Archive for the ‘Featured’ Category
Friday, July 15th, 2016
Enlarged close-up of Elie Wiesel’s arms in a 2006 photograph by Eyal Toueg, first published in Haaretz (see previous article).
by Carolyn Yeager
copyright 2016 Carolyn Yeager
It’s pretty pathetic to be confronted with a picture like the above, and expected to acknowledge that it is Elie Wiesel’s Auschwitz tattoo that I have been asking to see for six years now. Once again, the best suggestion I have for magnifying it is to click on it to get the image page, then hit the plus key up to 8 times while holding down the Ctrl key. The image stays sharp while being greatly enlarged. What do you see? I invite all the amateur, and maybe professional sleuths out there to do their thing.
Wiesel has been hiding this faded-out, so-far-undecipherable spot on his arm for 70 years, and now that he’s safely buried and completely inaccessible, Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper that broke the story of Wiesel’s death, is beginning to reveal that arm. At least, that’s how it looks from where I’m sitting.
To the naked eye, it appears to be a bruise on the arm. Upon magnification, we can barely make out what appear to be numbers, but it’s not at all clear what numbers they are. I see a couple but I’m not going to reveal what I think I see because I want a better image – and think we all deserve one. The dark and light lines made by his arm hair create a confused mess, visually. What we need are more high-resolution photographs like this one, preferably with a straight-on view of the arm. The photographer Eyal Toueg must have taken many shots on this day in 2006 and he would have all the negatives. It is his responsibility to publish them all, every one that shows Wiesel’s left arm, but he is probably Israeli and is under the dictate of higher ups. Someone else may have bought all the negatives. Maybe Haaretz owns them.
As it is, we are left with many questions – such as, why has Wiesel refused to show his supposed faded tattoo over the years? Is it because it’s unreadable? If he revealed it, the public would question it – or at least sceptics would – and he was not prepared to answer questions. Probably, if there were journalists who took a genuine unflinching investigative approach, he would have been forced to discuss it, but none did. The efforts of Jean Robin of Enquete & Debat website to encourage such an investigation show conclusively that lack of journalistic willingness.
Has it been kept hidden because it is not A-7713? Could that be why whatever was there has been defaced or somehow unnaturally/synthetically faded or smeared? I cannot find any example of an Auschwitz tattoo that looks like his does.
Is it because it is something he put on his arm himself when he was a youth in France? In this 1945 photograph taken at the French orphanage for Jewish boys we see what looks like an Auschwitz tattoo, albeit a tiny one, on Wiesel’s arm in the same place we see the dark spot in the 2006 photo.
Elie Wiesel in summer 1945 in France – 16 going on 17 years of age.
The ready conclusion is that it’s his Auschwitz tattoo A-7713. But we can’t make it out at all! It’s already faint in 1945 and when I magnify it, no part of it is recognizable.
It’s also interesting that this photograph was posted on the Internet by French Jew Loupi Smith, but it doesn’t seem to be in the US Holocaust Memorial Museum online collection (where it is hopeless to try to view their Wiesel photo collection, anyway; they obviously don’t want you to see it). Nor is it in the Yad Vashem photo collection under Elie Wiesel – in fact, they have only 3 photographs with Wiesel in them – all the rest are aerial views of Auschwitz-Birkenau! Really weird. I think this decision to withhold pictures of Wiesel can only have come from Wiesel himself. In my opinion, though, the above is definitely a photo of Elie Wiesel in 1945 in France.
Our next pictures are these two, which show the same mark on the arm in the same place, but both are still completely unreadable as numbers. I assume these pics are from the same 2006 photo shoot that produced our newest picture, which is a much better high-resolution image. We can see sharp detail, but the “tattoo” is still not decipherable. It’s a really bad “tattoo!” The problem does seem to be with the “tattoo,” not the photograph. It is just very faint.
When this 2006 image is magnified, the possible “tattoo” is seen only as a darker spot, not recognizable as a number.
This image was also uploaded by Loupi Smith, but where did he get it? It’s obviously from the same 2006 photo shoot by Eyal Toueg.
Now take a look at this man’s equally hairy arm below– he is Erwin Farkas who was transported to Auschwitz from Hungary in 1944 at the age of 14. His number, A-7899, is only 186 digits beyond A-7713 – they are in the same time frame. His tattoo is faded and a little blurred, but still legible. There is no discoloration of the surrounding skin and the numbers are definitely blue. In fact, all the tattoos that one sees on the Internet are in this good of shape or better (many are fake though).
Erwin Farkas displays the Auschwitz tattoo A-7899 on his arm.
What happened to Wiesel’s that it is almost impossible to see? Only Wiesel could answer that – or would – so it’s clear that he didn’t want to since he didn’t let the higher quality picture at the top of this page be published during his lifetime.
In the “court of public opinion” and morally, if not legally … there is no excuse for Elie Wiesel to have been treated as he was by journalists and by historians. He had a duty to show the tattoo he said was on his arm and allow it to be photographed. He had a moral duty to prove that it was what he said it was—A-7713. His failure to do that over the course of many years makes him, and the mainstream media that enabled him, guilty of worse than negligence … they are guilty of “withholding evidence.” The media and academics are more guilty than Wiesel himself because Wiesel has to be given the right not to incriminate himself.
But morally, Wiesel is guilty of withholding evidence that was available all the time.
Above, I used the words “higher quality” but if all these pictures of Wiesel in the white knit short-sleeve shirt were taken on the same day by a professional photographer (which it makes sense that they were) then they should all be of similar high quality. And since we can’t make out the numbers on any of the three, it can only be that it’s the fault of the “tattoo,” not the photography.
I don’t believe this latest-to-be-revealed photograph from 2006 is photo-shop in any way. I do believe this is what Wiesel has on his arm, which he always claimed was A-7713. If it turns out to be A-7713, I won’t be upset in the least because all I’ve ever wanted was the truth about Elie Wiesel. But there will be questions and I will have a very hard time reconciling myself to the idea that the SS camp authorities could have made up a registration card for a 15 year old boy with the information that he was a 31-year-old man with the occupation of Schlosserlehring (Locksmith) – and never correcting it – allowing this boy to enter Buchenwald with that identification. No, it would be very hard to believe that.
The Buchenwald file card that shows Lazar Wiesel, born Sept. 4, 1913 (age 32), occupation locksmith, A-B prisoner number A-7713, arrived in a transport that left Auschwitz on Jan. 26, 1945.
So I can only hope that more of these photos by Eyal Toueg will be published. Because as it stands now, Elie Wiesel’s tattoo claims still don’t pass the most elementary test – that of what the heck is the number!
Category Featured | Tags: Tags: Auschwitz tattoos, Elie Wiesel, Erwin Farkas, Lazar Wiesel,
Social Networks: Facebook, Twitter, Google Bookmarks, del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg, Reddit, Posterous.
Saturday, July 9th, 2016
BY CAROLYN YEAGER
copyright Carolyn Yeager 2016
Though they say a picture is worth a thousand words, these two need some explanation. One is from 1987, the other from 2006. Since the more recent one will arouse much more attention, I better start with that.
This 2006 photograph taken by Eyal Toueg, displayed in a July 9th “Premium” article by Shlomo Nakdimon at Haaretz, has been cropped by me to remove some of the dark space to the right … the better to see the important details. This may be the first time it has been published.
You will notice right away that there is a smudge on Wiesel’s left forearm, precisely where an Auschwitz tattoo would be. Many people will say, Oh, that’s his very, very faded and blurred tattoo. But it looks more like a bruise, and, by using your keyboard to enlarge the image while retaining a clear resolution, you’ll find, as I did, that it then looks even more like a bruise the larger you go. Plus there seems to be more bruise just above it where his right arm meets his left.
[To enlarge the image, first click on it to get the full size image, then hold down the Ctrl key while clicking the plus (+) key as many times as you can or want. To bring it back to normal, do the same with the minus (-) key. Both keys are on the upper right next to “backspace”]
This photograph has to be from the same photo session that includes the one where he’s sitting with the oversize Hebrew book — he’s wearing the same white knit golf shirt and his hair is the same. That one has been used by Wiesel defenders to suggest there is a faint tattoo on his arm. You can see it here and here.
However, this kind of thing is the typical Wiesel mode of operation throughout his life. He refuses to be explicit about his person and his personal life, even though he gets very explicit about things like the “shades of wateriness of the soup” and the face of the boy he wrote was hanged in Auschwitz. But his own body–which can be checked–he offers not a word of description. And looking at this blue-black discoloration, I can see nothing—even with using all my imagination—that I could imagine to be a 7713. I know you can’t either, but you might try to come up with some theory about it. I have my own theory, that Wiesel pinched himself real hard the day before the photographer came.
