“The attributions of anti-Semitism to a uniquely distorted ‘German mind’ or ‘German character’ are largely irrelevant, whether based on psychology, sociology, intellectual history, or demonology.”Historian Sarah Gordon
…by Jonas E. Alexis
We must never forget that Jews were not the only ones to be sent to concentration camps. There were Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics, ordinary Germans, political dissidents, Communists, and even homosexuals.
Even Richard J. Evans, one of the key figures in the Holocaust establishment, admits that there were at least 190,000 German “criminal offenders” by 1945.
There were several concentration camps designated for dissenters, Catholics and others, such as Dachau.
According to Paul Berben, there were four main categories of prisoners: “the ‘Politicals,’ the ‘Racials,’ the ‘Criminals’ and the ‘Anti-Socials.’ The ‘Politicals’ formed the largest group.” The Politicals were exclusively
“German Communists and Social Democrats who actively opposed the seizure of power by the National Socialists. They were considered to be dangerous opponents and were treated as such throughout their stay in Dachau. But other opposition groups, such as Conservatives and Monarchists, were also persecuted.
“Over the years there came to the camp men who had been found guilty of all kinds of transgressions of the new laws and regulations promulgated by the Nazi regime.
“Some, for example, had listened to foreign radio stations, some had simply had disagreements with some authorities, others had made unfavorable remarks about Nazism and had been denounced.”
There were also priests who were part of the political group. By 1937, the Catholic Church overwhelmingly opposed National Socialism. In retaliation
“schools were shut, Catholic organizations and works were banned, religious communities were abolished and their property seized, children were separated from the Church and their families, the State alone being responsible for their upbringing.
“At the same time the cunning propaganda was used systematically to denigrate the Church, the clergy and religious observance. Foul accusations were made, and a series of trials was held to show members of the clergy as a body of money traffickers who were corrupting youth…Finally the famous encyclicla Mit brennender Sorge of 1937 solemnly denounced the pagan ideology of Nazism and its vile practices.
“The Vatican’s action did not put a stop to persecution. Far from it. Nazi government denounced the Church as the enemy of the nation more rigorously than ever. Hundreds of members of the clergy were arrested and sent to concentration camps, where a large number met their deaths.
“After playing a waiting game at the start, some bishops, first and foremost the Bishop of Munster, Mgr von Galen, protested against the doctrine of blood and race and against the new paganism…He publicly denounced Nazi crimes, in particular euthanasia.”
The second group was the racial group, and it is where numerous Jews fit in. Jews, however, were not the only group to be part of the racial category. Gypsies were also taken to Dachau for the same reason.
The third group was the Criminals, who “were far less numerous at Dachau than the ‘politicals.’ On 26th April 1945 they numbered only 759, a large number of them having been enrolled in S.S. formations or sent to other camps.”
The Anti-social group was “an extremely ill-assorted group in which were to be found beggars, hawkers, tramps, workers who had left their jobs or had had a row with their employers. Men who had simply wished to defend their rights as working people, when promises made to them had been broken, were also considered anti-social.
“There were men too who had been wrongly denounced or who had committed some minor transgression which in no way justified their being considered ‘anti-social.’ As in the case of the criminals distinctions could be made between them, for while some were genuinely ‘anti-social,’ others behaved well.”
The Jehovah’s Witnesses were not part of any of the groups mentioned above, but “were banned in Germany from 1933.” Like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals were not part of any group, but were imprisoned.
In general, the Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, political dissidents, and gypsies were sent to Dachau. But they were far from the only groups. Dr. Johannes Neuhausler, a Catholic priest who was at Dachau from 1941 until 1945, wrote that there were people there from various parts of the world:
Albanians, Americans, Arabians, Armenians, Belgians, Bulgarians, Danes, Dutchmen, Englishmen, Estonians, Finns, Frenchmen, Germans, Greeks, Hungarians, Italians, Russians, Slovacs, Slovenes, Spaniards, Swedes, Swiss, and Turks.
Dachau’s prisoners did not have it easy: “The prisoners’ clothing was clearly inadequate and could not protect them from the rigours of the winter. As they did not have changes of clothing they often had to spend the whole day and even the night in wet clothes.”
But since “living conditions in these subsidiary camps varied greatly according to the way they were laid out,” there were a few things that were available in many of those camps.
