by Dr. William L. Pierce (1998)
I WAS HOPING that I’d have enough new information on the Middle East situation before this broadcast to make a forecast, but I don’t. I do see the displeasure of the Jewish policymakers in the Clinton government with the agreement between Iraq and the UN which has temporarily stymied their war plans. It’s clear that Madeleine Albright, for example, hates the new agreement and would much prefer to be bombing Iraqis now instead of later. And I see that the Republican politicians, in an effort to please the Jewish media bosses and money men, are rattling their sabers even louder than the Democrats. Mississippi’s Republican Senator Trent Lott is a good example of that. He’s a man with Presidential ambitions, and I’m sure that he’s not issuing his calls to ignore the UN agreement and launch an all-out war against Iraq without having consulted with his Jewish advisers and financial backers first.
So my guess is that the war against Iraq has been delayed for only a few months at the most — perhaps for only a few weeks — and the same people that almost got the war started last week still intend to have their war. They are determined to cripple Iraq by one means or another. But beyond that I just don’t know enough at this time to make any predictions.
I suspect though that the new agreement between the UN and Iraq will not be good for Bill Clinton. Getting the war started soon was his one hope of keeping the Bill and Monica story out of the headlines for a while, but he let his chance slip. Now the people who are hot for a war have one more reason to be unhappy with Clinton — and they now have time to write Clinton off and groom Al Gore to be their new war lord.
I’ve been turning this whole business of Bill Clinton and his problems over in my mind, trying to get the best perspective on it. As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, when I was in Germany recently the Germans couldn’t believe what they were seeing in the news about Clinton. It just didn’t seem possible to them that the head of the most powerful country on earth could be such an irresponsible clown, such a degenerate, such a reckless criminal. I explained to them that that’s democracy in America. But I must admit that I’m having a little trouble myself accepting the Clinton situation as real. It seems more like some sort of bad dream.
I can understand even a very successful and powerful politician having a personal quirk or two. I would not be surprised if an investigation of the 100 top politicians and bureaucrats in Washington found that a number of them have a weakness for bimbos — or occasionally indulge themselves with cocaine — or have sticky fingers in financial matters. And of course, they all lie on a daily basis. Politics in a democracy does not attract people of sterling character. But in Bill Clinton all of these vices are combined and exaggerated to the point of grotesqueness, of freakishness. A couple of weeks ago — on February 12 — the Wall Street Journal had a full-page spread which summarized some of Clinton’s quirks in a graphic way. Considered all together, it’s rather breathtaking.
Take the Whitewater scandal, for example, which most Americans probably are tired of hearing about. One of the principals in that scandal, Susan McDougal, an officer of the bankrupt Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, has been sitting in prison in Arkansas for the last six months because even after being given a grant of immunity from prosecution she still refuses to tell a grand jury whether or not Clinton was involved in the illegal activity of Madison Guaranty and also whether or not Clinton lied under oath when he testified at her trial on bank fraud charges. Now, Susan McDougal isn’t sitting in prison because she likes to be there. All she has to do to get out and also to remain in favor with her good friend Bill Clinton is tell the grand jury that Clinton wasn’t involved in or aware of criminal activity at Madison Guaranty and that he testified truthfully at her trial. So why doesn’t she just tell the world that Clinton is innocent, so she can get out of prison? We can only assume that it’s because he’s not innocent, and she’s afraid to perjure herself, and somebody is making it worth her while to keep her mouth shut and remain in prison on the contempt charge.
And of course, we can understand her fear of being caught in perjury. Things are turning up all the time which indicate that Clinton was, in fact, involved with Madison Guaranty and that he lied when he testified at her trial. One of those things is a cashed check for $27,000 from Madison Guaranty to Clinton which recently was found in a box of old bank records that everybody thought had been destroyed. There are many very strong reasons for thinking Clinton committed criminal acts in the Madison Guaranty affair, and Susan McDougal’s willingness to sit in prison on a contempt charge rather than tell what she knows about him is only one of those reasons. In more normal times this McDougal affair alone would have been enough to bring down a President, even without formal charges being filed against him. And the only reason formal charges haven’t been filed is because evidence disappears, or witnesses disappear, or witnesses take the Fifth Amendment, or they let themselves be jailed for contempt rather than testify. There’s a lot of money involved in keeping Bill Clinton in the White House, and when there are a lot of crooked lawyers and a lot of money involved in a case, it becomes hard to pin things down.
And that’s the pattern we see in a whole array of scandals in which Clinton is involved: hints of perjury, witnesses who refuse to testify, all sorts of indications of wrongdoing but just not quite enough for a guaranteed conviction if he’s indicted. But also none of the scandals ever gets cleared up. Clinton manages to wriggle out of one after another — barely — but they just keep accumulating. And the evidence of his crookedness just keeps piling up.
Back in 1992 he went on television and told Americans that he hadn’t had a sexual relationship with Gennifer Flowers while he was the governor of Arkansas. In a deposition he was forced to give in the Paula Jones case a few weeks ago he admitted under oath that he did have a sexual relationship with Gennifer. And of course, there was much more to the Gennifer Flowers affair than Clinton’s uncontrollable zipper: There was his illegal use of Arkansas state troopers to facilitate his rendezvous with Gennifer and his payoff to her with a state job, which resulted in a job-discrimination suit by the state employee who got bumped to make way for Gennifer. And there is solid evidence that Clinton did with Gennifer what he denies doing with Monica: namely, suborning perjury. There’s a taped telephone conversation in which Clinton tells Gennifer to lie about their relationship, to deny everything.
