Trumpdom No. 4 Reflections on the holocaust

Norman Finkelstein writes of his The Holocaust Industry; Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering: “This book is both an anatomy and an indictment of the Holocaust industry. In the pages that follow, I will argue that the Holocaust is an ideological representation of the Nazi holocaust. Like most ideologies, it bears a connection, if tenuous, with reality. The Holocaust is not an arbitrary but rather an internally coherent construct. Its central dogmas sustain significant political and class interests. Indeed, the Holocaust has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon. Through its deployment, one of the world's most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a ‘victim’ state, and the most successful ethnic group In the United States has likewise acquired victim status. Considerable dividends accrue from this specious victimhood—in particular, immunity to criticism, however justified. Those enjoying this immunity, I might add, have not escaped the moral corruptions that attend it.”

Finkelstein demonstrates how American Jews used the holocaust as a political weapon. When anti-Semitic barriers fell away after World War II, Jewish income almost doubled that of non-Jews. They became conservative politically, shed their allies in social activities, steered their resources to benefit Jewish concerns only and blamed “irrational Gentile loathing of Jews” when it was the Jews who were taught to hate Christians. “Just as Israelis, armed to the teeth by the United States, courageously put unruly Palestinians in their place, so American Jews outrageously put unruly Blacks in their place,” he wrote. “Lording it over those least able to defend themselves: that is the real content of organized American Jewery’s reclaimed courage.” In a chapter entitled  “Hoaxers, Hucksters, and History” Finkelstein exposes Elie Wiesel, Jerzy Kosinski, Binjamin Wilkomirski’s memoirs and other fraudsters while denouncing Jewish refusal to refuse to recognize the Gypsy genocide in the Holocaust Museum for fear it make untenable the Museum’s dogma of a “millennial Gentile hatred of Jews”. Finkelstein then demonstrates how Jewish organizations used the Holocaust for shaking down Swiss and German governments for billions in reparations aided by United States’ pressure.

As for Arthur Butz’s The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, it is a well-researched, powerful debunking of the Holocaust. “As stated, the ‘material’ approach will be extended here and, in addition, a ‘historical-political’ approach will be ‘introduced’,” he wrote. “This is just a fancy way of saying that we will grasp that there are two political powers involved in the problem, not just one. That is to say, we have a tale of extermination, and we should inquire into the circumstance of its generation. . . Germany had an anti-Jewish policy involving, in many cases, deportations of Jews from their homes and countries of citizenship. That is certain. The wartime policy of Washington was to claim extermination, and the post-war policy was to hold trials, at which there was generated the only evidence that we have today that these wartime claims had any foundation. That is also certain. The policies of both states are necessarily of interest, and if there is any respect in which this book may be breaking fundamentally new ground on the problem, it is in its insistence in seeing Washington as an active agent in the generation of the story. Thus, we are interested not only in what Hitler, Himmler, Göring, Goebbels, and Heydrich were doing during the war in regard to these matters, but also what Roosevelt, Hull, Morgenthau, and the New York Times and associated media were doing during the war, and what the various tribunals controlled or dominated by Washington did after the war. This is not only a fair but, more importantly, an illuminating historical approach.

“The conclusion is that Washington constructed a frame-up on the Jewish extermination charge. Once this is recognized, the true nature of German Jewish policy will be seen.”

Butz insists that without the evidence generated at the IMT (International Military Tribunal) and NMT (Nuremberg Military Tribunal) and lesser trials at Dachau camp (close to Nuremberg) and of staff at some concentration camps (Buchenwald, Flossenbuerg, Dachau) and the Malmedy case of the killing of American prisoners, there would be no significant evidence that the program of killing Jews ever existed at all. Supervised by the War Crimes Branch these trials were the “most shameful episodes in U.S. history,” he wrote. “The entire repertoire of third degree methods was enacted at Dachau: beatings and brutal kicking, to the point of ruining testicles in 137 cases, knocking out teeth, starvation, solitary confinement, torture with burning splinters, and impersonation of priests in order to encourage prisoners to “confess.” Low rank prisoners were assured that convictions were being sought only against higher ranking officers and that they had absolutely nothing to lose by cooperating and making the desired statements. Such “evidence” was then used against them when they joined their superiors in the dock. The latter, on the other hand, had been told that by “confessing” they had taken all responsibility onto themselves, thereby shielding their men from trial. A favourite stratagem, when a prisoner refused to cooperate, was to arrange a mock trial. The prisoner was led into a room in which civilian investigators, dressed in U.S. Army uniforms, were seated around a black table with a crucifix in the centre, with two candles providing the only light. This “court” then proceeded to hold a sham trial, at the conclusion of which a sham death sentence was passed. The “condemned” prisoner was later promised that, if he cooperated with the prosecutors in giving evidence, he would be reprieved. Sometimes interrogators threatened to turn prisoners over to the Russians. In many cases the prisoner’s family was threatened with loss of ration cards or other hardships if cooperation was not obtained.”