For example, “a few sporting and cultural activities were authorized. Officially the S.S. could no longer maltreat the inmates as they liked. But the disciplinary regime remained very harsh.”
In the autumn of 1944, many prisoners in Dachau suffered, since Germany was on the brink of losing and since various parts of Europe was in chaos. But many prisoners still exercised some rights, for
“money brought on arrival and any that was subsequently sent to a prisoner was credited to him, and he could only draw 15 R.M. monthly. As some prisoners had considerable sums of money, especially in the early years, the S.S. conducted profitable financial transactions.
“When in 1942 the system of ‘gift coupons’ was instituted, the prisoners could no longer have money in their possession. The money in their account had to be used for the purchase of articles obtainable at the canteen, another course of considerable profit to the camp administration.”
Berben notes that
“theatrical entertainments, concerts, revues and lectures were arranged too. Among the thousands of men who lived in the camp there were all sorts of talents, great and small, to be found: famous musicians, good amateur musicians, theatre and musical artists.
“Many of these men devoted their time in the most admirable way to gain a few moments of escape for their comrades in misery, and to keep up their morale. And these activities helped too to create a feeling of fellowship.”
“the camp had a library which started in a modest way but which eventually stocked some fifteen thousand volumes. It had been formed with the books brought in by prisoners or sent to them by their families, or from gifts. There was a very varied choice, from popular novels to the great classics, and scientific and philosophical works.
“Only books in German and at the most a few dictionaries were allowed, but there were some ‘forbidden’ volumes there too, whose bindings had been camouflaged by the prisoner-librarians and which received particular attention from those who were ‘in the know.’
“The intellectuals in the camp kept the catalogues up to date and were in charge of lending out the books. Unfortunately, it was not possible for more than a very few prisoners to do any reading, so it was mainly only those lucky enough to be attached to the library who benefited from it.
“Yet it is astonishing to learn that some men in spite of their miserable convicts’ existence nevertheless found the energy to take an interest in the arts, in science and in philosophical problems.”
Correspondence was allowed, although there were regulations. In addition, letters sent to individual families “had to be written in German and to one single recipieent. Contents had to deal only with family matters and no reference at all was permitted to life in the camp, or the letter was not sent off.”
During the last years, probably from 1939 until 1944,
“it was decreed that a prisoner could send or receive two letters or two cards per month. He had to write in ink, very legibly, on the fifteen lines of each page of a letter. His correspondent could only use plain paper, and double envelopes were not allowed.”
The S.S. probably adopted this petty censorship for various reasons. But, as already suggested, not all the camps were the same, and each camp was
“influenced by a number of factors, such as: when it was formed, its position, the type of work, the number and nationality of its prisoners, or the behaviour of the S.S. officers and other ranks, of the Kapos and civilian personnel, and so on.”
Berben recounts that “the food was of course deplorable: soup with no nutritive value, containing only cabbage and a few bits of potato, and bread which was forever being reduced in quantity, until by the end it consisted of one eighth of a 30 lb. loaf. There were about 400 plates among 3,000 people.”
During that time, typhus broke out, and killed nearly 3,000 men. “When Captain Barnett, an American member of the War Crimes Investigation Commission, visited the camp, which the S.S. had set on fire, he found two ditches each containing between 2,000 and 2,500 corpses and he counted a further 268 corpses scattered over the compound.”
Putting all the pieces together, can popular historians in good conscience ignore these facts and simply focus on Jewish exterminations?
Is it historically fair to deliberately dismiss non-Jews in the camps and focus on one particular people? In his defense, Jewish historian Yehuda Bauer wrote,
“‘Aryan’ actually had only the quality of distinguishing it from ‘non-Aryan’; the only non-Aryan was the Jew. Anti-Semitism was therefore not a result of Nazi racism, but the obverse was true: racism was a rationalization of Jew-hatred.”
The only way that this theory would work is if the Nazis only focused on Jews only. And here is the perennial contradiction that the Holocaust establishment has yet to answer properly:
If the Simon Wiesenthal Center is really pursuing justice and going after Nazi collaborators, shouldn’t the organization be in the business of charging Hollywood directors and producers as well? Haven’t some scholars argued that Hollywood directors collaborated with Nazi Germany?
Why did those directors never get prosecuted and continue to make millions of dollars working with Nazis while innocent people like Frank Walus were being prosecuted and persecuted?