Hillary and her Jewish “spin doctors” in the White House are blaming all of the bad publicity about Clinton on a “vast, right-wing conspiracy.” The right wingers are out to get Clinton and destroy his Presidency, Hillary says, because they don’t like his “progressive” policies. But you know, Clinton has been involved in the same sort of recklessly crooked behavior and the consequent scandals throughout his adult life, from the time he was dodging the draft and organizing demonstrations for the Viet Cong back in the 1960s. Ten years ago, when he was the governor of Arkansas, he gave a state pardon to his biggest Arkansas supporter, Dan Lasater, after Lasater was convicted of dealing in cocaine. That sort of thing really looked bad back then, just as it looks bad today, and one can only suspect payoffs and a lot of other dirty things that haven’t come to light yet.
Ten years ago, of course, Clinton’s boosters in the media were doing a much better job of protecting him and covering up his quirks. Since the Monica Lewinsky scandal came to light a few weeks ago they seem to have given up on him. They’ve decided to cut their losses. Clinton is just too much of a tar baby. To quote Gennifer Flowers when she heard about Clinton’s latest problems: “You’d think the boy would learn.”
But Clinton is a true child of the 1960s. When he was growing up he learned not only that the world owed him a living, but that he was entitled to have whatever he wanted to have. He learned that if it feels good, he should do it. He learned contempt for such concepts as responsibility, duty, honor, and patriotism. He learned that the most valuable skill one can have is to be able to lie convincingly. He learned that he had a real talent for lying and could lie himself out of any problem. But, as Ms. Flowers has suggested, he doesn’t seem to have learned anything since then.
I can cope with the fact that we have a constitutional psychopath for a president. A lot of morally crippled people grew up during the 1960s. A lot of people took their lead from the Jews back then and have continued to follow that lead. What bothers me a lot more than the fact that Clinton is a moral cripple, is his acceptance by a substantial portion of the American public: not just acceptance, but approval. That says a lot about what’s wrong with America, not just what’s wrong with Clinton.
It’s not just the welfare class, the feminists, and the rest of the Clinton coalition that deserve the contempt of every true patriot for continuing to associate themselves with Clinton: it’s everyone in Washington who still addresses him as “Mr. President” instead of spitting in his face — or at least turning away from him and simply refusing to recognize him. Do these bureaucrats, lawyers, and politicians who still show respect to Clinton — who still shake his hand and smile at him and treat him as if he deserved respect — do they understand what they are doing to undermine respect for themselves and for the institutions they represent? Do they understand what they are doing to undermine respect for the government itself and for the democratic process?
No American patriot should tolerate Bill Clinton remaining in the White House. No American patriot should tolerate the government of which Bill Clinton is the head. No American patriot should tolerate the system which put Bill Clinton at the head of the U.S. government.
Now, if I had said that a year ago, most people would simply have dismissed me as an extremist — and I suppose that many still would. But every patriot now must either agree with me or at least be made very uncomfortable by what I have said. And I am defining as a real patriot everyone who really cares whether or not the President is a constitutional psychopath, who is really distressed by having such a man as President, and who also is responsible enough to be familiar with the facts, responsible enough to pay attention to what is happening, responsible enough to learn what he needs to learn in order to make informed decisions as a citizen.
If you are reading this you probably either you agree with me or you’re on the way to agreeing with me. If you’re a patriot you cannot simply ignore what’s happening and go on about your personal business. You cannot dismiss what I’ve said and keep pretending that we don’t have a grave national problem that requires a grave remedy. This is why the controlled media have such fear and loathing in their voices whenever they utter the word “patriot.” By supporting and covering for Clinton for so long they have put themselves in an exposed position, a position in which every patriot must consider them as much enemies of America as is Clinton himself. I think that they’ve decided to cut their losses by letting Clinton go, but it may be too late for them.
Think about it! Did ancient Rome ever have a more degenerate or criminal government than the one we have now? An even more disturbing question: Did Rome ever have a more irresponsible or debased citizenry than we have in America today?
It’s clear what patriots ought to do about Bill Clinton and his government and the system which gave us Clinton and his government. They won’t do quite yet what they ought to do, for several reasons. First, as I noted, many of them are still only on the way to accepting their responsibility as patriots. Like the Germans, they still can’t quite believe that the Clinton situation is real. And second, there still would be a lot of opposition to doing what we ought to do. Opposition not just from the rabble who don’t care that Clinton is a criminal and a degenerate and who approve of him because they like his “progressive” programs, but also opposition from a fairly large segment of the population which is not quite rabble and not quite patriotic: a segment which likes to think of itself as moral, respectable, and even responsible, but which is too conservative, too authoritarian, too inflexible in its thinking to accept a direct attack on the government and on the system underlying the government.