In 2006 he was 77 years old, an age when it’s extremely easy to bruise the skin. And that’s what it looks like. Recall the tattoos of so many other inmates from his same time there — none look like this.
But I have a second theory, which might be better — that Wiesel had applied his own tattoo number with ink but he didn’t go deep enough. It was only applied to the dermis (outer layer of skin), not the epidermis, and so it disappeared over time as new skin cells grew until now it is just a smudge of dispersed ink. Remember the top photo on this page that doesn’t look like a real tattoo — this may be when he did it.
Now, the other picture indicts him even more. He is in Lyon, France for the Klaus Barbie show trial and stops by the Holocaust Memorial there on June 2, 1987. He just won the Nobel Peace Prize 6 months earlier, and this Buchenwald liberation photo was associated with him winning that prize. You recall right after the ceremony he traveled to Yad Vashem in Jerusalem and posed in front of a large blow-up of this very photograph.
Elie Wiesel, winner of the 1986 Nobel Peace prize, visits the Holocaust Memorial in Lyon, France, June 2, 1987. The photo on the wall shows prisoners of the German Buchenwald concentration camp inside their barracks, five days after U.S troops took over the camp near Weimar, Germany. Wiesel points to himself in the picture. (AP Photo/Laurent Rebours)
Notice that Michael Grüner on the bottom row was cropped out of this version, along with the tall standing man, but there is Mel Mermelstein peeking out from the upper far right. Mel wrote a whole book about his incarceration before Wiesel said in 1983 that he was in this picture, but Mel never mentioned knowing the already famous Elie Wiesel there in his book! Mermelstein resided in the children’s barrack, too.
In this photograph, the unkempt Wiesel is sealing his doom by pointing directly to the unknown person (not him) he is claiming to be himself. And with such a guilty expression, too! Nothing could prove his dishonesty and forgery better than this.
I came upon this picture in the Time magazine Elie Wiesel photo collection posted at the time of his death. When I saw this one I quickly saved it. This might be my all-time favorite picture of the Wiesel. I will surely make more use of it.
Category Featured | Tags: Tags: Auschwitz tattoos, Elie Wiesel, famous Buchenwald photo,
Social Networks: Facebook, Twitter, Google Bookmarks, del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg, Reddit, Posterous.
Thursday, July 7th, 2016
1986 Nobel Peace prize winner and writer Elie Wiesel (L) stands in front of a photo he claimed to be himself (bottom right hand corner) with other inmates, taken at the Buchenwald concentration camp in 1945, during his post-Nobel visit on December 18, 1986 to the Holocaust Memorial Center “Yad Vashem” in Jerusalem. SVEN NACKSTRAND/AFP/Getty Images)
BY CAROLYN YEAGER
The French website Enquete & Debat (E&D) has been on to Elie Wiesel’s failure to answer questions about his “missing” tattoo since 2012. The Jewish or part-Jewish chief of E&D is Jean Robin, and he is the one who has taken it upon himself, the past four years, to investigate what he calls the Elie Wiesel Affair. Robin has explained his position in this way: “I am also interested in these matters since a part of my jewish family on my mothers side died in Auschwitz, and a great grand father on my father side, Noël Robin, was deported to Buchenwald and died in Dora for resisting the nazis.” [For being active in the French Resistance, he means, just like Paul Rassinier who later turned into a revisionist. -cy]
Elie Wiesel Cons The World premiered on July 13, 2010. Enquete & Debat was established on June 18, 2010, but did not turn its attention to Elie Wiesel until Dec. 24, 2012, two and one-half years later. The first article based it’s information on Nicholas Grüner’s book Stolen Identity, Robin said. He wrote in that first article that they learned about Grüner from the American ‘Brother Nathanael’ (via Alain Sorel, the French négationniste), but Nathanael got most of his information from Elie Wiesel Cons The World. E&D has used an image that was created especially for EWCTW, so I know he is a follower of this site. Robin is careful not to give attention to it, though; he called me an “authentic nazi.”
M. Robin has done a beneficial service, which is much appreciated, by writing and phoning archivists at the Auschwitz-Birkenau state Museum in Oświęcim, Poland and the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity in Romania, seeking information about Wiesel’s missing tattoo. The head person at the latter premises hung up on him when she learned the object of his call. He has made all of this public.
Unlike me, Jean Robin appears to be truly heartbroken over what he has discovered. He believes in the six million! He has written that he and Nicholas Grüner have repeatedly contacted news media and important figures within the Holocaust establishment with their information, imploring them to publicly question Wiesel, but got only insults or wishy-washy excuses in return. He believes that Wiesel’s forgery damages the Shoah story, and cannot understand why Wiesel is more important to these people than the entire Shoah. I don’t think he suspects, as I believe, that many of them already know the entire ‘Holocaust’ is a lie, but keep it up for the political power it gives them, or fear of that power. In his statement on Wiesel’s death, you can notice a tinge of bitterness mixed with the disappointment.
Elie Wiesel died before he confessed his lies about the Holocaust
Elie Wiesel, who lied about his identity, his Auschwitz tattoo that he does not have, and his imaginary detention in Buchenwald, as we have shown, has died. All media will praise a forger of history, whose lies have allowed deniers to create doubt about the Holocaust itself.
On this occasion, we have linked to all the articles we devoted to this infamous character [nine in all -cy], who is an enemy of the Jewish people and of Israel by his lies, his glory totally undeserved.
In my first article of 24 December 2012 [English version here], I wrote: “I am calling on the Jewish community throughout the world, personalities who are concerned about the Holocaust and the future of its memory, as well as major media to take responsibility and compel [Elie Wiesel] to answer the serious questions raised about him. This must be done while MM. Wiesel and Grüner, the two persons mainly concerned in this case, are by chance still alive, but unfortunately won’t be much longer because of their age (they are both over 80 years).” Alas, it is now too late, nobody took responsibility for Mr. Wiesel.
M. Robin understands, because he uses logic and reasoning, not emotion and fear, that there is no redeeming the Shoah witness Elie Wiesel now. He has died a liar. As the icon’s friends pass away too, will there be anyone to defend him? The United States Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. must be very undecided as to how to handle their founding chairman from here on. There is no doubt he did not have the tattoo on his arm – never had it. There is also no doubt that the “important Holocaust figures” — what I’ve been calling the Holocaust Lobby, were unwilling to allow the question to be asked — indeed, and in fact, they joined in the lying (such as claiming Wiesel to be in the famous Buchenwald liberation photo) to help him get a Nobel Peace Prize. The top media liar would be the New York Times, followed by the Associated Press (AP), NBC and PBS, but all the rest went along too. While M. Robin will not consider the Holocaust-Shoah to be a hoax, he knows that “l’affaire Wiesel” is a hoax and that puts everyone who went along with it into question, whether he wants that or not.
Category Featured | Tags: Tags: Auschwitz tattoos, Elie Wiesel Cons The World, Enquete & Debat, Jean Robin, New York Times, Nicholas Gruner, USHMM,
Social Networks: Facebook, Twitter, Google Bookmarks, del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg, Reddit, Posterous.
Tuesday, July 5th, 2016
By David Blomstrom
July 2, 2016 marked the death of Elie Wiesel, who was probably second only to Anne Frank as the name most associated with the Holocaust. The timing was a little eerie, because I was hard at work on my series Jews 101 when I learned of Wiesel’s passing. It gets weirder still because another famous Holocaust survivor is currently making headlines — the famous Nazi-hunter, Simon Wiesenthal.
Wiesenthal died several years ago, but the city of New York recently cut off its “spigot of funds” to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which is at the center of some huge scandal, like most Jewish “charities.” Speaking of corruption, did you know about Elie Wiesel’s connections to Bernie Madoff, who could be called the Elie Wiesel of fraud?
It all started with one of Elie Wiesel’s scams, the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, which he established in 1988. Like a number of other well-known Jewish “charities,” the Foundation was easy pickings for Uncle Bernie, the financier who was arrested in late 2008 and accused of running a $50 billion Ponzi scheme. Wiesel said he ended up losing $15.2 million in foundation funds, along with his and his wife’s own personal investments. He probably hated Bernie Madoff more than anyone except Adolf Hitler. The irony is that Hitler would have taken care of Madoff if he was still alive.
You see, Wiesel, Wiesenthal and Madoff are all Jews, and Madoff isn’t necessarily the worst of the three. Wiesel and Wiesenthal are both widely regarded as liars, and that’s just the beginning.
Wiesel and Wiesenthal both claimed to have spent time in Nazi concentration camps, and both milked their misadventures for all they were worth. Ironically, some people suspect that neither one ever set foot in a concentration camp. Indeed, Wiesel is perhaps the most popular poster boy for the Holohoax camp. Others believe there was a Holocaust of sorts and Wiesel and Wiesenthal really were caught up in it, but they greatly exaggerated the horrors they witnessed.