The answers to those questions are pretty simple: the Holocaust industry, as Norman Finkelstein would have put it, is a colossal hoax and fabrication. The definition of a Nazi or terrorist group has taken a paradigm shift.
A person is or is not a Nazi because the Holocaust establishment tells us so; a terrorist group like the Syrian rebel is not a terrorist group because the neocons change the name of the game.
In other words, the Zionist world is like Gollum in J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, who dialectically likes the ring of power and hates it at the same time.
“It was the one thing he loved, his ‘precious,’ and he talked to it, even when it was not with him….the thing was eating up his mind, of course, and the torment had become almost unbearable…He hated the dark, and he hated light more: he hated everything, and the Ring most of all.
“‘What do you mean,’ said Frodo. ‘Surely the Ring was his precious and the only thing he cared for? But if he hated it, why didn’t he get rid of it, or go away and leave it?’
‘‘You ought to begin to understand, Frodo…He hated it and loved it, as he hated and loved himself.”
The Zionist world and the sexual debauchery which Wilhelm Reich had unleashed upon priests and nuns work in a similar way. Reich and the sexual culture told priests and nuns to act upon their sexual impulses, but when priests and nuns responded by saying, “We’ll be glad to do so,” the same sexual culture gets to tell priests and nuns that they are wicked people by molesting boys.
The sexual culture can defend Woody Allen, Roman Polansky, and more recently director of X Men: Days of Future Past Brian Singer, but priests and nuns ought to be put on trial. As E. Michael Jones puts it,
“The same media which automatically assumes that every Catholic priest accused of abuse is guilty as charged lets Hollywood celebrities off the hook by insisting that they are innocent until proven guilty.”
Will the media eventually condemn Singer? Will they pursue further investigation on the matter?
“The plaintiff, Michael Egan, claims he was 15 years old when Singer forcibly sodomized him, among other allegations. Egan’s lawyers, led by Jeff Herman, allege that Singer provided him with drugs and alcohol and flew him to Hawaii on more than one occasion in 1999.
“His suit claims battery, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy by unreasonable intrusion, and it seeks unspecified damages.”
Egan declared, “I can now stand in front of you all today and say, I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. Some people don’t have a choice to say that. Some end up dead.”
There is no sign that Singer will be proved guilty in the foreseeable future. Why? Because he is too powerful. He is untouchable. It is the same thing with Woody Allen.
Allen, who had a “persistent fascination” with incest and who got immersed in psychoanalysis for over thirty years, can screw Dylan Farrow and get away with it pretty easily.
“The double standard is impossible to ignore. In Philadelphia, ADL board member and DA, Lynn Abrams announced that she was going to investigate clergy sexual abuse, but only the Catholic Church got investigated.”
But Dylan Farrow could hardly be the only girl to get screwed by Allen. Mia Farrow, who fell in love with Allen in 1980, adopted 14 kids, and one of them happened to be Soon-Yi. Soon-Yi was another fresh blood.
Mia Farrow, who discovered that Allen had also a fascination with incest, told him, “You’re not supposed to fuck the kids.” In respond, Allen declared, “I know I did a bad thing.” All right. Did Allen get to be exposed like priests who got involved in sexual harassment and abuse?
In a nutshell, the sexual culture loves sodomy and hates it at the same time. If priests commit sodomy, that is a wicked act and ought not to be tolerated. If Bryan Singer or Michael Jackson commits sodomy, that is a libel which ought to be expunged from the minds of decent people.
In the same way, the Zionist world loves Nazis and hates them at the same time; they like terrorists and hate them at the same time. They cannot let them go. They cannot live without them. Nazis and terrorists are their precious. They will not give their precious away precisely because the stakes are too high.
How else would Zionism continue to manipulate the West, most specifically America? How would the neoconservatives continue to write palpable defense of the Syrian terrorists who, in the eyes of the Syrian people, are destroying the country (with the help of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and America)?
How would the neocons continue to lambaste Iran, which is ahead of schedule with respect to the nuclear deal? How would the neoconservatives write diatribes against Putin virtually every other day in magazines and newspapers such as Commentary, the Weekly Standard, the National Review, FrontPage Magazine, the American Thinker, the Washington Post, the New York Times, etc.?
How would they continue to kill innocent civilians in places like Yemen? How would the architects of the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” technique James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, who had very little knowledge of terrorism in the Middle East, go around defending torture without going to jail?