A great many police and military personnel belong to this segment. These people have a very strong streak of authoritarianism, a very strong tendency to believe whatever they hear on television. They don’t question what they hear. Tell them, “This is the President of the United States, and you must follow his orders,” and they will salute, say “yessir!,” and follow orders. They don’t pay attention to all of those stories about perjury, demonstrating for the Viet Cong, and sending out state troopers to round up bimbos. They don’t pay much attention to anything except the ball games, really. They like to wear uniforms, to salute, and to say “yessir!” So they’ll oppose any effort by patriots to do what ought to be done — up to a point. And that point is when the television no longer tells them that Bill Clinton is the boss and that they should salute him. That point is when they see the people around Clinton turning away from him, and they no longer can be sure about where the authority lies. And you know, we’re closer to that point than we’ve ever before been in this country.
It’s a fascinating situation. The Jews chose Bill Clinton as their tool, and very late in the game they have realized that he is such a badly flawed tool that he has jeopardized their whole enterprise. How will they correct their mistake?
If they just hang onto him and continue covering for him, their exposure continues to increase. The likelihood of a revolution — or at least, an assassination and a great deal of civil disorder — grows the longer Clinton stays in office. They don’t want to be pulled down with Clinton. If they ditch him and switch to Al Gore, on the other hand, the system suffers a substantial shock, a substantial loss in prestige, with many of the authoritarian types on whom the system depends for its unquestioning support becoming badly disoriented.
It’s clear that some of the media bosses have made the decision to ditch Clinton now. But there’s still some hesitation. Some Jewish elements are still supporting him. Actually, this is an ideal situation for patriots. Clinton’s departure promises to be messy. The authoritarians will have time to become thoroughly confused. The rabble will have time to become angry about the “vast, right-wing conspiracy” destroying their hero. And the patriots who’re still “on the way” will have time to decide what they ought to do.
It’s really too bad that a revolution in the United States cannot be the clean and relatively bloodless affair that it is in a banana republic, where all a general has to do is surround the presidential palace with his troops and seize the national television station. If he can hold onto the television station for a few days, he’s won. It’ll be infinitely messier and bloodier in the United States. And it won’t be a revolution just against a corrupt president or bad policies. It’ll be much more fundamental than that. It’ll be a revolution against a failed system of government.
Well, I’m sorry that I haven’t been able to give you a very specific forecast today. Let me tell you something to be on the lookout for, though. Watch for resignations by top bureaucrats in Washington. They will know what’s coming before the rest of us do, and a lot of them will be jumping ship, hoping to avoid being sucked down in the undertow. When you see that happening, you may want to consider tying up your own loose personal ends. Make sure that you have a good stock of blankets and candles and canned goods — and ammunition. If you live in a large city, you may want to think about a vacation in a safer area for a month or two.
I really don’t know what’s coming or when it’s coming. But I do know that we have a very unusual and dangerous situation in this country now. One way or another the bizarre and unnatural experiment of government by Jewish media bosses is coming to an end.
* * *
Source: American Dissident Voices broadcast of March 7, 1998
The Wilkomirski Affair: How a Holocaust Hoaxer was Rewarded for his Lies
by Professor Arthur R. Butz, acclaimed author of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century
THE STORY of the impostor “Binjamin Wilkomirski” has been generally well known for almost two years, but new revelations were coming out as late as last fall. I think there are some aspects of it that deserve added stress and contemplation. There is more here than the tale of a con man being nabbed. (ILLUSTRATION: Holocaust Hoaxer Binjamin Wilkomirski, richly rewarded by the Jews with money and fame — even after he had been outed as a hoaxer.)
In 1996 a book appeared, authored by Binjamin Wilkomirski, entitled Fragments: Memories of a Childhood 1939-1948. It had been published the previous year, in its original German. In this book the author related that he was born a Jew in Latvia and was separated from his parents at age three, was sent to German concentration camps, to Majdanek, then Auschwitz, where he endured a living hell. Liberated at the end of the war, he was adopted by a Swiss family named Dössekker, from which he took the name Bruno Dössekker.
His memoirs, which immediately won wide acclaim, were promoted by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and won the National Jewish Book Award for 1996. In France his book won the Prix Mémoirs de la Shoah, and in Britain the Jewish Quarterly literary prize.
Eventually his tale was supported by a woman named Laura Grabowski, who said she was also a Jewish survivor of Auschwitz and remembered Wilkomirski: “He’s my Binji, that’s all I know” she said.(33) She had her own tale of suffering at Auschwitz at the hands of Josef Mengele and other Germans, and the scars to prove it. Wilkomirski and Grabowski went on lecture and concert tours individually and together.
Raul Hilberg appears to have been an early skeptic. Swiss Jewish journalist Daniel Ganzfried heard rumors that Wilkomirski’s story was not true. He investigated and determined that the Latvian Jew “Binjamin Wilkomirski” was actually a Swiss gentile, born on February 12, 1941, to an unwed Swiss mother named Yvonne Berthe Grosjean, and later adopted by the Dössekker family. He was never incarcerated at Auschwitz. Ganzfried’s expose was published in the Swiss weekly Weltwoche during August and September 1998. Wilkomirski subsequently refused to submit to a DNA comparison with Max Grosjean, Yvonne’s brother.(34)
Laura Grabowski was exposed as a fraud in October 1999 by the Christian magazine Cornerstone. Her real name was Laurel Rose Willson, born to Christian parents on August 14, 1941, in Washington state, and of course she was never incarcerated at Auschwitz. She had earlier written books under the name Lauren Stratford, claiming she had suffered ritual satanic abuse, citing the same scars which she later claimed were inflicted by Mengele. (The scars were apparently self-inflicted.) As such she appeared on talk shows such as Oprah to relate her ordeals. When she decided that she would also be Laura Grabowski, she transposed the stories of ritual satanic abuse to the new setting Auschwitz.(35)
An important observation is that the downfalls of Dössekker and Willson did not come about because their claimed experiences were determined to be phony. Though Ganzfried and others thought there was something fishy about Wilkomirski’s story in itself, for example, his claim that as a lone Jewish child, four years old, he was able to survive the “Holocaust,” they were nailed on the issue of identity. They are gentiles who were not in a German concentration camp during World War II; they only visited them years later.