These and other methods of torture by American agents are familiar to those who have read of Guantanamo prison and other dark cells run by the CIA throughout Europe in the present day. Many of the judges at Nuremberg were Jewish and their judgments of the death sentences were seen as revengeful — fuelled by Jewish hatred of Germans.

During the life of the Nazi Regime, Jews were encouraged to leave Germany. When Germany was at war with Russia the greater part of Jews in Europe were in the German sphere of influence and resettled in the East. Though the program was only partially carried out, “nowhere near six million Jews were involved.” Excluding Polish and Romanian Jews, perhaps 750,000 were settled in Ukraine, White Russia and Latvia. Several hundred thousand Jews were deported from Poland by the Russians and dispersed in the Soviet Union. For the most part, the Polish Jews who came into German hands were crowded into ghettoes in Eastern Poland. The remainder of the Jews who had been uprooted resettled in Palestine, the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere.

A typhus epidemic plagued the German concentration camps from the start of the war and its sweep of death at the end of the war was owing to the total collapse of measures to kill the lice spreading it, mainly due to constant rail traffic with the East. The “human” extermination camps were supposed to be in occupied Poland, not Germany, that is Auschwitz, Belsec, Kulmhop (Chemo), Lublin (Majdanek), Solider and Treblinka, locations abandoned before being captured by the Russians, not at camps which were still functioning, however disastrously, when captured by Western troops. Auschwitz is the key to the story as little documentary evidence is offered for the others.

The typical inmate of a German concentration camp was a person being detained for punitive or security reasons. There were five major categories, and they were distinguished by coloured insignia, which were associated with their uniform: Green for Criminals; Red for political prisoners (mainly communists); Pink for homosexuals; Black for Asocials (vagrants, drunkards, etc.); Purple for those considered disloyal on account of religious views (mainly Jehovah’s Witnesses). For labour the Germans used them all and Russian POWs (excusable because Russia did not respect the Conventions of War). The number of inmates in the entire German concentration camp system was about 224,000 in August 1943 and 524,000 a year later. These figures include only camps referred to by the Germans as concentration camps and do not include any transit camps or camps referred to in other terms, such as the Theresienstadt ghetto or any other establishments intended for quartering families.

A fraction interned for security and punitive reasons were Jews and separated from Aryan inmates; Jews, under special legislation, were selected to labour in the camps; Jewish families were sent to transit camps, temporary quartering pending transportation to another destination, mostly ghettoes.

Butz examines the special work for the war effort done in the major camps and the types of prisoners doing the work. Auschwitz was interesting for its large area and several industries of strategic importance, especially as the site of the most advanced developments in synthetic rubber. Typhus was rife there. Germans cremated the dead, mainly in pits, and later in crematories. The claims of exterminations of Jews have their origin not in Allied intelligence information but in the operations of the World Jewish Congress, whose leaders were at first either unconcerned with, or uninformed about, the facts pertaining to Auschwitz. In this connection one must reject two possible fallacious expectations. The first is that Allied propaganda would strive to maximize Auschwitz propaganda after it was realized that the propaganda possibilities were excellent. The second is that the claims made in the Allied propaganda relative to Auschwitz would be almost completely devoid of real fact.

Butz examines how the propaganda was developed from a rumour attributed to an anonymous German industrialist that a decision was made to kill all non-Soviet Jews. It was forwarded to Washington. Zionists, principally the World Jewish Congress, demanded endorsement of the six million figure and Washington was eventually made to comply. Butz writes: “The inconsistencies and implausibilities and obvious lies will appear and finally the crushing blow, a fact contradicting the claims, so huge in significance that there can be no mumbling about ‘mysteries.’”