How would Daniel Pipes argue that America should support both the Syrian terrorists and Assad at the same time? How would Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post continue to label people like Pat Buchanan and Rand Paul anti-Semites?
The Ring of power devoured Gollum and in process turned him into a monster. Talmudic disputations and interpretations have been devoured people like Pipes for centuries and, in the process, they have abandoned moral and practical reasoning.
This modus operandi of course has sent shockwave among some perceptive observers since the inception of neoconservatism. The late Russell Kirk himself was frightened to see where the neoconservative movement was going, people whom he viewed primarily as of “Jewish stock” and who “recruited some Protestant and Catholic auxiliaries.” Kirk continued,
“How earnestly they founded magazine upon magazine! How skillfully they insinuated themselves into the councils of the Nixon and Reagan Administrations! How very audaciously some of them, a decade ago, proclaimed their ability to alter the whole tone of the New York Times.”
They do not want to alter just the New York Times but much of the world. Once again, Ukraine is a classic example.
After sleeping with neo-Nazis for months in Ukraine, the Zionist world is now telling us that the Pro-Russian government is forcing Jews to register. How did they get that reliable source? From the Israeli regime.
John Kerry quickly used that opportunity to blast the pro-Russian government, saying that it is “grotesque” and ‘beyond unacceptable.”
Jillian Kay Melchior of National Review, who struggled mightily to string two rational thoughts together, also used that opportunity to score some points on Russia, saying things like
“The forced registration of Jews in Donetsk may well offer some insight into Russia’s totalitarian mindset, which is deeply rooted in the history of the last century.
“It may also be indicative of the problems Ukraine faces as the most corrupt nation in Europe: It’s possible this is a money-making scheme by corrupt Donetsk officials who want to pocket registration fees. Either way, if it’s coming from separatists, it’s a bad sign that Jews are being singled out.”
The propaganda turned out to be a complete hoax and fabrication.
“A Ukrainian rabbi whose congregation was the target of an anti-Semitic leaflet that drew global media interest and condemnation from the U.S. government believes it was a hoax and wants to put the matter to rest.
“But five days after the incident in the restive eastern city of Donetsk, Ukraine’s prime minister, anxious to maintain U.S. support against Russia, issued a statement accusing Moscow and told a U.S. TV channel he would find the ‘bastards’ responsible.”
Could it be that the prime minister was one of the “bastards” or accomplices who put this stuff out for the Israeli regime?
In any event, the Israeli regime did not even send an apology to anyone who bought the lie hook, line, and sinker. The Israeli regime’s covert operation in the region is not a surprise at all. As E. Michael Jones puts it,
“As if to prove that politics continue to make strange bedfellows, Israeli soldiers were also involved in the Maidan square demonstrations fighting alongside the Ukrainian fascists.
“In an interview with the Jewish Telegraph Agency, an officer in the Shu’alei Shimshon reconnaissance battalion of the Givati infantry brigade of the IDF explained how he headed a force of 40 men and women, ‘including several fellow IDF veterans,’ in violent clashes with Ukrainian government forces, clashes which eventually brought down the government.
“Just what their role was and whether they were involved in criminal activity, like the sniper fire that killed 100 demonstrators and police, remains unclear at this point. What is clear is Delta’s (the pseudonym for the IDF officer) willingness to work with anti-Semitic Neo-Nazis to achieve common political goals:
“As platoon leader, Delta says he takes orders from activists connected to Svoboda, an ultra-nationalist party that has been frequently accused of anti-Semitism and whose members have been said to have had key positions in organizing the opposition protests.
“‘I don’t belong [to Svoboda], but I take orders from their team. They know I’m Israeli, Jewish, and an ex-IDF soldier. They call me ‘brother,’ he said. ‘What they’re saying about Svoboda is exaggerated, I know this for a fact. I don’t like them because they’re inconsistent, not because of [any] anti-Semitism issue.’”
The CIA has been doing covert operations in Ukraine as well. But when Prime Minister Dmitri A. Medvedev pointed this out, David M. Herszenhorn of the New York Times accused him of appealing to conspiracy theory. He wrote,
“And so began another day of bluster and hyperbole, of the misinformation, exaggerations, conspiracy theories, overheated rhetoric and, occasionally, outright lies about the political crisis in Ukraine that have emanated from the highest echelons of the Kremlin and reverberated on state-controlled Russian television, hour after hour, day after day, week after week.”