They are contrasted for example to Elie Wiesel, who cannot be discredited on the basis of identity, since he is a Jew who was actually interned at Auschwitz. Against Wiesel’s concoctions society has yet to develop an effective defense, by listening to revisionists instead of its current leaders.
Wilkomirski’s Fragments is no more or less plausible, in itself, than Wiesel’s Night. For example, Wiesel admitted in Chapter 5 that, when the Germans evacuated Auschwitz, he had the option of staying at the hospital, with his father registered as a patient, to await the Soviets. He chose rather to join the evacuation, taking his father with him, on a predictably difficult journey to another German concentration camp. That is as implausible as anything in Wilkomirski’s book if one is to believe Wiesel’s tale of the horrors inflicted by the Germans at Auschwitz.
His story also has the claim, common among the “eye witnesses,” that the crematories at Auschwitz belched fumes from the chimneys (Ch. 3). Crematories do not operate that way, and such flames are not seen on any of the aerial photos of the camp. His claim to have seen piles of children being burned by the Germans at Auschwitz is lifted from the Talmud, with the Romans replaced by the Germans.(36)
I could go on and on about Wiesel’s absurdities, but I won’t. I recommend reading Faurisson’s 1993 leaflet about him.(37) My point right now is that Wilkomirski was discredited only on the basis of identity. We can also observe that the Wilkomirski book shows that the filthy imagination that was required to create Elie Wiesel’s Night is not unique to Jews.
What I now want to focus on is the amazing obstinacy of many people in supporting these two, especially Wilkomirski, long after they had been exposed.
After Ganzfried published his expose “he received several complaints from Jews who said that, even if Mr. Wilkomirski turns out not to be a survivor, Mr. Ganzfried is feeding the fires of those who deny the Holocaust.”
Deborah Lipstadt (pictured), who used Wilkomirski’s book in her course at Emory University, said that if Wilkomirski is a phony it “might complicate matters somewhat. But [the book] is still powerful” as a novel.(38)
Lasha Darkmoon Comments
Lipstadt continued to recommend Wilkomirski’s phony book to her students at Emory University without mentioning the fact that the book had been discredited as a hoax.
I was myself shocked to see this book in the Modern History section of my local library instead of in the Fiction shelves where it belonged. At the very least, the book ought to have carried a library sticker, alerting readers to the fact that the book was a literary hoax.
When I pointed this out politely to the Chief Librarian, in front of a contingent of schoolchildren who happened to be checking out with their books at the time, she ticked me off for making a scene in public. When I persisted with my complaint in a lowered voice, making every attempt to sound supercool, I was threatened with eviction from the library for creating a disturbance and “upsetting the children.”
When I returned to the library a few months later, I discovered to my annoyance that the book was still there in the WWII History Section. Not the slightest attempt had been made to play fair with the public and tell them that the book was a literary hoax.
Seething with indignation, I then did something slightly illegal that would have got me into hot water if I’d been caught. I wrote these words in huge block capitals on the flyleaf of the book with my ballpoint pen: “THIS BOOK IS A FAKE! DON’T BELIEVE ANY OF IT!”
Before returning the book to the shelves, I was tempted to add this infamous Elie Wiesel quote, but I couldn’t remember the exact words, so I left it out:“Some events do take place but are not true; others are [true], although they never occurred.”
Professor Butz Continues
There was no attempt to rescind Wilkomirski’s National Jewish Book Award.
Norman Finkelstein has discussed this phenomenon recently, recalling Elie Wiesel’s earlier obstinate loyalty to Jerzy Kosinsky long after his 1965 “basic Holocaust text,” The Painted Bird, was exposed as a fraud. (Kosinsky committed suicide in 1991, perhaps because his fraud had been exposed a few years before by Polish journalist Johanna Siedlecka.)
Finkelstein noted that Yisrael Gutman, a director of the Yad Vashem center in Jerusalem, has said it isn’t important that the Wilkomirski yarn is a fraud: “Wilkomirski has written a story which he has experienced deeply; that’s for sure… he is not a fake. He is someone who lives this story very deeply in his soul. The pain is authentic.(39) Another Yad Vashem official who defended the Wilkomirski book when the controversy erupted was Lea Balint.(40) Bear in mind that Yad Vashem holds itself to be the central and official repository of “survivor” accounts.
Willson had her devoted friend and supporter in Jennifer Rosenberg, who ran the Holocaust web site http://www.holocaust.about.com as a counterweight to revisionist web sites. Grabowski-Willson befriended Rosenberg and helped her run the site. On her site Rosenberg related that, before she visited Auschwitz, Laura Grabowski gave her a pair of pink sandals to leave at the crematorium in memory of her childhood friend, Anna, who Laura said died there.