As I researched Elie Wiesel, I discovered a story so remarkable I’m amazed Hollywood never turned Wiesel into a movie star. The story is complex, too; Wiesel was a man who could be loved or hated, depending on one’s perspective.
So I decided to write two eulogies for Wiesel. The first is written from the perspective of an anti-Zionist or an anti-Jewarchist who hates Jewish corruption in general. The anti-Jewish/NeoNazi crowd will enjoy it, too. The second is written for the Elie Wiesel fan club, which includes people involved with the Holocaust Industry as well as Microsoft shareholders and the Andy Warhol cult.
1. The Bill Gates of Holohoaxers
Just for argument’s sake, suppose Wiesel wrote and spoke the truth, and the Germans who gave us the Holocaust were just as evil as he claimed. Suppose they were as twisted as Obama, who flaunts his Nobel Peace Prize even as he slaughters innocent people with unmanned drones and continues callously torturing people. I would still despise Elie Wiesel (who was also awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986). Why?
Elie Gates, meet Bill Wiesel
However, a better comparison would be Elie Wiesel and Bill Gates. Combine Woody Allen’s forlorn face with Bill Gates’ famously untamed hair, and you might have an Elie Wiesel lookalike. But beauty is more than skin deep.
Like Bill Gates, Elie Wiesel was a con man. Like Gates he claimed to care about humanity while really advancing his personal agenda. Wiesel even attended the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, an event perhaps most closely associated with Bill Gates.
Oprah Winfrey, too!
Another person I’d like to weave into this story, just for the Hell of it, is Oprah Winfrey. Like Wiesel, she’s a media whore, though the similarities pretty much end there.
Oprah once declared that anyone who criticizes Obama must be racist, just as people who criticize Israel are racist. Obama, who has all but transformed into a Jew himself, showed his appreciation by giving Oprah the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Next thing you know, Oprah will follow Obama’s lead and start wearing one of those stupid Jewish prayer caps.
On second thought, Oprah does resemble Elie Wiesel in another important respect; she exploits child abuse the way the Weasel exploits the Holocaust. Which isn’t to say Oprah wasn’t really a victim of child abuse. Who knows?
Oprah once accompanied Wiesel to Germany, where they toured the concentration camps Wiesel once called home. Maybe some day she’ll visit Gaza.
The Arm Mystery
Elie Wiesel may have a secret in common with former Seattle Mayor Norm Rice. Rice was allegedly shot by his wife after she caught him in bed with another lover (a man). I always wondered why Rice didn’t shut critics up by just rolling up his sleeve and showing them a scar-less arm.
Similarly, Wiesel claimed the Nazis tattooed A-7713 on his left arm, but some critics claim he lied. The world’s most famous tattoo can’t even be seen in photos of Elie wearing short-sleeved shirts.
The Two Faces of Elie Wiesel
Wiesel did his part to prevent Iran from making nuclear weapons, though he apparently had nothing to say about Israel’s illegal nuclear arsenal. The Times (London) refused to run his ad condemning Hamas for the “use of children as human shields” during the 2014 Israel-Gaza massacre (when Israeli storm troopers killed a helluva lot of children, shields or not). He also declared that “Jerusalem is above politics . . . it belongs to the Jewish people.” Screw the genuine Semites who have lived there for centuries.
Elie Wiesel blasted Fidel Castro, ranting about political prisoners, yet never missed a chance to be photographed with Obama, who’s still torturing people on some island in the Caribbean…could it be Cuba?
No hypocrisy there! And for good measure, Elie hammed it up with George W. Bush, too. Indeed, he supported George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq as a necessary moral act.
I’ll shed no tears for Elie Wiesel, who was obvious a RACIST LIAR AND HYPOCRITE. More at governor5.com/Statement on Elie Wiesel
Category Featured | Tags: Tags: Bernie Madoff, David Blomstrom, Elie Wiesel, Simon Wiesenthal,
Social Networks: Facebook, Twitter, Google Bookmarks, del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg, Reddit, Posterous.
Sunday, July 3rd, 2016
Outside the Orthodox 5th Avenue Synagogue on July 3, 2016, Wiesel’s coffin is placed into the back of the hearse. Wiesel died in New York on July 2nd at age 87. KENA BETANCUR/AFP/Getty Images
Elie Wiesel is already in the ground. Seems so fast, but is in keeping with the Jewish tradition of burying a person with expediency, according to the New York Times.
A hearse was seen outside the Orthodox Jewish synagogue and mourners were arriving around 10 a.m. Among them was former national director of the Anti-Defamation League Abraham Foxman, as reported by CBS.
From the NYTimes –
The funeral was a gathering of his family and close friends, held on Sunday at a synagogue on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. Inside the Orthodox Fifth Avenue Synagogue, about 100 people attended the ceremony. In a wheelchair, his widow, Marion, listened as Mr. Wiesel was eulogized by his son Elisha, a partner at Goldman Sachs. A young grandson, Elijah, also spoke about his grandfather. In attendance was Sheila Johnson Robbins, a member of the board of the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity.
Around noon, the coffin with Mr. Wiesel’s body was wheeled from the synagogue surrounded by a dozen mourners, a simple pine box that is customary in Jewish funerals, a blue velvet cloth draped over it. Later that day, he was interred at Sharon Gardens cemetery, in the Westchester County town of Valhalla. At the burial in Valhalla on Sunday afternoon, family members and friends shoveled dirt onto the coffin, as is Jewish tradition.
Here you can see the unadorned pine wood box with blue velvet covering that holds Wiesel’s remains as it is placed into a waiting hearse outside the Fifth Avenue Synagogue on July 3, 2016 in New York. KENA BETANCUR/AFP/Getty Images)
From the New York Daily News –
Inside the small sanctuary, Wiesel’s son struggled with his father’s death.
“I thought I was ready for this,” he said. “I thought I prepared myself. But I wasn’t ready. The newspapers were ready.”
Unlike his father, Shlomo Elisha Wiesel said he was not a man of faith.
“My father questioned God’s decisions,” he said. “I questioned his existence.”
“So can someone please help me? How is my father right now sending me his love while he’s no longer alive?” he asked as tears rolled down his face.
“Like Moses, my father did not want to die,” his son added. “He wanted to walk farther with all of us into the new century. But he took comfort in knowing a new generation would move forward his work.”
From People Magazine –
Also at the funeral, Wiesel’s son Elisha, a partner at Goldman Sachs, spoke about his father’s compassionate character to help others.
“My father raised his voice to presidents and prime ministers when he felt issues on the world stage demanded action. But those who knew him in private life had the pleasure of experiencing a gentle and devout man who was always interested in others, and whose quiet voice moved them to better themselves,” he said in a statement.
“I will hear that voice for the rest of my life, and hope and pray that I will continue to earn the unconditional love and trust he always showed me.”
A private gathering of about 100 family members and friends come at short notice to mourn Elie Wiesel’s passing inside the Orthodox 5th Avenue Synagogue Sunday morning. [photo courtesy People magazine]
Strangely, during the funeral, a man walking in Central Park, which is close by the synagogue, stepped on a device on the ground that exploded and blew up his foot! You can read about it here. He is now said to be a tourist.
Saturday, July 2nd, 2016
Elie Wiesel receives a standing ovation during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Congress speech, March 3, 2015. To the left, his wife Marion, far left, lawyer Alan Dershowitz. AFP photo
Haaretz announced that Elie Wiesel died today, Saturday, July 2 at the age of 87. Saturday is the Jewish Sabbath when Orthodox Jews are prohibited from any kind of work. The article did not give any indication of how, why, where but is a long history of his life and “achievements.”
His death was announced by a spokesman for Israel’s Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem on Saturday. “Yad Vashem mourns the passing of Elie Wiesel-Holocaust survivor, Nobel laureate, renowned author,” the museum said on Twitter.
The New York Times writes that Wiesel “died at his home in Manhattan” and that “Menachem Rosensaft, a longtime friend and the founding chairman of the International Network of Children of Jewish Survivors, confirmed the death in a phone call.”
NBC News wrote:
Tributes for Wiesel immediately started pouring in Saturday, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calling him a “beacon of light to the humanity of people who believed in the good of everyone.”
The World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder said in a statement that Wiesel “was more than a revered writer. He was also a teacher for many of us. He taught us about the horrors of Auschwitz. He taught us about Judaism, about Israel, and about not being silent in the face of injustice.”
Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat, who a few months ago gave Wiesel the medal of Honorary Citizen of Jerusalem, said of the author: “Instead of giving in to despair, the face of evil and cruelty that at the time was the darkest of humanity, he carried all the way through the message of tolerance and peace for all peoples of the world.”
And on and on it will continue.
My question is: Will he be buried in Israel? We will know fairly soon.
Thursday, June 30th, 2016
Joseph Hirt in front of a projected image of the Auschwitz Museum as part of his multimedia presentation at a Pennsylvania school. He visited Auschwitz as a tourist, but falsely claimed to have been a prisoner there in 1942, bravely escaping after 8 months.
By Carolyn Yeager
Preface to Part 2 –
Andrew Reid is only a middle-school history teacher, yet he recognized that some things Joseph Hirt was saying in his multi-media lecture didn’t tally historically, and also logically. During Hirt’s long tenure of speaking in schools (in many cases the same school, same teacher, to new students each year), no other teacher or administrator, or parent or member of the audience, ever questioned what Hirt said. That is surprising, and reveals an unhealthy unwillingness to think critically about the “received truth” of the Holocaust. It has come to be treated as a religion, but is defined as a historical event. This will be discussed further in Part 2.
Joseph Hirt’s letter of apology goes on to recount how the writings of Primo Levi changed his idea of the kind of book he wanted to write – no longer only his own experience as a survivor (which he could hardly do now anyway), but something “in a more explanatory mode, exploring Nazi doctrines and their origins, how they were affected by Social Darwinism …”
In this regard, it’s important to know that Primo Levi spent 9 months in the Soviet Union after he left Auschwitz. He was in a Soviet camp for former concentration camp inmates … wonder what was taking place there? Without a doubt he was being trained for the work he was expected to do, he was willing to do, and he did do: writing and speaking about his Auschwitz experience as one of living in a dehumanizing murder factory. When he returned to Turin, Italy in October 1945, he immediately began writing. What he wrote was a perversion of the actual conditions he experienced, and of the attitudes of guards and co-workers. Yes, Levi functioned as an agent of the Soviet Union, an agent for spreading communism and destroying nationalism. And Joseph Hirt takes his beliefs about Auschwitz directly from Primo Levi.
Hirt’s injunction to everyone to “keep the truth and the memory of the Holocaust always in your heart and mind” is similar to a statement by Primo Levi: “It is the duty of everyone to meditate on what happened. Everybody must know, or remember …”
Levi’s first book may be the first holocost surliever story to be published after the war (1947), and became a model for others to follow. Certainly Elie Wiesel would have read it and got many ideas from it. But Levi never spoke of “gas chambers” except as rumors that he was questioning. And then only one was imagined. That had to be because the atmosphere they were living in didn’t suggest Germans would do such a thing–that foul lie took awhile to gain momentum, to get people to believe it. In 1976, 29 years later, an appendix appeared in If This Be a Man describing the “gas chambers” (plural) that he did not mention previously.
“The gas chambers were in effect camouflaged as shower rooms with plumbing, faucets, dressing rooms, clothes hooks, benches, etc.” (page 198)
Sounds ridiculous now, when we know they were shower rooms. As an advanced graduate in chemistry, Levi had to know it then, but it was more important that he update his best-selling book to make sure it included the latest official position on “gas chambers.” We can also read in The New Republic Levi’s diabolical comparison of “German” to “Soviet” camps.
“The German camps had the monstrous goal of erasing entire peoples and cultures from the world.”
“Gas chambers and crematories were deliberately planned to destroy lives and human bodies on a scale of millions. The appalling record belongs to Auschwitz, with 24,000 dead in a single day, in August 1944.”
They were fighting a brutal war, fighting for their life, so really didn’t have the luxury to devote the resources required to exterminate 24,000 people in a day. Pray tell, how was it done? We’ve yet to learn that. Stalin, on the other hand, was in a different class.
“The Soviet camps were not and are not, certainly, pleasant places, but in them the death of the prisoners was not—even in the darkest years of Stalinism—expressly sought. It was a very frequent occurrence, and it was tolerated with brutal indifference, but basically it was not expressly intended. It was a by-product, rather, of hunger, cold, infections, hard labor.”
Get it? This is Soviet-Stalin-Communist apologetics. And this is who Joseph Hirt admires and relates to most of all. He doesn’t mention Elie Wiesel or any other well-known surlievors, just Primo Levi. His attitude toward the Germans is just as fiercely hostile as is Levi’s.
We suffered fear …
Do you see the guarded expression on this face, the look of someone who is in the grip of an addiction and fears to be confronted with it.
The apology letter then moves to the ‘dangers’ his family was exposed to during the war years, seeking safe places to settle. He says their “first plan for departure” was from Belgrade, completely ignoring the town he was born and lived in — Horodenka, Poland — now Ukraine. His family didn’t leave there until 1939, just before the Germans invaded. This lapse seems to be part of Hirt’s general tendency to want to prevent knowledge of his past, since he is playing a role.
One thing he has not yet “come clean” on is his age. His family members reported he was born in 1930 in Horodenka, and this is reinforced in the Congressional Record of the refugees interned at Fort Ontario. The book Haven by Ruth Gruber lists all the refugees and their birth dates in an appendix. The father, Artur Hirt, was a judge in Poland and is mentioned in 6 places in the book. He would have given the correct vital statistics about his family, which means Joseph Hirt, born in 1930, is 86 years old today. However, he’s still reporting himself to be 91. In a June 29th update, Hirt’s wife, Dot, spoke to the reporter on his behalf and addressed this issue:
Dot said her husband was born in 1925, although his “replacement wartime” papers said 1930. Asked if she thought it was a clerical error, Dot said she wasn’t sure, but that Joseph was not responsible.
“The information from the nephew who knows nothing about this was assumed to be correct. Some of it was not,” Dot said.
Clearly, Dot is an enabler for her husband. Joseph Hirt being born in 1930, makes him only 9 years old when the family left Poland, and only 14 when they arrived in the United States. That is too young for his tale of being taken to Auschwitz in 1942 and made a forced laborer. That’s why he changed his birth date to 1925, making himself age 17 (instead of 12) in 1942.
Dot did not accept what Andrew Reid found out about her husbands tattoo, either. The Philadelphia Inquirer’s 2006 story about Hirt gave his number as 194517, while Primo Levi’s was 174517, as published on the Bryn Mawr College website.
Dot and her husband, meanwhile, claim they don’t know where the 194517 sequence found in the Inquirer article and Reid’s research came from.
“The number was a sincere effort to show his respects [to Levi],” Dot said of her husband’s decision to get the tattoo.
If you magnify this image the way I described on this page, you can make out the last four numbers – 4517 – on Hirt’s arm, but the first two numbers are still too small. However, a 19 cannot be ruled out, from the look of it. To act confused about the number seems to be simple dissembling. Hirt either made a mistake in copying it, or he purposely changed one number so that he could have it both ways.
He emphasizes the difficulty his family had during the war years but the biggest trauma he could come up with was that they suffered from fear. Well, they and many millions of others, no? But they were actually very luck, and even fortunate. When Belgrade was bombed in 1941, they crossed over to Italy and spent time in a detention camp until the American victory in Sicily changed things for the better. When Italy changed sides, they were no longer illegal. He writes that he and his father couldn’t wait for the Allies to take Mount Cassino, so they crossed the front lines in the snow and fell into the hands of an enemy snow patrol. His father was thrown to the ground and his fingers broken by being “trampled by uniform boots.” Sorry, but I think this is another case of Joseph Hirt’s need to embellish. Either it’s complete fantasy or the father’s fingers did get stepped on inadvertently, maybe only one or two damaged, since shortly afterward his father was still making the decisions for the family.
By the way, Hirt came from a well-to-do Jewish family. That’s why they could leave before Sept. 1939 and seek a safer place to live. And they did eventually find safety … in America. With their family intact. Once the Americans had complete control of Italy, his family was assigned to a convoy headed to New York from Naples in July 1944.
Hirt tells a little about their new life there, then goes heavily into more of the suffering—his difficulty adjusting because of post-traumatic stress and his guilt for having survived. This brings him to the biggest lie of all. Naturally it’s in the form of a personal account with no traceable features whatsoever. But it is meant to exonerate him from the dishonesty he’s been charged with – by indulging in more dishonesty! Judge for yourself:
A serious adjustment problem for me had to do with social behavior. I was on the street in Belgrade, returning with food for the family when an SS officer stopped me and asked my name. I stood at attention, looked straight into his face, and made eye contact. At this point he hauled off and struck me in the nose and chin with his clenched fist. I ended up on the ground, bleeding from my nose and mouth as he screamed at me “How dare you, you Untermensch, look at me, a member of the master race. You look at the ground. Show humility. Be humble.” As I lay on the ground bleeding, he kicked me in the ribs as he walked away.
Personal accounts like this, sans witnesses or definite time and place, are much-used by surlievors because they cannot be checked out. “On the street;” in “Belgrade” (a very large city); “bringing food to his family” (such a good boy); an “SS officer” (no rank, no description); “stopped him” (for no reason); “asked his name” (he would have been asked where he was going, not his name). This fictional SS man was not functioning as a guard who was checking people because after “he kicked [Hirt] in the ribs” he walked away! This fictional SS man must have been an off-duty loner, walking the streets looking for untermensch to bully.
A story like this is meant to show the SS as out-of-control thugs who would beat and even kill innocent Jews for no reason, for sport. And what’s more, during the time he was in Belgrade (1939-41), he would have been anywhere from 9 to 12 years old. Don’t tell me any trained SS officer would punch a kid in the face or say those words. It’s a disgusting lie. There are many stories like this told in survivor “memoirs” and that’s why I call them surlievors. They deserve the name.
The word Untermensch was not commonly used by Germans, nor did Germans ever refer to themselves as “the master race.” That term was dreamed up by enemy propagandists, and especially by Jews (projection) who want to create hatred and scorn against National-Socialist Germany and, by extension, reinforce a crude, untrue stereotype of the German character. And please take note of the similarity with Primo Levi’s famous book cover that is illustrated in Part 1 and shown at right – do you think he got the idea from that image of a man sprawled on the ground with a bloody face? I do. It might have also inspired the story of his father’s broken fingers.
Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum trip
He says he traveled to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and Memorial (no date given as to when) “to confront [his] devils.” But I believe he went there so he could become familiar with the layout, see it in real life, and learn what he could to prevent mistakes in his story about spending 8 months there as a prisoner. But he was not impressed at all by the place and this distressed him. It was merely another “clean and polished tourist destination.” Plus, “Visitors commented quite openly that stories circulating about Nazi cruelty, persecution and death having occurred there were ‘propaganda’,” he said. And they laughed about it.
“I determined at that moment to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of the truth about wartime life (and death) at Auschwitz.”
Fraudster Joseph Hirt invested in photographic blow-ups of various atrocity propaganda images to impress on the minds of 6th and 7th graders the beliefs he wished them to hold about “the Holocaust.” This subject is too controversial to be taught to middle-schoolers, but is because they are at their most impressionable then.
The above image is the result. Posing as a survivor and volunteering his time and talents to the indoctrination of schoolchildren, he was welcomed with open arms by teachers and administrators, even parents. No one questioned if what he was saying was the truth about “wartime life (and death) at Auschwitz.” It’s curious why that is. But it’s considered impolite to do so.
The problem here is who says what is the truth? Like any religious fanatic, Hirt is sure he has the truth. But he himself has told many lies publicly, claiming they were true. He went to great lengths to push these lies on gullible young people, and to oldsters sitting around tables in a coffeehouse. He even told them to TV reporters. So how can such a one claim to know the truth? He defends himself by saying he was only trying to help the truth, to get people (Christians mainly) to believe what he says is truth. So how does one, and why would one, listen to someone who has already proven himself to be dishonest? And, by the way, he was also passing himself off as Christian (thinking he would be more convincing that way, I assume); I don’t know if he retracted that yet.
He uses phrases like “I swerved off in a wrong direction” and “used poor judgment and faulty reasoning.” But never, “I lied and I abused your trust by lying to you. I don’t deserve your trust anymore.” No, he would like to continue, and maybe write a book.
At the end, he says,
“Unanswered questions in my mind sent me looking for answers by reading widely in Holocaust literature.”
I would suggest he do some reading in Holocaust Revisionist literature, where, I am sure, some of his unanswered questions would be answered.
“But the more I learned, the more real the images became, and the more intense my feeling of responsibility for keeping the memories alive. How could I assure that the message of the Holocaust would be heard and understood?”
Such intense feeling is associated with religious conviction, when the subject of your interest involves the deepest meaning of your life. Hirt got caught up in an obsession about the victimization of Jews – the mind-boggling number of 6,000,000 Jewish individuals that the myth insists on, the supernatural events happening everywhere – and he couldn’t look away from it. For millions of Jews “The Holocaust” substitutes for their religion. Judaism as a religion is demanding and rather contradictory – and is also not so very relevant in modern times. “The Holocaust,” on the other hand, is responsible for the successful founding of Israel, for completely funded it through the early years – and still does in large part today! It also gives Jews privilege and protection. The importance of the holocost for Jews cannot be over-stated. So Joseph Hirt’s obsession with it is more practical than spiritual. If the world stopped believing in the holocost what would be the effect on Jewish life? It’s something they don’t want to even imagine.
Now, if it really happened as they say, as Primo Levi and Joseph Hirt (copying him) say, then yes, by all means, it should be remembered forever and memorialized. But the evidence shows it did not. There is no evidence for the number six million (or five or eleven), for homicidal gas chambers, or for an intention to exterminate an entire people. So what is the purpose of remembering and memorializing something that didn’t occur? That is manipulation.
Sunday, June 26th, 2016
Psychological terrorist Joseph Hirt speaking to 7th grade students (age 13), filling their heads with horrible lies with the blessing of school teachers and administrators. He was never vetted to find out if he was qualified to influence impressionable youth. Shameful carelessness !
BY CAROLYN YEAGER
The mainstream accounts of Joseph Hirt’s “confession” are showing up everywhere, but they mistakenly report it as Hirt “coming clean” about his lies. Not true. Hirt didn’t just lie about being in Auschwitz, he lied about many of his experiences during the “Holocaust” in general, and continues to do so. And really, how can you expect a man who claimed he saw Adolf Hitler turn his back on Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympics (when he was 6 years old and living in Poland) to be a man you would ever trust to tell the truth? Particularly on this subject. This is only common sense – a universal human trait that has been made illegal in almost all of Europe, and socially condemned everywhere else because it is a threat to the “holy holocost” religion. But common sense is what I will be using in this article to show the pure hatefulness and falsity of the stories Joseph Hirt has been telling Pennsylvania school children for 15 years already.
As I wrote earlier, New York history teacher Andrew Reid did a knock-down, bang-up job in scaring the daylights out of old Joseph Hirt, threatening him with investigations of forgery, fraud and identity theft if he didn’t come clean and admit his Holocost survivor claims were false. After some initial resistance, the cunning 86-year-old realized his game was up and he needed Reid as a friend, not an enemy. Hirt composed a long letter and made it public by sending it to a newspaper. It is now posted at Scribd. for all to read. It’s clear from this letter that he is not sorry for what he did, he is only sorry he was caught and couldn’t wiggle his way out of it with a man of principles like Reid, who did a commendably thorough job. The letter is a combination treatise about the horrors of the Holocost, his personal life story, and a few paragraphs stating he was wrong to “insert himself into the picture” at Auschwitz, but he only had the best of intentions. He asks for forgiveness.
Hirt appears to me as an intelligent, educated man whose self-absorption developed into an obsession with “The Holocaust,” reading many books and surlievor stories about it. His counsel to the 6th through 12th grade students he’s spoken to for so long is to “keep the truth and the memory of the Holocost always in your heart and mind.” Is that good advice? The kind you’d like your children to receive in school? Hirt is convinced he’s turned many into lifetime believers and upholders of the holocost myth, and says that is his goal.
He begins the letter with an overview of what the ‘Holocaust’ was — his own condensed version of the official Jewish narrative — intended to bolster his claim to having the “best of intentions.” His intentions are to prevent it ever happening again … but did it happen the first time? He begins:
The Nazi Holocaust refers to the W.W. II concentration camp system used for the extermination of about six million Jews and about five million non-Jews by Nazi Germany.
False. The camps were not for extermination at all but for separating the perceived disloyal, harmful and or criminal elements from society, just as prisons everywhere. How does he explain that over half a million European Jews received lifetime payments from Germany if the plan was to kill them all? There were the same number of Jews in the world after the war as before – just in different places. Why were Jews still living in Berlin at the end of the war? Did the murderous Nazis forget about them? Why were there millions of displaced persons in Europe after the war? And why was his hero Primo Levi put in the camp hospital at an alleged ‘death camp’, Birkenau, and left there to await the arrival of the Soviets? He could easily have been put to death. There were also 600 or so children in that camp when the Soviets arrived, being well taken care of by Polish women. There is no proof of extermination at all, only assumptions based on a desire to punish Germany and exculpate the Allies.
The killings took place in specially constructed camps, most located in Poland, The victims were herded into cattle cars and transported to the camps. After days on end en route or standing unattended along the way without food, water, or medical care, many died.
Not at all. He can’t just generalize “camps” and make vague references to “days on end”. Transports to Auschwitz-Birkenau were at most two days in length, there was water in the rail cars, they brought their own food, and no one died en route. Many Jews were taken to their destination in passenger cars. Later on, in 1944, available trains were scarce.
On arrival at certain camps the victims were told to undress for showers, but were led instead to rooms where they were gassed to death. Bodies of men, women, and children were removed by specially assigned prisoners whose working units burned them—first in open fires, and later in crematoria built for that purpose.
Really, where is he talking about?! “Certain camps?” He’s afraid to name them lest he can then be proven wrong. “Were gassed to death in rooms” on the pretext of taking a shower? This has been convincingly debunked as atrocity propaganda. Then “burned in open fires.” Did he ever see such a thing? Of course not. No one has. And it doesn’t work either, humans don’t burn that easily. Hirt takes all this from books he has read, books by Jews, every one of them the result of rumors and motives of tribal revenge.
Sometimes inmates were deliberately starved. Those who became weak or ill were sent directly to be gassed. Some were killed in camp hospitals by injection directly into the heart. Others were hanged, beaten, or suffocated in tiny airless cells. Both planned and spontaneous brutality played a role in the treatment of inmates. They were ruled by other inmates, often former criminals imported from actual prisons, who imposed their rule by degradation, mutilation, and torture.
I categorically deny that any inmates were deliberately starved in any German/SS-run camp at any time. There is zero evidence of that except for tales told by surLIEvors, always based on what someone else said, never anything they saw or experienced first hand. Because victims of typhus (and some other diseases ) rapidly lose weight and body tissue, and become “skin and bones,” photographs of these victims have been used to accuse the camp authorities of deliberately starving them. The idea that inmates were kept on a starvation diet is completely false. The same goes for importing criminals from civilian prisons to boss over the camp inmates. The fact is, there were actual lawbreakers in some of the camps because they had been assigned to serve out their prison term there. But partisans and communists were pretty nasty dudes too. Any of the rare hangings that did take place were for cause, after the accused was found guilty of a serious offense. Injections through the heart is a rumor that has never been proven. Other camps were solely industrial labor camps for producing war munitions and other wartime needs, like the Auschwitz complex. I have yet to see any evidence that anyone suffocated in tiny airless cells, and I have studied it and written about it.
Certain camps combined labor and extermination, selecting incoming prisoners for one category or the other; the selections at Auschwitz were infamous. Those deemed capable of work or considered useful in (cruel) experiments were assigned to quarters in the camp. Others were immediately taken to the gas chambers. Families were separated forever in this process.
By describing the Holocost in such amorphous terms and dislocating it from the war, by using photographs doctored in the intelligence laboratories, by having the help of the major media outlets and Hollywood—that is how they succeed in keeping the public believing. (Not to mention indoctrination in schools to unprotected, inexperienced children, with fakers like Joseph Hirt coming to visit regularly.) And sorry, there were no cruel experiments being carried out – not even by Dr. Mengele! It is the writers of the surlievor books who have made “the selections at Auschwitz infamous.” In reality, at that place, those who could not work—all those women with children and elderly people—went to Birkenau with it’s numerous barracks where classes and programs, music and theater productions were available to help them pass the time. Some worked in the kitchens and the medical facilities. There were family sections for gypsies and other groups who were not desirable as workers. No one was exterminated. There were no homicidal gas chambers anywhere in the camp, only buildings for gassing clothing and mattresses.
Information about concentration camp behavior exists because of the sharing of details by a relatively small number of inmates who managed to survive. Soon Holocaust memories will be held entirely by those who were not there!
This is painful for him, the fear that “the Holocaust” will lose its power and influence without real surlievors to talk about it as eye-witnesses. But he admits it’s a small number who have given us these details. Not because the rest were killed but because not every camp inmate wants to lie about it, and the true story cannot be published. Jews own all the publishing companies. Plus, anyone who writes a different story is attacked and ostracized, Jew and non-Jew alike. We know now that Joseph Hirt was not there, but he added his voice anyway by copying what the others wrote. Who did they copy from?
“But whoever closes his eyes to the past becomes blind to the present. Whoever does not wish to remember inhumanity becomes susceptible to the dangers of new infection.”
This is said all the time, but it is false; it is sophistry. Plenty of humans, billions of them, have lived perfectly well in the present without knowledge of the past. Most humans make the same mistakes over and over again, and knowledge that we did it before doesn’t stop us from doing it again. Real learning comes only from an individual’s own personal experience, not from being lectured to. The world would be much better off if the holocost went down the memory hole.
I am seeking help from my pastor, who knows my heart and my intent. I am also consulting with a mental health professional to try to understand how I swerved off in my presentations in a direction that should not have been taken.
The pastor and the mental health professional is something Andrew Reid insisted on, but in fact, before his retirement, Hirt was employed as a school mental health professional himself, so he knows how the human psychology, especially in young people, works. I don’t see any change, in this letter, in his attitude that he is an expert on Holocost and should be listened to as an expert.
Hirt writes that he admired and was very influenced by Primo Levi; he read all Levi’s books and writings that were Holocaust-related. He modeled his own fabricated story on Primo Levi’s. It was Levi’s Auschwitz number, 174517, that Hirt had tattooed on his own arm – “as a symbol and way of remembering him” he says, except he got one number wrong. However, in the schools he passed the number off as his own! Of course, he was never questioned — that would be unthinkable!
Original cover of Primo Levi’s book in Italian, published in 1947.
Levi was an Italian Jew with a chemistry degree who spent 11 months in Monowitz where he worked as an assistant in IG Farben’s Buna Werke laboratory. Though he had a cushy indoor job, he complained about everything he could think to complain about in his book If this Is a Man (shown right) which he wrote in 1946. A German translation was published in 1961 in which he addressed the German people in a special preface written out of his need to remind them what they had done! (From his book of essays The Drowned and the Saved, Einaudi publishers, 1986, 170 pages)
In If This Is a Man, Levi alludes to “the gas chambers of which all speak” (p.49) but evidently he has neither seen nor met anyone who has seen these things. Then he asks “Is it true what one hears of selections, of gas, of cremation?” and he is answered only with a rumor that persons in the Infirmary who were in decline, who were not going to recover, would be sent to the ‘gas chamber.’ (p.46) That is the extent of Primo Levi’s knowledge of ‘gas chambers’ after one year at Monowitz.
Shortly before the Soviets arrived, Levi came down with scarlet fever and was hospitalized. Not being recovered enough to go on the march to the West, he was still there in the hospital attended by a Jewish doctor when the Soviets “liberated” the abandoned Auschwitz-Birkenau camp.
To be continued in Part 2
Category Featured | Tags: Tags: Andrew Reid, Auschwitz tattoos, Auschwitz-Birkenau, gas chambers, Holocaust fraud, Monowitz, Primo Levi,
Social Networks: Facebook, Twitter, Google Bookmarks, del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg, Reddit, Posterous.
Sunday, June 19th, 2016
Zionist Joshua Kaufman in his home in the Los Angeles area of southern California, surrounded by two national flags and the news stories that gave him recognition pinned to the wall behind.
BY CAROLYN YEAGER
Like Joseph Hirt, who is a complete fraud, Joshua Kaufman has now been proven to be at least half a fraud. The number he claimed to be his when he told NBC News, “I am not Joshua Kaufman, I am number 109023” belongs to Mateusz Judasz, born September 12, 1901 in Łaznów, Poland. [Note: It has been discovered, on 7-5-16, that the number Kaufman gave to NBC when speaking about Auschwitz was his Dachau prisoner number. Keep that in mind as you read this article.]
A search in the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum online records revealed that Judasz arrived at Auschwitz on March 18, 1943 (over a year before Kaufman allegedly did) and was assigned the number 109023. His profession is listed as “farmer.” He was transferred to Mauthausen (in the Ostmark) in that same year and was eventually liberated from Mauthausen.
For those who demand more in the way of proof, here it is copied from http://www.auschwitz.org/en/museum/auschwitz-prisoners/ (type in name)
Main page > Museum > Auschwitz prisoners
(prisoner number: 109023)
born: 1901-09-12, place of birth: Łaznów, profession: farmer
1. 1943-03-18, Auschwitz, arrived to camp
2. transferred in 1943 to KL Mauthausen, liberated,
1. Memorial Book Radom
Consider that the above information on Mateusz Judasz was carefully recorded and kept by the SS who ran the camp. Consider too, that he is probably one whom Jews claim to have been “gassed” shortly after he arrived at Auschwitz. I can just hear them: Von day our friend Matty disappeared. Ve learned from de talk around de camp dat evil Dr. Mengele sent him to da gazz chamber. Oy vey. Ve recited a Kaddish.
Looks like Kaufman should have checked with Auschwitz about the number he selected, but he was sooo confident after the staged reunion went so well and he was featured on a double-page spread in the Daily Mail [*more on that below]. He followed up a year later by crashing the Reinhold Hanning murder trial in Detmold, Germany – and that is where his hubris may have done him in. He made rash claims about his experiences in Auschwitz and Dachau, including announcing his Auschwitz prisoner number as 109023.
I can also tell you that the name Joshua Kaufman was not found in the Auschwitz-Birkenau database, however the Museum reminds us that “the Nazis destroyed most of the documents they created” and that a list with the names of all Auschwitz victims does not exist. Okay, so maybe he was there but his records were destroyed. If so, he would have been given a number. Since we now know the number 109023 belonged to someone else, logic tells us he wouldn’t have used that number if he had one of his own. If he lied about this, then he lied about working in a gas chamber, removing dead bodies and taking them to the crematorium. (Of course, we knew that but it’s good to have it confirmed.)
So here is what has now been definitely determined regarding Kaufman’s story:
1) He lied about his prisoner number
2) He lied about working in a gas chamber in Auschwitz (he was never asked which one) and about being 15 years old at the time.
3) He lied about throwing fellow prisoners in a cement mixer at Dachau.
4) He lied about having to carry 50-kilo bags of cement for more than 12 hours a day.
At this point, we can only wonder what else he lied about. Maybe saying he was a “living corpse” when Dachau was liberated? I somehow don’t believe that.
*The Kaufman-Gillespie “reunion” was arranged by a TV crew
It turns out the Daily Mail received the story and photos from The History Channel Germany, the outfit that dreamed up and arranged the “reunion.”
I had already made the connection that the double page spread in the Daily Mail was published on Jan. 21 to coincide with the Jan. 27, 2015 Day of Commemoration for Holocaust victims, recognized annually at Auschwitz-Birkenau and at the United Nations. Every year, these institutions and the greater media look for (or create) holocaust-related stories to coincide with this commemoration. Because 2015 was the 70th anniversary of the so-called Auschwitz liberation, it was more important than usual to create as much fanfare as possible.
And that is how it came about that Joshua Kaufman, who no one had ever heard of, had such a well-publicized reunion with one of the U.S. Army “liberators” of Dachau, Daniel Gillespie, just prior to the 70th anniversary. I have learned that The History Channel Germany discovered (how is not explained) that these two “survivors” from Dachau lived close to one another in Orange County, CA. Do they have access to concentration camp archives in order to discover these things? I suppose so. The History Channel is one of the prime outlets for WWII and ‘Holocost’ indoctrination for the Holocaust Industry.
A still from the film documentary made at Huntington Beach, CA of the “reunion” of a Dachau survivor and a Dachau liberator. This appeared in the Daily Mail and other newspapers. Notice the photo credit on the lower left to “HISTORY CHANNEL (GERMANY).
So The History Channel peddled the story to the Daily Mail and other news outlets in exchange for the promotion of their then-upcoming TV documentary. You can see the photos at the Daily Mail are credited to “History Channel Germany.” On another site, the same photos are credited to “Dirk Heuer, HISTORY Germany.” The photos in the Bild newspaper layout of Kaufman at home are credited to Nancy Pastor/Polaris Images, who was probably hired locally. Quite a bit of preparation is behind a feature story like this, and this reunion was surely not a spontaneous happening.
I first noticed that the reunion was arranged by The History Channel Germany in this CBS-LA news story. All I could find in a search for THCG was this story. What I didn’t ever see is any mention of the U.S. Army or any official historical associations being involved with this ‘reunion.’ It was purely a commercial enterprise.
The CBS-LA reporter wrote this:
The History Channel Germany arranged the reunion for a documentary that aired last year
in January 2015, a German documentary team discovered the two were living within an hours’ drive. When they met on a Southern California beach, they talked about the war, and survival.
CBS and other major media were invited to cover the reunion. It was not a private affair, it was a staged event. The Huffington Post also picked it up and ran a story on Jan. 26, 2015:
The meeting was arranged by director Emanuel Rotstein, and will be featured in a documentary, “Liberators of Dachau,” according to a press release from the History Channel.
Emanuel Rotstein – that name tells us a lot about the purpose of the project and the reliability of the research backing it. Another report puts it this way:
The two men were reunited by a television crew for a documentary they were making called Dachau Concentration Camp – The Hour Of The Liberators. It first aired on the History Channel on May 31st, 2015.
Another question that arises is: did the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) play a role in this? I bring them up because it turns out that both Kaufman and Gillespie were special guests at the USHMM 2015 Los Angeles Dinner just two months later, on March 16th. That had to be because of The History Channel documentary, for which heart-warming story they were feted at the Dinner. Two months after that, Gillespie died.
The caption at the Getty Images web page reads: Holocaust Liberator Daniel Gillespie (L) and Holocaust Survivor Joshua Kaufman attend the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum 2015 Los Angeles Dinner at The Beverly Hilton Hotel on March 16, 2015 in Beverly Hills, California.
The following spring, Joshua Kaufman created another splash when he traveled to the Reinhold Hanning trial in Detmold, Germany with two of his daughters. This time there was a big write-up in Bild, Germany’s popular tabloid newspaper, and scores of U.S. news outlets. Kaufman was denied his request to testify at the trial and, since then, I haven’t found more about him.
I write this to clue you in that it’s all Shoah Business. Whether Kaufman is the exact frightened prisoner Gillespie said he helped out of the latrine (this contradicts Kaufman’s statements that he “became an animal” in the camps, a violent animal who could throw other prisoners into the cement mixer), neither of them offers any material evidence to prove that. We only have their word for it. We also now have a biased television documentary directed by a Jewish-German named Rotstein (Redstone). None of this inspires confidence that it is anything more than another “heart-warming” holocaust tale to satisfy the voracious appetite of the Holocaust Industry and Holocaust public. Why be concerned about the truth of it when it’s such an inspiring human interest story.
Category Featured | Tags: Tags: Auschwitz-Birkenau, Dachau, Daily Mail, Daniel Gillespie, Huffington Post, Joshua Kaufman, Mateusz Judasz, The Hstory Channel Germany,
Social Networks: Facebook, Twitter, Google Bookmarks, del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg, Reddit, Posterous.
Wednesday, June 15th, 2016
Dr. Richard Stashevsky pictured with a sixth-grade student at the Algoma Christian School in Kent City MI in Dec. 2007.
BY CAROLYN YEAGER
I’m afraid the ability to accurately remember events from childhood is impaired in every adult, but more so as the years go by. In my previous article, I wrote about Andrew Reid’s investigation into the fraudulent claims presented for 15 years in public schools by Mr. Joseph Hirt. No one had thought to question Mr. Hirt’s claims, even though some were quite bizarre. Not until history teacher Reid showed up for one of Hirt’s talks, that is. Reid was so troubled by what he heard and saw that he began searching on the Internet for information about Hirt’s claims. He even contacted a number of people, including Hirt family members, and the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum archive department.
On the very first page of his report, Reid thought it was important to affirm he was not a Holocaust denier and mentioned (seemingly as proof) his long friendship with a certain Richard Stashevsky. He wrote:
“I was first hired as a teacher by a Polish-American administrator who had survived the Holocaust camp at Bergen-Belsen, who had the scars both physically and emotionally, and who I admired.”
He linked to an article about a talk Richard Stashevsky gave to students at a Christian school in December 2007. I read the article and, in the same way Andrew Reid reacted to Joseph Hirt’s talk, I knew some things Richard Stashevsky said “just weren’t right.” In spite of my positive impression of Reid’s good intentions, I feel the need to deconstruct this talk by his friend and mentor, R. Stashevsky.
First, let me say I don’t question that this is how Mr. Stashevsky remembers his early years, or thinks he remembers them (except for a couple of details where I believe he is creating atrocity propaganda that he never witnessed). It’s known that as the memory of life events fades, we fill in with things we have heard, thought, read, and watched in the intervening years. And this is even more true if we lived through a period of historical importance of which much has been written and spoken, including Hollywood movies and history books on all levels of competence and motivation.
Thus, a man who was only 3 years old in 1939 when dramatic changes occurred in the society around him is not a first-hand source of what actually happened, but someone who was told about it later. We all have flashes of memory of certain moments that made a deeper impression on us, certain scenes, but they are more to do with how we felt about what was happening. Richard Stashevsky was between the age of 3 and 9 when he underwent these experiences. Born in 1936 in Warsaw, he certainly lived through war and destructive times, but his knowledge of the larger picture and “why” things happened as they did was non-existent. He filled it in later in life and, as we are all prone, not necessarily correctly or without prejudice.
So let’s look at Stashevsky’s words as recorded by Jan Holst.
“You can’t find many people around who went through what I went through,” he told the Algoma Christian School students in Kent City. He has prepared a slide presentation with a collection of photos from the difficult era.
A collection of historical photos. Naturally they are selected to show what he wants to show, not to accurately reflect solely what he himself experienced, or his family experienced. It’s a combination amateur history lesson plus personal testimony. The two get blurred because if you believe his testimony, you will believe his history too. You see the disparity in that he combines “what he went through” and “photos from the period” … not photos restricted to his immediate environment.
And he shared with them how amazing his mere survival is.
“Seven different times, I should have been killed, but God had purpose for my life,” he said.
This is so typical of bible-believers and holocaust survivors, who want to turn their personal story into something miraculous. When you hear this, be warned that you’re about to hear a “story,” a bit of fiction, not an honest “just the facts, ma’am” telling . What does “I should have been killed” mean? Is it a way of signally that survival was the exception, not the norm? Which is not true, by the way. Is it to to make his experience during this time seem more dangerous than it was? It is subjective and the listener has no way to judge it.
Stashevsky was only three years of age, when the Blitzkrieg, or lighting war, hit Warsaw, where the young family lived. “In our life before we were a middle class family,” he said. “My father worked in finance department in the Polish government. But the bombing of Warsaw changed everything.”
He calls it a Blitzkrieg but we need to remember that it was the Poles who wanted a war with Germany; Poland had instigated it. It just didn’t turn out the way they had fantasized about it. This is a good time to remind you of the British War-Guarantee to Poland, dated March 31, 1939, which promised that in any war with Germany, even if Poland starts it, Britain would come in.
“Britain gave Poland carte blanche in its dealings with Germany. Poland intensified its persecutions of the German minority. Abductions became common, speaking German in public was proscribed, German associations and newspapers were suppressed, the German consul in Krakow was murdered. This guarantee from Britain nullified the Munich agreement of Sept. 1938 for Britain and Germany to work closely together to avoid war; also the 1934 German-Polish Declaration of non-aggression.” [How Britain initiated Both World Wars, Nicholas Kollerstrom, 2016, p 75]
In addition, Poland was full of war talk. Its President Edward Rydz-Smigly was quoted in the Daily Mail for August 6, 1939, when in Britain, “Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to.” This exactly described the situation at the time.
Poland was the first to mobilize. So Warsaw was not victimized, not at all. If Stashevsky’s father was employed by the government in Warsaw, he knew all this and was probably on board with it.
Injured during the onslaught of German bombs, Stashevsky’s mother carried him to the hospital across a bridge, which seconds later blew apart. Eventually the young mother and son, with no knowledge of what happened to the man of the house, found a home in a small apartment.
His father was probably commandeered by the Polish military (or joined up) as a officer immediately or within the first few days. The invasion began on Sept. 1st but the Germans didn’t reach Warsaw until Sept. 8. However, the Poles successfully repelled the attack, the city was put under a siege that lasted until Sept. 28 when the Polish garrison capitulated. … so we’re talking about a month before Warsaw was fully occupied. He doesn’t say what happened to his father.
For the next five years Warsaw, Poland remained under German occupation, requiring what Stashevsky told ACS students was “forced allegiance.” He showed pictures of people saluting Hitler, with tears running down their cheeks. “They had no choice, if they didn’t raise their arm, they would be shot,” he said.
For 5 years he and his mother lived safely in Warsaw. What does a child of 3 up to 8 years know about “forced allegiance?” This is something he read about much later in Polish history books, I suppose. I would like to see the pictures he showed the students of “people (doesn’t specify Poles) saluting Hitler with tears running down their cheeks.” Could it have been this famous photograph of a German woman in the Sudetenland who was overcome with happiness and broke down in tears as German troops marched into her city? I feel sure it was this picture. See this page. This photo has been mislabeled on many WWII sites to say the woman is crying in misery ’cause Hitler is coming to town – but it’s just the opposite.
The weeping woman in this photograph is not Czech, but German. She is not weeping because she is forced to raise her arm, but because she is overcome with emotions of joy and relief at the sight of German troops entering her Sudetenland town.
There is also film of German women crying with happiness while saluting German troops as they enter Austria or the Sudentenland. Maybe he showed them stills from these films.
I’m not sure if the Nazi salute was even supposed to be used by Poles; I can’t find anything on it. But Stashevsky is very wrong when he says “if they didn’t raise their arms they would be shot.” Hardly. No one was ever shot for this reason, nor were Poles just shot down in the street as he implies. This tells me that Stashevsky is not above spicing up his story with contemptible lies.
Children listened intently as he relayed stories from an eight year old boy’s perspective about the Polish uprising, which after six weeks was squelched by the Germans.
This brings us to 1944 and the Warsaw uprising, which began on August 1st. Richard and his mother were living and surviving in Warsaw for five years and would have continued except for their own Polish Resistance Army that, against the advice of just about everybody, brought the peace to an end. In the next two months , the Germans lost 8000 soldiers killed and 9000 wounded putting down the uprising, so they understandably felt no love toward the Poles when they finally did so on Oct. 2nd, 1944.
When the Polish people were rounded up at gunpoint and marched to the boxcars for transportation to concentration camps, Stashevsky choked out his words about what he called the “separation gate.”
Nowhere have I found anyone else mention a “separation gate.” This must be something Stashevsky coined himself to make his story more dramatic. Here is what Wikipedia says about the fate of the Warsaw Poles after the uprising:
“The entire civilian population of Warsaw was expelled from the city and sent to a transit camp Durchgangslager 121 in Pruszków. Out of 350,000–550,000 civilians who passed through the camp, 90,000 were sent to labour camps in the Third Reich, 60,000 were shipped to concentration camps (including Ravensbrück, Auschwitz, and Mauthausen, among others), while the rest [by far the most -cy] were transported to various locations in the General Government [former Polish territory -cy] and released.”
Not really so bad after what they had cost Germany. No one ever thinks of that. The Germans treated the Poles much better than the Poles will ever admit. And that is why Stashevsky needed to embellish his story even more with another little piece of fiction.
“When the family before us was called up, the German soldiers pointed the mother to one car, the father to another…”
He then told how the fussy youngest child clung to her father’s leg, crying and how the soldiers “wasted her.”
This is unconscionable to accuse a German soldier of shooting dead a child like that. Things like that did NOT happen. Naturally he has no evidence, not even a witness, but impressionable young kids will take his word for it. Shame, shame, shame on this retired teacher and school administrator. In the first place, families were not normally separated, and German guards were forbidden to harm prisoners. To prevent it, the death penalty was enforced if they did. Again, why was it always others who were treated so badly, never him or his mother? This is true of most surlievors, by the way, who almost always tell us what they observed done to others because they cannot offer the details necessary to prove it happened to them.
Perhaps the soldiers were still distracted by the commotion, but “somehow when it was our turn, she grabbed my hand and no one stopped us. To my knowledge we were the only ones, who weren’t separated,” he said.
Sure, they were the only ones … to his knowledge at the age of 8 years. The reason stories like this are fabricated is because the first rule for most Poles, just like most Jews, is to make the “Nazis” out to be monsters. They think they have to, but more and more people are knowing they are not and were not.
Richard and his mother must have been among the 90,000 Poles sent to camps in the Reich, for they ended up at Bergen-Belsen in northern Germany which had been a hospital-and-health-recovery camp as well as an exchange camp for VIP prisoners whom the Reich wanted to use for swapping. But now it was receiving the overflow from the east.
Pictures and stories about conditions at Belsen were and are graphic, but Stashevsky spared nothing sharing the horrors with the school children.
Of course he didn’t — that’s the whole point, isn’t it. The graphic pictures he showed to 6th graders would have illustrated the extreme conditions in the camp due to the heavy Allied bombing that destroyed the fresh water system and incoming food and medical supplies in the final months. There are no terrible pictures of him though, are there? Obviously, his own time there was relatively uneventful. Not everyone living at Belsen contacted typhus or dysentery and underwent such horrific suffering at the end. Even at Belsen, many prisoners remained fit and healthy until the camp was voluntarily turned over to the British. These healthy prisoners can be seen in films that were made at the time.
The liberation came only months later, but the mother and son spent another two years waiting for their chance to leave the camp, where the thousands of prisoners were kept.
The British entered Belsen on April 15, 1945 at the request of the SS because of the above-mentioned conditions. Richard Stashevsky had been there only a few months, and after he and his mother were freed, they remained there because they wanted to go to the United States. They were not forced to stay in the camp, but they would not have wanted to return to Poland which was now under Soviet-communist control. They were being much better cared for by the British and West Germans.
I would never say that Richard Stashevsky was not a victim of the war and that his early life was very negatively impacted, but so it was equally for hundreds of millions of others on both sides. His story really comes down to being born at a time and place where war broke out, and of early-on being a member of the losing side. While life was tough, it was not impossible, and that is why he never spoke about it until he was retired and close to 70 years old. Like so many others.
Category Featured | Tags: Tags: 'Nazi' saluute, Bergen-Belson concentration camp, German-Polish war, Richard Stashevsky, Warsaw Poland, Warsaw Uprising,
Social Networks: Facebook, Twitter, Google Bookmarks, del.icio.us, StumbleUpon, Digg, Reddit, Posterous.