It certainly cannot get any better. CIA director John Brenan went to Ukraine and Washington even planned to deliver “non-lethal weapons to the time changers,” but that too is conspiracy theory. Even Forbes has declared that Brenan intended to deliver non-lethal weapons—and “that remains Washington’s official position.”
Senator Chris Murphy told MSNBC, who also is a puppet of the Zionist system, found it quite shocking that Brenan would go to Ukraine during this critical time.
“What message does it send to have John Brennan, the head of the CIA in Kiev, meeting with the interim government? Does that not confirm the worst paranoia on the part of the Russians and those who see the Kiev government as essentially a puppet of the West?
“I don’t know the wisdom of having Brennan there. We ultimately don’t want this to be viewed as a proxy fight between the United States and Russia.”
Herszenhorn did not appeal to anti-Semitism this time because that would quickly disarm his point, but conspiracy theory was his next logical step, since reason and evidence obviously abandoned him.
Paul Craig Roberts responded, “Herszenhorn dismisses reports of extreme nationalist neo-nazi Russophobia as ‘sinister claims’ and regards the Washington-imposed unelected government in Kiev as legal. However, Herszenhorn regards governments formed as a result of referendums to be illegal unless approved by Washington.
“The Western World is the World of the Matrix protected by the Ministry of Propaganda. Western populations are removed from reality. They live in a world of propaganda and disinformation. The actual situation is far worse than the “Big Brother” reality described by George Orwell in his book, 1984.
“The ideology known as neoconservatism, which has controlled US governments since Clinton’s second term, has the world set on a path to war and destruction. Instead of raising questions about this path, the Western media hurries the world down the path.”
In a nutshell, working with neo-Nazis is no big deal, but labeling Putin a Nazi or a Hitler is politically acceptable. For Jay Haug of the neoconservative flagship the American Thinker, Hitler’s and Putin’s tactics are essentially the same.
But Haug does not even remotely suggest that Jewish neocon Victoria Nuland is a neo-Nazi collaborator! When I contacted him and pointed this out, his response was quite shocking: “Who is she? No idea what you are talking about.”
Here is a man who is trying to link Putin with Hitler, but he does not even know if a neo-Nazi collaborator Victoria Nuland exists!
When I pressed the issue further and provided evidence that Nuland is supporting neo-Nazis and asked Haug whether he was going to write an article about this issue, the response was even more interesting: “I’ll leave it up to you.” In other words, Haug did not want to know.
What we are seeing over and over is a reversion of moral and political logos, and the inception of this story goes back to the first century when the Jewish people as a group rejected ultimate Logos and preferred Barabbas, who was a thief and a robber.
Some has ridiculously and repugnantly postulated ad nauseam that the Jewish revolt against logos throughout history proves that their rebellion has a racial or genetic basis. Hence, the oft-repeated rhetorical question, “is Judaism simply a religion?”
Well, is Christianity just a religion? Is Islam just a religion? Is Buddhism just a religion? Why does the question stop with Judaism? How is it a coherent argument? How is that a basis for ridiculous and unnecessary hypothesis which ultimately leads to a moral and intellectual bottleneck?
If Christianity has been affecting people’s lives for centuries, does that lead to the nonsensical notion that people who embrace Christianity has a genetic basis?
People who propose the genetic hypothesis do not want to understand that there is a difference between morality and DNA and that theological substratum has enormous ramifications.
Moreover, if Jewish behavior is genetic, how can those theorists seriously go around convincing people like Goldman Sachs and Bernie Madoff that they ought not to behave a certain way and that they can actually change their lifestyle? How can they seriously and rationally praise people like Norman Finkelstein who do not buy the Zionist ideology?
Proponents of the genetic hypothesis certainly know something about Newtonian physics and the laws of genetics, but they do not want to apply it all the way. Furthermore, if we use their argument against them, the genetic hypothesis is so ingrained in their DNA that they cannot see the obvious.
And this is why it is hard to respond to those people precisely because if Jewish behavior is genetic, then the hypothesis that “Jewish behavior is genetic” can also be shown to be genetic, a self-defeating philosophy. In other words, is there a gene for believing in the genetic hypothesis?