Rosenberg maintained her friendship with Laura for at least five months after Laura was exposed as a fraud, claiming that the imposture was unimportant and not being sure what to do about the posted story of the pink shoes.(41)
“Whether I can say this is true or not true, I would have to do my own research” Ms. Rosenberg says, and adds that she is too busy to do so. Of Laura, whom she still considers a friend, she says, “She’s a very sincere and sweet person.”
“If it isn’t real, and if Anna isn’t real, there are so many young children and babies who went through that… It really was a metaphor for the children. For Laura, it was for Anna. I did it for the children. When I did it I was obviously doing it for Anna, but seeing it there, it was also for all the children, the loss of life, what they should have had, could have had.”
“I don’t want to be involved in this… My main goal is to educate people on the Holocaust.” Ms. Rosenberg says she expends significant energy deleting messages with links to the sites of Holocaust deniers such as Mr. Irving and otherwise blocking correspondents who undermine the historical record. Postings to the bulletin board are not pre-screened, so sometimes a denier’s comments show up before she can remove them. To keep them away entirely, Ms. Rosenberg says, “I would have to have a 24-hour shift.”
Laura Grabowski knew that censoring the discussion would amount to more than a full time job (so) she said she volunteered to help Ms. Rosenberg monitor the discussion late at night, since she had insomnia. Ms. Rosenberg taught her how.
I think Rosenberg’s position is that “to educate people on the Holocaust” consists in suppressing revisionist views, and not being concerned about those views and stories that sound more or less like the usual yarns. Impostors and con-artists such as Wilkomirski and Grabowski are thus not seen as people “who undermine the historical record,” even after exposure. As for the web site, its URL has been changed to http://history1900s.about.com. On 21 April I took the “Holocaust” link there and used the site’s search function to try to find mention of the pink shoes or Laura Grabowski but I couldn’t. I assume that mention of them has been deleted, and Rosenberg has finally lost her friend.
The most significant of all these obstinate friends is, I believe, the American Orthopsychiatric Association (the “Ortho”), an organization of psychiatrists who specialize in various forms of abuse and persecution, especially of children. In March 1999, about six months after Ganzfried’s expose, the Ortho announced that at its April 10 meeting it would honor Binjamin Wilkomirski with its Max A. Hayman award “to celebrate work done to increase our understanding of genocide and the Holocaust.”
Naturally there was great controversy on the appropriateness of this award, both inside and outside the Ortho. Wilkomirski had the support of psychiatry professor Dori Laub, a scholar long associated with Yale’s Holocaust-testimony video archive. Laub argued that the award “re-establishes the priority of human experience and memory” over the written documentation preferred by historians, though the award leaves open the question of the authenticity of Wilkomirski’s account. There is no doubt that Wilkomirski’s work was “being taken seriously among therapists who treat Holocaust survivors,” and in fact Wilkomirski has worked “with Israeli psychiatrist Elitsur Bernstein in developing ‘an interdisciplinary therapy’ to treat such child survivors”; a paper by Wilkomirski and Bernstein was well received at a 1998 Holocaust conference at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana.
Ortho member Harvey Peskin, identified as “a Holocaust scholar and psychotherapist,” argued that Wilkomirski’s account can be accepted as true because it is “consistent with the memories of other child survivors and with the historical record.”
Though Peskin conceded that Wilkomirski could be a phony he argued, and I think I am summarizing him right on this, that denunciation or rejection of Wilkomirski could discourage real Holocaust survivors from coming forward, and would be hurtful to them in any case. He wrote “such disparagement of witness gives comfort to a new revisionism that no longer attacks the truth of the Holocaust itself but only individual claims of survival” and Wilkomirski [is] then not only disbelieved, but [his] cause cannot be left standing:… to urge the child survivor’s recovery of forfeited personal identity through raveling a daunting trail of unforfeited Holocaust memory.(42)
Wilkomirski accepted the award at the April 10 meeting, to the standing applause of the attendees, the gist of whose reactions being that his memoirs are essentially true.
Lea Balint of the Yad Vashem, an enthusiastic supporter from the beginning and faithful to the end, e-mailed Wilkomirski that “You deserve this award.”(43) I apologize for repeating that Yad Vashem holds itself to be the central and official repository of “survivor” accounts, but the point is important, in view of the crucial role such testimonies play in supporting the legend. This was not the first time Yad Vashem got mud in its eye for publicly backing a phony, as it vouched for the witnesses who in 1987 testified in Israel to John Demjanjuk operating a gas chamber at Treblinka. Demjanjuk was later proved to have not been at Treblinka, and released in 1993.(44)
Cynthia Ozick, a New York writer who has authored an anti-revisionist Holocaust play, The Shawl, which was not well received by critics,(45) reacted to the award by declaring “If Mr. Wilkomirski is indeed a fabricator then to laud him is to take a stand — politically — on the side of those who insist that the Holocaust is a fabrication.”(46) There is a partial truth in this. I accept the core of the analysis of the psychiatrists who supported the award, in the sense of agreeing that Wilkomirski’s account does indeed sound a lot like those of the “survivors” who have testified to atrocious German cruelties in the camps, though I would prefer to turn that around: the accounts of those survivors sound a lot like Wilkomirski’s. Because of the Ortho award, you now have that evaluation from a group of professional psychiatrists. Where that leaves the Holocaust peddlers, whose foundation is the accounts of “eye witnesses,” is obvious.