His findings are thorough and undeniable, but for their acceptance by the world at large his work must be read and denunciations of it unmasked. His work inspired many writers to attack the hoax from other aspects which has resulted in a large revisionist literature.

Victor Thorn’s short book, The Holocaust Hoax Exposed; Debunking the 20th Century’s Biggest Lie is worth reading for its conciseness and straight reasoning—for example, “Further, Auschwitz’s original design plans still exist, and none of them depict what could be called ‘gas chambers’. Moreover these plans—again original and unaltered— did not contain provisions for exhaust units to dispense of any supposed poisonous gasses. Lastly no crematoria smokestacks ever existed in the design plans or construction at Auschwitz. There weren’t any whatsoever. All these ‘show pieces’ were added later for the benefit of museum visitors.

“Then there’s the matter of sheer numbers. Historians demand that anywhere upwards of 600—800 Jews were simultaneously crammed into the Krema 1 gas chamber [originally an air raid shelter]. However, with a  mere floor space of 844 square feet, at the very most 100 people could fit into this area. Considering the obvious struggle under such perilous circumstances quite possibly only 40—50 people could be corralled at a time before bedlam resulted. At any rate, the next matter at hand is the subject of cremation. Morticians agree that it requires approximately 60-70 minutes using up-to-date technology to adequately cremate a human body. Now, if we buy the version of events provided by holocaust historians—namely, that ovens at Auschwitz were used for, at best, a total of 600 days—let's do some mathematics. If every supposed oven at Auschwitz ran non-stop except for maintenance and the removal of ashes, the total number of bodies that could have been cremated was 374,000. Repeat: 374,000. Now, how do we go from this figure to the four million total that stood for decades? A Canadian man named Ivan Lagace, who managed a crematory, revealed during the April 1988 Ernst Zündel trial that the Auschwitz cremation tale was "preposterous" and "beyond the realm of reality." He added that allegations regarding the incineration of 10,000-20,000 Jews every day was "technically impossible.” If all the supposed ovens at Auschwitz had worked non-stop with no downtime whatsoever, it would have taken until 1972 to incinerate four million bodies. On that note, if four million bodies had been cremated, it would result in 15,000 tons of ashes. In pounds, that equals 30 million pounds of ashes. There has never been one photograph showing these mountains of ash that would have been produced. In addition, imagine how many tons of coal would have been necessary to cremate four million Jews. It would require trains traveling around the clock to Auschwitz delivering the coal needed to cremate four million Jews. But there are no Allied reconnaissance photos in existence revealing huge supplies of coal (millions and millions of them) at Auschwitz. Nor do German records support any such massive deliveries to Auschwitz in regard to this much coal. Rather, the Nazis actually needed coal to fuel their war machine, not incinerate Jews. In all, two researchers-Carlo Mattogno and Franco Deana- estimated that at the very most, 162,000 bodies of the sick and elderly were cremated at Auschwitz after they died natural deaths.”

Another source that I read claimed that Auschwitz probably had small crematories for the victims of typhus and starvation but that the larger so-called “crematories” were shower rooms in which showers were changed to gas outlets by the Russians during the four years after capturing the prison at the war’s end that they kept others from visiting it. Since Soviet Russia was largely governed by Jews who did away with millions of Russians, it is credible that they would have connived in the Holocaust hoax.

My next blog Trumpdom No.5 deals with the propaganda

 Trumpdom No. 3. The source of Jewish hatred for the “other”.

In Trumpdom No.2 I closed on the issue of the individual torn between thinking in sync with his clan or as an individual unencumbered by racial, religious, and clan obligations. Education in the humanities should bring freedom of thought to the individual. Most philosophically educated people absorb the reasoning of philosophers who are not beholden to a religion in their thinking. Jewish authors knowledgable in the humanities for seeking truth, which is the object of study and research, stand against the religious and political claims of “orthodox” and racially motivated Jews. Shlomo Sand, whose background and works are on the internet, exemplifies the free-thinker. One of his books is How I Stopped Being a Jew. The same is true of thinkers who have divorced themselves from Pakistan clans or Mormon strictures or Roman Catholic rules. How easy it is to fall in line with an established ideology and accept whatever belief it demands of its followers! How hard it is sometimes to escape from that Ideology! Conan Doyle’s first story featuring Sherlock Holmes, “A Study in Scarlet” dramatizes an escape from Mormonism. 