What I have discovered over the past few months is that many of those who postulate this idea do not want to know; on many occasions they appeal to silly arguments to make a point. A few months ago, I have tried to reason with a man who thought that Jewish behavior is also genetic.
When I pointed out to him some of the scientific and rational evidence against the theory, and when I even pointed out the cardinal error in books such as Harry Ostrer’s Legacy: The Genetic History of the Jewish People and how he cooked up some of his evidence to marshal the Zionist propaganda which my email correspondent repudiates, it seemed that I had destroyed his “scientific” faith in the genetic hypothesis.
Yet to my surprise, my email correspondent continued on to believe what he wanted to believe anyway because he did not want to know. He even continued to say that Ostrer is still right!
All of a sudden, I was the bad guy who wants to destroy his truth. I began to get some nasty emails saying that Alexis is not interested in the truth.
Was his behavior toward me genetic as well? If so, did I make a huge mistake responding to his emails, thinking that he would change his mind if he sees the evidence?
If Jewish behavior is genetic, how about Christ and his disciples, Solomon Michael Alexander, Hermann Cohen, Baptista Giovanni Jonas, Leopold Cohn, Theodore Ratisbonne, Michael Polanyi, Israel Shahak, Israel Shamir, Mortimer Adler, Gilad Atzmon, Roi Tov, etc.?
Well, according to the logical deduction of the genetic hypothesis, those people are just misfits or genetic defects in the evolutionary scale. Even if a Jewish person becomes Christian and rejects the Talmudic hatred of the goyim, he still must have that genetic behavior in his gut because what happens genetically happens automatically. I just do not know why some people still maintain that ridiculous notion.
Moreover, if Jewish behavior is genetic, why would people be upset when certain Jews act in a certain way? Why shouldn’t people like Eli Roth say things like, to “‘fuck an entire generation’ is in my genes”?
When Paramount Pictures feared that Darren Aronofsky’s Noah may not attract a lot of Christian viewers, Aronofsky declared point-blank, “I don’t give a fuck about the test scores. My films are outside the scores.” Did his DNA compel him to make the assertion?
On what basis should people convince people like Roth to act differently? And how did they get that behavior in their genes? Those are the questions that do not get answers because they ruin the ideological force of the genetic hypothesis.
And if people are writing books month after month saying that the Jewish behavior ought to change, aren’t they presupposing that the issue is moral and not primarily genetic? Would you offer a blind man the choice of making a right or left turn when you know he cannot see in the first place?
Christ confronted the genetic theory which the Pharisees of his day desperately tried to propose and rejected it out of hand. If there is to be solid research and serious rationality on this issue, we do not need to appeal to dubious and unnecessary hypothesis which is not rooted and ground in metaphysical truth.
 Sarah Gordon, Hitler, Germans, and the “Jewish Question” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 48.
 Richard Evans, The Third Reich at War (New York: Penguin, 2008), 686, 688-689.
 Berben, Dachau., 11.
 Ibid., 12.
 Ibid., 140-141.
 Ibid., 12.
 Ibid., 13.
 Ibid., 14.
 Ibid., 18-19.
 Johannes Neuhausler, What Was it Like in the Concentration Camp at Dachau? (Munich: Manz A. G., 1973), 22.
 Berben, Dachau, 71.
 Ibid., 57.
 Ibid., 57-58.
 Ibid., 60.
 Ibid., 72.
 Ibid., 72-73.
 Ibid., 73.
 Ibid., 75.
 Ibid., 77.
 Ibid., 77-78.
 Gordon, The “Jewish Question”, 103.
 See for example Ben Urwand, The Collaboration: Hollywood’s Pact with Hitler (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013); Thomas Doherty, Hollywood and Hitler, 1933-1939 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013).
 Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (New York: Verso, 2000).
 J. R. R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring (New York: Mariner Books, 2012), 13, 58-59.
 E. Michael Jones, “Woody Allen and Double Standard,” Culture Wars, March 2014.
 Cited in Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 1007-1008.
 Peter Osborne, “Syria: As the Bombs Fall, the People of Damascus Rally Round Bashar al-Assad,” Telegraph, April 17, 2014.
 Scott Peterson, “Iran Ahead of Schedule in Complying with Nuclear Deal, UN Watchdog Says,” Christian Science Monitor, April 17, 2014.
 See for example Seth Mandel, “Obama’s eBay Diplomacy in Action,” Commentary, April 18, 2014; Max Boot, “How to Get Moscow’s Attention,” Commentary, April 17, 2014; Joseph Klein, “Diplomatic Breakthrough on Ukraine or More Russian Lies?,” FrontPage Magazine, April 18, 2014; Michael Barone, “Obama’s Dithering Ukraine Policy,” National Review, April 18, 2014; Thomas Friedman, “Go Ahead, Vladimir, Make My Day,” NY Times, April 12, 2014; Garry Kasparov, “It’s Time to Stop Putin,” Washington Post, March 20, 2014.
 Scott Shane, “2 U.S. Architects of Harsh Tactics in 9/11’s Wake,” NY Times, August 11, 2009.
 Jason Leopold, “CIA Torture Architect Breaks Silence to Defend ‘Enhanced Interrogation,’” Guardian, April 18, 2014.
 Caroline Glick, “Column One: The Disappearance of US Will,” Jerusalem Post, April 17, 2014.
 Russell Kirk, “Neoconservatives: An Endangered Species,” American Conservative, November 21, 2012.
 Jillian Kay Melchior, “Who Are the Real Ukrainian Anti-Semites?,” National Review, April 17, 2014.
 Alec Luhn, “Anti-Semitic Flyers ‘by Donetsk People’s Republic’ in Ukraine a Hoax,” Guardian, April 18, 2014; “Ukraine Rabbi Calls Anti-Semitic Leaflet a Political Hoax,” Jerusalem Post, April 20, 2014.
 E. Michael Jones, “Crimea River: The Hypocrisy of U.S. Foreign Policy,” Culture Wars, April 2014.
 David M. Herszenhorn, “Russia Is Quick to Bend Truth About Ukraine,” NY Times, April 15, 2014.
 Melik Kaylan, “Why CIA Director Brenan Visited Kiev: In Ukraine the Covert War Has Begun,” Forbes, April 16, 2014.
 Paul Craig Roberts, “The New York Times Has Acquired a New Judith Miller,” Foreign Policy Journal, April 17, 2014.
 Jay Haug, “The American Left is Positively Putinesque,” American Thinker, April 14, 2014.
 For further studies on similar issues, see for example M. R. Bennett and P. M. S. Hacker, Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience (Malden: Blackwell, 2003); Nancey Murphy and Warren S. Brown, Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?: Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007); Mario Beauregard, Brain Wars: The Scientific Battle Over the Existence of the Mind and the Proof That Will Change the Way We Live Our Lives (New York: HarperOne, 2012).
 For a brief introduction, see for example Rita Rubin, “‘Jews a Race’ Genetic Theory Comes Under Fierce Attack by DNA Expert,” Jewish Daily Forward, May 7, 2013.
 In order to maintain similar positions, one correspondent told me that Christ and his disciples were not Semites!
 Isn’t it interesting that Aronofsky, Russell Crowe, and Paramount vice chairman Rob Moore attempted to meet Pope Francis in order for him to bless the film!
John Sack – An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945
An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945 is a book by John Sack, which states that some Jews in Eastern Europe took revenge on their former captors while overseeing over 1,000 concentration camps in Poland for German civilians. The book provides details of the imprisonment of 200,000 Germans “many of them starved, beaten and tortured” and estimates that “more than 60,000 died at the hands of a largely Jewish-run security organization.”
Sack was born to a Jewish family in New York City. His work appeared in such periodicals as Harper’s, The Atlantic, Esquire and The New Yorker. He was a war correspondent in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia.
A correspondent and later a bureau chief for CBS News in Spain, he authored ten books, including the controversial title, An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945. The book caused an uproar because Sack reported that, at the end of World War II, a number of Jewish Holocaust survivors, ran some Polish-Communist concentration camps and prisons, where they allegedly tortured and killed German and Polish civilians, including women and children.
Sack has responded to American critics of the book who say that it is “sensational and its charges inadequately attributed to source” by replying that his extensive research left little doubt that Jews ran the Swietochlowice camp “from the bottom to the top”. He added “It pains me as a Jew to report this”.
Sack expressed surprise at criticisms denying the accuracy of his claims, asserting that the main points have been repeatedly confirmed by others, the TV program 60 Minutes and the New York Times among them.
Excerpt from David Irving’s Real History Conference, Cincinnati USA 1999