That is the first lesson to draw from the Wilkomirski episode that goes beyond a “tale of a con man being nabbed.” The second lesson relates to a question that I raised at the Adelaide conference in 1998. The immediate occasion was some remarks about Deborah Lipstadt that had been made earlier.(47)
Earlier today we heard of a concern from their camp that I have heard many times before.
This time it was expressed by Deborah Lipstadt: the “survivors” are now dying off at such an alarming rate that it will soon be difficult to confound the revisionists.
Such a view can only be advanced in hysteria, because of what it tacitly admits. No sane person would fear that, because all those alive at the time of the US Civil War are now dead, it will be difficult to confound those who might deny it happened. The defenders of the hoax have quite lost their grip on historical reality, and on what it means for something to happen in real time and real space.
Lipstadt has many times expressed the view of which I spoke.(48)As there have been others, an example being Deborah Dwork, co-author with Van Pelt of a book on the history of Auschwitz and head of the Holocaust studies program at Clark University in Massachusetts.(49) A related view was expressed by Berenbaum; his argument, that the Holocaust obviously happened, appeals only to well known events of the 90s. I classify these as related views because they imagine the “Holocaust” as something that exists more substantially in the present rather than the past. The Wilkomirski episode forces my thoughts to return to this point. Does our dispute with the defenders of the entrenched legend arise not over what happened, but over what it means for something to “happen”? Is the dispute metaphysical rather than historical? Or is it neither?
My question is urgently practical. If I must try to express in comprehensible terms the metaphysical principle suggested by Lipstadt and many of the defenders of Wilkomirski and Grabowski, I would say it is the idea that “happen” means something like “said, with emotion and apparent conviction, to happen,” or perhaps “believed fervently to have happened,” though both of these descriptions necessarily fall short, as I cannot empathize with the mentality involved. This interpretation is reinforced by the religious function played by the “Holocaust,” which many have observed. Religious faith is self-validating, impervious to reason, and regards proposals to scientifically validate its claims as profane in all senses of the word.
In the recent film about Fred Leuchter, the Jew Van Pelt expresses offense that, by entering the ruins of a crematorium at Auschwitz, Leuchter had transgressed on “the holy of holies.” That expression has a specific historical and liturgical meaning in Judaism as the “Kodesh Kadashim,” being the most sacred chamber housing the Ark of the Covenant in, while the Jews were wandering, the Tabernacle, and later in the Temple, and which only the high priest could enter.(50)
It is in that sense that one must interpret Elie Wiesel’s remark “Let the gas chambers remain closed to prying eyes, and to imagination.”(51) The Temple and the Ark no longer exist; some act as though the ruins at Auschwitz can substitute. In any case, no revisionist would qualify as the high priest.
That might be considered a neat explanation of our differences with the promoters of the legend, but after some consideration I can’t accept it, at least not in its simplicity. For one thing, it is not simple. That I have given an interpretation in terms of religious myth may only seem to make the matter more familiar, but I think it has really made it more elusive. It is understood, of course, that I am not speaking here of the historical problems; I am only trying to understand our adversaries.
The complication is that we think of religion as universal and other worldly. Judaism, by contrast, is a tribal religion of this world, in which contention with gentiles is a major ingredient, both in practice and in myth (for example, their “cheerfully reported genocidal wars”, as Wilson puts it(52) ). As Kevin MacDonald writes, Judaism is among other things “a group evolutionary (and) reproductive strategy that facilitates resource competition by Jews with the gentile host society.”(53) We have nothing in our religious experiences that begins to resemble those of a Jew in relation to Judaism. I believe that, excluding from consideration some idiots, their idea of what it means for something to happen is about the same as ours, but there is a paucity of evidence for what they want to claim happened. As shown by the Laqueur book, the facts of the past do not support them, and they will avoid Laqueur’s path henceforth. However they do possess the present, politically. That is emphatically expressed in the Berenbaum outburst that opened this paper [“A Holocaust museum is built…”].
A cold calculation shows that a strong weapon in promoting the legend is bawling “survivors” who will not be challenged because to do so would only increase the hurt to them.(54) Kosinsky and Wilkomirski may be frauds but, hey, we don’t want people to develop a habit of reading such writings critically. That concern simmered, not very well hidden, in the defense of the Ortho award to Wilkomirski. People may even start wondering about Elie Wiesel, as did Alfred Kazin, who accused Wiesel, Primo Levi and Jerzy Kosinsky “of ‘making a fortune off the Holocaust’ and inventing atrocities.”(55) They may even start wondering about those Auschwitz alleged eye witness testimonies, and the Auschwitz legend doesn’t have much else.
A variation on the “survivor” is the person who claims to have lost relatives. Usually the right answer to their challenge “What happened to them?” is “I don’t know.” That should end the exchange. In rare cases it may be possible, over time, to nail a liar. The case of Leo Loafer in Dallas comes to mind, but even in that case the nailing could not have been accomplished in a verbal exchange between strangers.(56)
In many circumstances it is better to possess the present than the past, but the whole point of history is the past. That is what revisionists talk about.
