere by highly armed men, especially in Gaza, ,Elie has to help us to see that THIS is an even worse evil.It’s always about evil, and Elie is the one we can depend on to point it out to us.
What does it say about the world, the culture we live in, the ideas we cherish and the education we receive? Yes, what? He always asks the question; never gives the answer.
In the most passionate address of his life, President Obama spoke for all of us when he said that his heart was broken. So was ours. Oy vey. Other areas of our being were also affected. If the death of one child is a tragedy, the murder of 20 is a scandal of outrageous proportions. Oy vey!
Beliefs and certainties are to be reexamined, habits and values reevaluated. In the face of so much pain and mourning, we must not ignore the question: Where did society go wrong? What made humanity so frail, so blind? Where did education fail? What does such an outburst of anger say about our generation’s hopes and ideals? Oy vey! But where are the answers?
In other words: Is there anything we can learn from this event? That all murder is evil but that of children is seven times seven more? That the ease of acquiring a weapon is no longer acceptable. If this tragedy does not produce universal gun control, what can and what will? What else do we need for preventing further horrors such as this? Oy vey. Finally an answer: We should no longer be able to acquire weapons.That will do it.
And what do we know about the perpetrator? We know he didn’t finish college and struggled socially. But what did he do in his spare time? What books did he read? What music did he listen to? What was he dreaming about? What made him laugh or weep? Double Oy vey.
We must discover, to the extent possible, what his secret ambitions were. Why? We must remember: He was not a stranger from another planet.
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