I mentioned in Trumpdom No 2 the dismay that the journalist Thomas Friedman expressed when facing the savagery of the far right leaders of Israel. If he and many others shocked by the ruthlessness of the Zionist Israelis in continuing genocide against a defenceless and guiltless people would read Douglas Reed’s The Controversy of Zion, they would discover how the world has come to its present delirium. Friedman as a journalist may know of Reed who was the most important journalist during World War II and whose books were popular in many languages until he was censored into silence. The Controversy which starts with the separation of the non-Jewish northern Kingdom of Israel from the southern kingdom of Judah in 937 BC.                                                 The people of Israel rejected the racial distinction of Judah as preached by the Levite priesthood which demanded an order of existence fundamentally different from the peoples about them. The Levites worshipped the war god Jehovah who demanded absolute obedience from his followers and strict separation from others whom they considered inferior and barely human. Reed wrote: “The creed which was given force of daily law in Judah in 458 BC . . . rested on the assertion, attributed to the the tribal deity (Jehovah) that the “Israelites” (in fact the Judahites) were his ‘chosen people’ who, if they obeyed all his ‘statutes and judgements,’ would be set over all other peoples and be established in a ‘promised land.’ Out of this theory, whether by forethought or unforeseen necessity, grew the present theories of “captivity” and ‘destruction’.” All of Jehovah’s worshippers had to live where he specified, but obviously that being impossible, those living elsewhere were “captives” of the “stranger”, whom they had “to root out,” “pull down,” and “destroy.” “It made no difference whether the ‘captors’ were conquerors or friendly hosts, their ordained lot was to be destruction or enslavement.” Through the centuries Jewish leaders pursued this policy. They demanded that Jews live in ghettoes, apart from Gentiles, and condemned Jews who were assimilated in the Gentile world. The Levites lost control of thousands of Jews who spread out to many countries. The advent of the Khazars (later called Ashkenazis) from eastern Russia into western Europe brought back the strictness and revenge with all the might that these savage people, converts to Judaism, could devise from the Talmud and other laws. About 1500 their Talmudic government moved from Spain to Poland. Meanwhile the Sephardic Jews, largely from Spain, dwindled in numbers and disintegrated as a force. Spreading across Europe and North America, they detested these Slavic Jews, Ashkenazis, but gradually became overwhelmed by the methods that these Jews used to seduce western politicians to promote their goals. The book will present the reader with many surprises through these chapters showing the promotion of Zionism at the expense of the western nations that the politicians were supposed to defend. Reed relates how the Jews instigated the revolutions in England, France and in particular Russia where the leaders were largely Khazar Jews. The wholesale slaughter of Russians by the Bolsheviks whose aim was to destroy Christianity and any semblance of Gentile culture proved the wiles of Judaism. The book closes in the late 1950s when the political leadership in the West and its media are controlled by the Zionists with fears of the worst to come. We, living in the world of President Trump, can attest to that.

Reed writes: “Dr. Kastein, Zionist historian, having affirmed that the Jewish government (the "centre", with its unbroken history of more than two thousand years) ‘ceased to exist’” after the dissection of Poland in 1772, records that a hundred years later "a Jewish international” was in being. He meant that the Jewish government of Jews had given way to a Jewish government of governments. This is the truth of our time. Benjamin Disraeli, when Prime Minister of Great Britain, spoke of "a network" of revolutionary organizations which covered the earth like a system of railroads; it is the perfect description of the destructive mechanism which was constructed. To achieve the greater purpose there had to be another network at the top, and although Disraeli did not use the word in that case, he alluded to it when he said, "The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes". This is presumably "the Jewish international" of which Dr. Kastein spoke, a league of powerful and wealthy men at the top, “under whose authority kings and princes, first, and republican presidents and politicians, next, equally found themselves.”

“These two machines worked in synchronization, each promoting the aim of the other. In their dealings with the masses the Gentile rulers were forced by the threat of revolution from below to yield ever more authority, until they fell; in their dealings with foreign countries, and in the wars to which these led, they were constrained by the power of the purse to support the plan of the symbolic "return" to Palestine. The Gentile often asks why men of wealth should promote revolution. Disraeli put the same question, in order to give the answer: they wish to destroy Christianity. He knew precisely what he meant; to the Gentile the answer may be made more comprehensible by saying that they obey the Talmudic Law, which requires the destruction of heathen nation-states as the prelude to the triumphant “return”."