Now I will close by rendering my simple opinion on the Wilkomirski controversy: both sides were right, and the revisionists are right as well. To see how this can be possible, consider in analogy the revisionist assessment of a not very hypothetical debate on whether or not Hitler knew of an extermination program, a controversy that David Irving started in 1977 with his Hitler’s War. One side says the evidence shows that Hitler did not know. The other side argues that events on the scale of the “Holocaust” would have to have become known by Hitler. The two sides can’t possibly agree because they are both right and know it. Only the revisionist can explain why there is no contradiction in saying both are right, but only provided it is understood that the revisionist is right.
If I may return to Laqueur, a similar seeming contradiction arose as a paradox, because the same man held what appeared to him to be two contradictory opinions: mass exterminations at Auschwitz were a “terrible secret,” and mass exterminations at Auschwitz could not have been kept secret. Only the revisionist sees that there is no contradiction. Laqueur is right on both counts, but of course given his preconceptions he was unable to resolve the contradiction and left the subject. Again, the revisionist resolves the seeming contradiction.
Consider the dispute over the wartime role of Pope Pius XII.
One side says he did nothing against the “Holocaust.” The other side says he gave as much help as reasonably possible to the Jews. The dispute is illusory. Both sides are right, as is the revisionist, but only the revisionist has the key.
There was no Holocaust for the Pope to act against.
Holocaust revisionism hovered constantly, usually in the background but there nevertheless, in the Wilkomirski controversy. Both sides were right, and of course the revisionists are right, with the new twist that the accusations hurled by the two sides explicitly accuse the other of helping the revisionists. One side says Wilkomirski is a phony; the other says his account emphatically sounds like those that have been accepted as authentic.
The dispute is illusory. Both sides are right and so is the revisionist. All accounts comparable to Wilkomirski’s are phony.
One side says Wilkomirski is an impostor, and defense of him helps the revisionists. The other side says that, even if Wilkomirski is an impostor, rejection of him stains and discourages survivor testimony generally, giving rise “to a new revisionism”; for reasons I have explained that also helps the old revisionism. Both sides are right; the revisionist case is advanced however one reacts to Wilkomirski’s fall after his brief dance in the ghoulish spotlight of Holocaustomania adulation.
33. The New York Times, Dec. 29, 1999, p. E5. [See also: “Holocaust Survivor Memoir Exposed as Fraud,” The Journal of Historical Review, Sept.-Oct. 1998, pp. 15-16.]
34. E. Lappin, “The Man With Two Heads,” Granta, no. 66, Summer 1999, pp. 7-65.
35. See the Christian magazine Cornerstone (ISSN 0275-2743), vol. 28, no. 117 (1999), pp. 12-16, 18. It was posted at Cornerstone Magazine Online ( www.cornerstonemag.com/home.htm) on Oct. 13, 1999, and reported in the Jewish weekly Forward, Oct. 15, 1999, p. 1.
36. I discussed the Talmudic features of the Holocaust yarns in The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, pp. 246f. Wiesel has been immersed in Talmud, as discussed in The New York Times, Nov. 10, 1989, in a review of a PBS — TV interview of Wiesel, and as discussed in the Chicago Tribune, Dec. 31, 1995, book review section, pp. 1f.
37. Robert Faurisson, “A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel,” Oct. 1993
38. Forward (New York), Sept. 18, 1998, p. 1.
39. N. Finkelstein, “The Holocaust Industry,” Index on Censorship (London), April 2000, Issue 2/2000, pp. 120+. See also his recent book, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (London and New York: Verso, 2000), esp. pp. 55-58.
40. Forward, Sept. 18, 1998, p 1.
41. The quoted material about Rosenberg was in Forward, March 17, 2000, p. 1.
42. Forward, March 19, 1999, p. 1; April 9, 1999, p. 2; The Nation, April 19, 1999, pp. 34-38. Peskin’s article enticed “Memory and Media,” in Readings: A Journal of Reviews and Commentary in Mental Health (a publication of the Ortho), Dec. 1999, pp. 18-23, is remarkable in attempting to discredit the motives of Wilkomirski’s detractors, and the effects of their actions. This article places him unambiguously in the camp of those who say that Wilkomirski’s real identity is unimportant, because he has contributed greatly to increase awareness where it is needed.
43. Forward, April 16, 1999, p. 20.
44. I discuss this at http://pubweb.nwu.edu/~abutz/di/dj/jpwar.html and jkrak.html.
45. The New York Times, June 16, 1996, sec. 2, p. 6; June 21, 1996, p. C1; July 5, 1997, p. 11. I have not seen this play but I can’t resist passing along some information from the review of June 21, 1996. The revisionist in the play is a certain Garner Globalis who “belongs to a Midwestern think tank that exists to disprove that the Holocaust ever took place.” In one scene Globalis, confronting camp survivor Stella, “kisses the number tattooed on Stella’s arm, promising a sensual erasure of all that number signifies.”
46. Commentary, June 1999, p. 7.
47. Adelaide Institute (newsletter, ISSN 1440-9828), no. 82, Nov. 1998, p. 1. Reproduced in The Journal of Historical Review, Nov.-Dec. 1998 (vol. 17, no. 6), pp. 2f.
48. She expressed the view in a January 16, 2000, CNN program on the Irving trial. Tom Segev, in an article in the English edition of Ha’aretz, February 4, 2000, reported her belief that when “there will be no more survivors left… the influence of the Holocaust deniers is liable to increase.” The same view was attributed to her in an article by Elli Wohlgelernter in the Jerusalem Post, Sept. 24, 1999, “Friday” section, p. B5; my book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century is described as “the turning point” in the development of Holocaust revisionism (“Holocaust denial” to Lipstadt).
49. Newsday (Long Island), Dec. 6, 1999, p. A13. Dwork’s argument is self-promoting. She thinks that academic programs such as hers must get more support to compensate for gradually disappearing survivors: “the actuarial tables are an extra strong argument for the establishment of serious scholarship in academia.”
50. Dagobert D. Runes, Concise Dictionary of Judaism (New York: Philosophical Library, 1966), pp. 65, 114.
51. Elie Wiesel, All Rivers Run to the Sea. Memoirs (New York: Random House, 1995), p. 74.
52. E. O. Wilson, Consilience (1998), cited above, p. 6.
53. Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone.: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1994), pp. ix-x. Related books by MacDonald are The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Praeger, 1998), and Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (Praeger, 1998) [Reviewed in the May-June 1998 Journal of Historical Review, pp. 28-27.]
54. I once used this strategy myself. Among the many lies I told when I was a child, there was one I told a teacher once. I don’t remember the specific circumstances or the teacher but my problem had to do with a failure to do something. My excuse was “death in the family.” I got away with it, as the teacher did not want to risk increasing my hurt. I had probably picked up the tactic from a radio program or movie. I plead that I am sure I used the trick only once, and was ashamed of it. Our enemies use it over and over in promoting their extermination legend. The existence of such protestations of hurt is also used to argue that revisionists should not be heard or published. For example Northwestern University history professor Peter Hayes assumed a gutter posture when he told a meeting of students that “he sympathizes with students who might show up to heckle” me if I were to give a lecture on Holocaust revisionism, since “We’re talking about something that people who live around here have relatives and loved ones involved in.” Daily Northwestern, May 1, 1991, p. 5.
55. Chicago Tribune, Dec. 31, 1995, book review section, pp. 1f.
56. Leo Laufer, a Dallas man, read a column in 1977 about my book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century and wrote a letter to the editor (Dallas Times-Herald, Feb. 10, 1977, p. B3; this newspaper is now defunct). He said he spent two years as an inmate at Auschwitz, and repeated the long discredited yarn that the Germans made soap out of Jews, claiming even that he was still in possession of samples of this soap. He also made a claim that would normally be impossible to discredit. He said he “lost (his) entire family of two brothers, three sisters, (his) father and mother, and aunts and uncles.” Such a claim can carry some weight in public controversy, because of course nobody wants to contradict a stranger about the history of his own family. However that was not the end of the matter. In 1994 Loafer wrote another letter (Dallas Morning News, April 20, 1994, p. 18A). There he described himself as “a Holocaust survivor who lost the entire family — father mother, three brothers, four sisters and not counting hundreds of family members.” His story gained two dead siblings in the interim.
Part of an address delivered on May 27, 2000 at the 13th IHR Conference in Irvine, California. Reproduced from The Journal of Historical Review, 19/6, November/December 2000.
Read online Dr. Butz’s classic exposé of the Holocaust propaganda, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century
* * *
An Insider’s Story: When Jimmy Carter First Encountered Jewish Power
by Cholly Bilderberger
IT HAPPENED at the 1978 Camp David peace talks between Egypt and Israel at which President Carter presided. I was not there personally, but a close friend sat in on everything and gave me the results. (ILLUSTRATION: Egypt’s Anwar Sadat, Carter, and Israel’s Menachem Begin meet in 1978)
It has dawned on Carter that the Jews act in transcendent bad faith, and it’s marvelous to see him trying to keep the knowledge to himself. He is aware now that they will not be crossed in anything, and that it would be extremely unhealthy for any president to go against them in any significant way.
He realizes they have infiltrated so completely that he is, quite literally, entirely alone and completely unprotected. The knowledge that this could happen to the President of the United States has been such an education for him that he still can’t quite take it in. He masks the interior anguish quite well, but the Jews are, naturally, adept at sniffing that sort of thing out and they already suspect him.
When they sit down with him, all gruesome smiles, leers, and heavy ‘gaiety,’ saying everything between the lines as broadly as they dare, he goggles back, trying to give the right message between his lines. (“Sho-nuff, boss, dey ain’t no one here ‘ceptin’ us Israeli-lovin’ chickens, you can depend on me, I think you-all is great and I’se all for you folks. . .”)
In the full presidential setting the sinister Jewish thugs seemed to surround the yokel leader and his faithless retinue in classic Alfred Hitchcock ominousness, with the bumbling Egyptians thrown in to heighten the effect. (Actually, no more was needed, they stretched the esthetic bounds of credible theater.) Carter was centered, entirely alone; the retinue, as silly and irresponsible as that of Louis XVI, was as indifferent to his fate as to its own and to that of the country it was supposed to be serving.
One could weep, I suppose, but I think it healthier to find it only funny. Carter and the millions of others like him have been deferring to the Jews for years, in modern dress as well as Biblically in their hillbilly sects, and now . . . well, now he and they have a taste of what that deference has led to.
As Harry S. Truman said when he saw the horrific results of the World War II bombing in Germany: “I guess they had it coming.” A pity that Truman, another yokel President who bowed almost completely to the Jews, didn’t live to have them teach him the facts of life — but Carter sits in for him very nicely!
* * *
Source: Instauration magazine, December 1978