Reed remarks on the misrepresentations of reporting in World War II which will lead us to reflections on our principal subject, the holocaust. “In the case of "the Jewish persecution" in Germany”, he wrote, “I found that impartial presentation of the facts gradually gave way to so partisan a depictment that the truth was lost. This transformation was effected in three subtle stages. First the persecution of "political opponents and Jews” was reported; then this was imperceptibly amended to "Jews and political opponents"; and at the end the press in general spoke only of "the persecution of Jews". By this means a false image was projected on to the public mind. The plight of the overwhelming majority of the victims, by this fixing of the spotlight on one group, was lost to sight. The result showed in 1945, when, on the one hand, the persecution of Jews was made the subject of a formal indictment at Nuremberg, and on the other hand half of Europe and all the people in it were abandoned to the selfsame persecution, in which the Jews had shared, in their small proportion to populations everywhere. 

“At that period I, typical of Englishmen of my generation, had never thought of Jews as different from myself, nor could I have said what might make a Jew, in his opinion, different from me. If I later became aware of any differentiation, or of the desire of a powerful group to assert one, this was not the result of Hitler's deeds but of the new impediment to impartial reporting which I then began to observe. When the general persecution began I reported it as I saw it. If I learned of a concentration camp containing a thousand captives I reported this; if I learned that the thousand included thirty or fifty Jews I reported that. I saw the first terror, spoke with many of the victims, examined their injuries, and was warned that I incurred Gestapo hostility thereby. The victims were in the great majority, certainly much over ninety percent, Germans, and a few were Jews. This reflected the population-ratio, in Germany and later in the countries overrun by Hitler. But the manner of reporting in the world's press in time blocked-out the great suffering mass, leaving only the case of the Jews.”

Reed noted that the referencing by a rabbi in 1949 of the burning of Jewish books, which ”began the reign of terror in 1933”, actually comprised “a mass of Marxist books, including the works of many German, English and non-Jewish authors and included some Jewish books, which Reed, witnessing the burning, reported in The Times at the time. The “brunt” of the terror was not borne by Jews nor were the concentration camps “filled with Jews”. The number of Jewish victims was in proportion to their ratio of the population. Nevertheless this false picture, by iteration, came to dominate the public mind during the Second World War.

During the Nuremberg Trials, Reed wrote, “By the choice of the Jewish Day of Judgment for the hanging of the Nazi leaders and German commanders, the Western leaders gave the conclusion of the Second War this aspect of a vengeance exacted specifically in the name of ‘the Jews’. The shape which the trial took showed the purpose of the immense propaganda of falsification conducted during the war, which I have earlier described. ‘Crimes against Jews’ were singled out as a separate count, as if Jews were different from other human beings (and when the judgment was delivered, a hundred million human beings in Eastern Europe had been handed over to the general persecution of all men, from which Jews in their proportion suffered in Germany). This particular indictment was made ‘the crux of the case’ against the defendants and was based on the assertion that "six million Jews" had been killed (as time went by the word “perished" was substituted for "killed"). An impartial court would at the outset have thrown out any suit based on this completely unverifiable assertion: At Nuremberg lawyers, who in a private case would have demanded acquittal on the strength of an unproven statement in respect of a decimal point or digit, used this fantastic figure as the basis of their demand for conviction.

“The statement about the ‘six million Jews, allowed to pass without question by the men on the bench, was the end-product of this process. In six years of war the Germans, Japanese and Italians, using every lethal means, killed 824,928 British, British Commonwealth and American fighting-men, merchant sailors and civilians. Assuming that the Germans killed, say, half of these in Europe, they killed (according to this assertion) fifteen times as many Jews there. To do that, they would have needed such quantities of men, weapons, transports, guards and materials as would have enabled them to win the war many times over.”

The claims made by Jewish writers such as Elie Wiesel about the Holocaust have been criticized for misrepresentations or propaganda. The numerous writings describing its horrors have made it into the major event of World War II. Those who contradict claims in this literature or raise doubts about the cause in itself are sued in courts and persecuted by Jewish organizations, as if debating the subject was a crime.

We shall discuss in our next blog some of the literature questioning its truth and importance, leading with Norman Finkelstein’s The Holocaust Industry; Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering.