*Both came to power by beating up on weak opponents: Trump owes his election to the loathesomeness of Hillary Clinton, while al-Sisi crushed a democratically-elected “government” that was never allowed to govern.
*Both are authoritarian personalities, thin-skinned narcissists who can’t handle criticism. (Al-Sisi tortures and massacres his critics, while Trump just tweets his outrage – so far.)
*Both are lifelong front-men for organized crime. Trump’s “real estate” and “gambling” empires have all the earmarks of money-laundering enterprises (especially when we look into the background of Trump’s associates), while al-Sisi fronts for “the Egyptian military” which is actually a Zionist-run, US-taxpayer-funded organized crime syndicate controlling 40% of Egypt’s economy, whose main role is to rob, torture, and murder honest, patriotic Egyptians while allowing Israel to run the country.
*Both are super-rich fake populists and fake nationalists, thumping their chests and pretending to side with “the Egyptian people” and “the American people” respectively, while in fact doing everything they can to accelerate the ever-worsening plunder of their people by criminal oligarchies.
*Both owe their political success to extreme hate-mongering and scapegoating. Trump whips up Orwellian hatred of Muslims and Mexicans to make working-class whites forget who is the real source of their problems (rich scumbags like Trump himself), while al-Sisi scapegoats the Muslim Brotherhood (the Islamic world’s leading pro-democracy civil society group).
*Both are extreme right-wing Zionists with Jewish-Zionist-extremist family connections. Trump’s daughter is Jewish, and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, a Jewish mafia princeling whose father served a prison term, is a fanatical Zionist extremist. As for al-Sisi, he hails from a Moroccan Jewish family background; his uncle, Uri Sibagh (sometimes spelled as Sabbagh) served in the Jewish Defense League (Hamagein) from 1948 to 1950, made his aliyah to Israel, and became a bigwig in Ben Gurion’s political party, serving as the secretary of the Israeli Labor Party in Beersheba from 1968 to 1981. Uri’s sister – al-Sisi’s mother – presumably emigrated to Egypt on a mission from the Mossad. That mission culminated when the Mossad overthrew President Morsi and installed its agent al-Sisi in the coup d’état of July 3rd, 2013.
*Both are funded by Saudi Arabia. Trump has eight companies that do business there and is throwing love, money, and weapons at the Zionist-owned Saudis (who are presumably lavishing their standard kickbacks on Trump), while al-Sisi is raking in vast amounts of Saudi money to keep his crime syndicate afloat while he tortures and massacres pro-democracy Egyptians.
Bottom line: Both Trump and al-Sisi are Bibi Netanyahu’s puppets. They are two peas in a pod.
The Intellectual Death of “Anti-Semitism”—Interview with Jewish Writer and Novelist Gerard Menuhin (Part I)
It is vital urgently to analyze and to dismiss [anti-Semitism] as so much hot air. All it would take would be for enough ordinary citizens to stand up and say ‘Stop it, it’s nonsense, you know it’s nonsense, and what’s more, it’s boring nonsense!’
…by Jonas E. Alexis & Gerard Menuhin
Gerard Menuhin is a British-Swiss journalist, writer, novelist, and film producer. He is the son of Jewish parents, the American violinist and conductor Yehudi Menuhin, who is considered “one of the greatest violinists of the 20th century.” Menuhim’s mother was a ballet dancer and died in 2003 at the age of 90. He graduated from Stanford University and is the author of the new book Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil.
Alexis: You quote Albert Einstein in your book saying that “I believe German Jewry owes its continued existence to anti-Semitism.” It seems that he was aware that the word “anti-Semitism” was being used as an ideological weapon to beat the Goyim over the head because no serious person wants to be called an anti-Semite. Can you expand on that for us?
Menuhin: That depends on one’s definition of a serious person. Is a serious person one who has some position in society or in academia or government — therefore regarded as an ‘expert’, worthy of respect — which they might lose if they don’t adhere to political correctness? Or is a serious person one who has the ability and takes the time to formulate his own opinion about a particular subject, unaffected by the opinions of others?
‘Anti-Semitism’ as an expression is not only a misnomer, it’s gibberish. Douglas Reed suggested a substitute: ‘anti-Semolina’ (The Controversy of Zion).
As I state in the book, ‘Semitism’, at best, describes a language. So ‘anti-Semitism’ would denote opposition to Semitic languages – an absurd stance. To deduce from the expression an opposition to Semitic peoples would be stretching the point. And are Jews Semitic?
Ashkenazi Jews (90% of modern Jewry) are commonly agreed to descend from 8th century Khazars. Their assumed forefather, Ashkenaz, was the son of Gomer, grandson of Noah through Japheth, not of Shem, the father of the Semitic races. They are therefore not Semitic. Furthermore ‘Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a ‘Jew’ or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew.’ (1980 Jewish Almanac, p. 3)
Arabs are Semites, of course, but no ‘anti-Semite’ has ever been assumed to be critical of Arabs, when accused of anti-Semitism. So why is ‘anti-Semitism’ equated with anti-Judaism?
While the populations of countries where the incubus has taken hold cringe and react with knee-jerk self-abasement to any accusation of ‘anti-Semitism’, Latin Americans, for instance, mock the notion that advanced nations have been fooled into forbidding ‘holocaust denial’ by law and imprisoning people who simply express their disbelief. That is, of course, because ‘The Holocaust’ wasn’t staged in Latin America.
Presumably, Jews also enjoy this spectacle. When Albert Einstein is quoted as saying that “I believe German Jewry owes its continued existence to anti-Semitism”, he was only agreeing with his ilk, who realized how effective the charge of ‘anti-Semitism’ is, in countries in thrall to the so-called ‘Holocaust’.
‘Nowadays if any States raise a protest against us it is only pro forma at our discretion and by our direction, for their anti-Semitism is indispensable to us for the management of our lesser brethren’ (allegedly forged Protocol No. 9). (Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil, p. 286)
So, lesser Jews are kept in line by the fear of anti-Semitism (presumptive anti-Jewish sentiment by Gentiles). Since the Protocols were written, ‘the Holocaust’ was concocted, allowing anti-Semitism to be used against society in general, through trumped-up charges against any perceived enemy of a Jewish cause (actual anti-Gentile sentiment by Jews).
Anti-Semitism is therefore a suppressive weapon which only survives because it is linked to the guilt all decent people feel—or are intended to feel — when confronted with ‘The Holocaust’. There you have two allegations in one sentence. The first is a misnomer and the second, a mere psychological projection. Anti-Semitism would be an impotent pseudo-expression, were it not coupled with ‘The Holocaust’.
A further useful weapon of suppression is the accusation of ‘discrimination’. In a world bent out of shape by political correctness, ‘discrimination’ is an accusation to be avoided at all costs. In a free world, discrimination merely means choice, or preference. If someone chooses not to associate with certain people, for instance with Jews, that is of course his perfect right as a free citizen.
Alone the sensational nature of the ‘Holocaust’ claim and the immense figure immutably tethered to it of course invite awe. But it is an awe unmixed with rational skepticism. To ask a very simple, innocent question, why was there no independent investigation of this alleged crime in 1945, or in the Seventies, when the expression really caught on and precluded any other meaning of a formerly unbiased English word?
‘When after twenty years of silence, Holocaust theology began in the late sixties and seventies,…’ (Pour out Your Heart like Water, Towards a Jewish Feminist Theology of the Holocaust, Rachel Adler, p. 1).
When someone is murdered, the police are called in to find clues and track down the perpetrator, if he is still at large. In the case of ‘The Holocaust’, 6 million murders are said to have occurred. Yet no such police investigation has ever sullied the pure, unblemished assertion of this crime. We have been told that it occurred and the subject is closed without debate. (The total itself is in doubt and has indeed been reduced, yet, magically, the 6 million are still universally quoted.) (No, Emily, the innumerable ‘eye-witnesses’ are as unconvincing as the confessions of tortured German soldiers. No, Abigail, the ’Nazis’ didn’t burn or otherwise cause to vanish 6 million bodies. Where are the bones, the ashes?)
Where, for a start, is the corpus delicti? Piles of emaciated corpses are regularly shown on television, but whence came these corpses? Were they evidence of typhus/typhoid deaths in the camps, which indubitably occurred during the last months of the war, when transport had been bombed to a standstill and manpower had been transferred to the east?
Or were they corpses trucked in for effect from elsewhere: the remains of captives in the infamous U.S. Rheinwiesen concentration camps, where German prisoners of war were starved into a state of cachexia, under the pretext that they were ‘Disarmed Enemy Forces’ instead of POWs?
So, for 70 years, much of the world and of course particularly Germany have been paying respect to a putative atrocity which has never been properly examined by the appropriate authorities. Billions in restitution money have been paid and continue to be paid to the supposed victims or their successors (although it’s debatable whether the victims, such as they may be, ever receive much of it).
The further the world distances itself in time from the alleged event, the easier it is to assert that ‘The Holocaust’ occurred. As education is steadily degraded and citizens become more concerned on the one hand with superficial entertainment and on the other, with keeping their jobs, it becomes less likely that anyone will pose the fundamental question: If we are eternally to honour 6 million allegedly murdered Jews, to create organizations and build memorials to aggrandize their passing, shouldn’t we at least have irrefutable proof that they were actually killed; that the crime really occurred?
By irrefutable proof is meant, of course, not the ludicrous and invariably refuted notions of ‘survivors’ and other self-important liars, fictitious fact and factitious fiction, but the results of a completely independent investigation, without the participation of a single Jew, or the obstruction of the Jew-owned media.
Once one has looked into the subject one discovers, not only that many educated people, historians and scientists, have explored it without finding any truth in it, but that it only takes a few seconds of reflection based on common sense to come to the conclusion, as I have written, that a people with the traditions and culture of the Germans could not almost overnight have become barbarians and committed mass murder.
Unfortunately for the Jews who can least afford it, once one has begun to research the topic, one is inevitably drawn towards further investigation, and one is forced to conclude that such an enormous lie fits perfectly with previous lies, and that lying is perhaps the primary attribute of this very fickle folk.
So why do we continue to tolerate it?
The stick of ‘anti-Semitism’, coupled with the carrot of financial benefits, is firmly in the hand of those who are steering our world towards an abyss. Although without substance, the accusation of ‘anti-Semitism’ flaunts its power ubiquitously. That’s why it is vital urgently to analyze and to dismiss it as so much hot air. All it would take would be for enough ordinary citizens to stand up and say ‘Stop it, it’s nonsense, you know it’s nonsense, and what’s more, it’s boring nonsense!’
Alexis: You are right on target here. I have discussed some of these issues with numerous people who actually do have the sophistication to make a rational conclusion, but the intellectually lazy response is: “anti-Semitism.”
I once encouraged a flaming Zionist friend of mine to listen to a speech given by Jewish scholar Norman Finkelstein in which he literately deconstructs the anti-Semitism mantra. After he was finished, I turned to my friend and said, “Finkelstein’s siblings died in Nazi Germany. Do you think he is an anti-Semite?”
There was a complete silence. But days later, he pulled out the same old anti-Semitic card out of thin air and dropped it on me. At that point, I realized that I was not talking to a rational person. It was impossible to move forward in our dialogue precisely because he was blinded by an ideology which does not allow him to use practical reason and therefore see things the way they really are. He attempted to strike a conversation with me about the same topic over and over, but I frankly responded:
“I don’t want to talk about this issue anymore. Let’s talk about biking instead. If we cannot agree to submit our ideas to reason and historical scholarship, why should we get into an endless debate about these issues? You continue to ignore what I said and you don’t even seem willing to look at the evidence presented. Time is precious, and let us not waste it.”
I have kept my promise. We are still good friends, but whenever he opens his mouth and attempts to drag me into a dialogue on these issues, I either change the subject, keep my mouth shut, or simply tell him: “Sorry, it’s time for me to go.”
I have realized over the years that there are some people in this world who would not hesitate to damn practical reason if it attempts to step on their ideological weltanschauung. I have dialogued with many of them over the years.
 Humphrey Burton, “Lady Menuhin: Gifted dancer who complemented the life of her brilliant husband,” Guardian, February 7, 2003.
 Gerard Menuhin, Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil (Washington: The Barnes Review, 2015), 386.
 Menuhim expands on this in Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil. For further studies, see Arno J. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The Final Solution in History (New York: Pantheon Books, 1988).
What the Holocaust establishment will never say about Anne Frank
While the story of Anne Frank is tragedy, the basic facts of the Frank family history fly in the face of the belief that Auschwitz was an “extermination factory.”
…by Jonas E. Alexis and David Merlin
David Merlin has a Bachelor of Arts degree in history and economics from the University of California, Berkeley. He also has a Juris Doctor. He is currently writing a book on the “Irving vs. Lipstadt” trial. He is a frequent contributor to the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, CODOH.com.
Jonas E. Alexis: Anne Frank is arguably one of the most difficult personalities of World War II. She has been revered by political leaders of all stripes, including like Nelson Mandela. When the Ann Frank Exhibition was opened in 1994, Mandela, a Communist and Marxist/Leninist throughout his political career and a product of Jewish messianic and subversive movements, declared then that
“The Anne Frank Exhibition explores the past in order to heal, to reconcile and to build the future. I think we will all agree that it is not the most pleasant thing to revive bitter memories, to invoke the pain and suffering of the past.
“But, like the people of the Netherlands and others in Europe who experienced the harsh realities of Nazism and fascism, like the people in the developing world who lived under the brutality of colonialism, we, in South Africa know too well that we cannot move forward with confidence if we ignore the past.”
How ironic that the man who uttered those words did not even think that Leninism was worse than Nazism or Fascism. Mandela was even trained by the Israeli Mossad!
In any event, there is now an Anne Frank Exhibition in South Africa, but there is not a single exhibition for millions upon millions of innocent people who suffered under Lenin and Stalin—not even in America, the land of “democracy” and “freedom.”
Beyoncé and Jay Z have even all the way to Amsterdam to visit the Anne Frank House, but they never asked the most damning question ever: whatever happened to other people who suffered under the Bolshevik Regime? Do they deserve our sympathy?
Are these people being fair? Are we really being careful with the historical account? One cogent observer by the name of Marc C. Digiuseppe has recently sent me his great assessment on the some of the problems facing the political and historical world which states in part:
“The German people were maligned and abused by the Western Oligarchs in World War I. The Oligarchs cleverly navigated a diplomacy that played upon Germanic Traditions—abstract notions of pride and honor—a rule of the clan that had endured for thousands of years…
“This entire process was then repeated upon the German people at the end of World War II.”
Absolutely true. The questions before us are simply these: When will the Holocaust establishment be fair to the German people, particularly those who suffered under the Red Army? When will they look at the death and evil on both sides of the historical equation? More importantly, what aren’t they telling us about Anne Frank?
Well, we’ll let Merlin answer that question for us.
Now, some readers will probably say that we are trying to deconstruct history here. Not at all. We should all sympathize for those who have suffered under violent regimes and for those who have absolutely and positively nothing to do with revolutionary movements.
In fact, we should all be able to separate good, bad, and indifferent people. But it is not fair to sympathize for one particular group while ignoring the suffering of others. And the Holocaust establishment has certainly tampered with the Anne Frank account. Now let us allow Merlin to talk about this issue.
David Merlin: There is a rather pretentious writer for the New York Times named Ed Rothstein. Mr. Rothstein specializes in pious critiquing of Holocaust tales and museums. He wrote an article about the Anne Frank extravaganza exhibit put on at the Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. The article is entitled “Playing Cat and Mouse With Searing History.”
Rothstein feels that people are drawing the wrong “lesson” from the exhibit. The exhibit is not horrible enough and “horrific circumstances are distilled into effervescent platitudes!” In fact, Mr. Rothstein has totally missed the history lesson. Maybe Mr. Rothstein can be excused since the backstory history of the Frank family is never mentioned by Holocaust Believers.
While the story of Anne Frank is tragedy, the basic facts of the Frank family history fly in the face of the belief that Auschwitz was an “extermination factory.” To Quote Bradley Smith’s Blog,
“Official history is that non-working Jewish people arriving at Auschwitz were all ‘gassed.’ But of the eight sent to Auschwitz on September 3, 1944 from the Annex, not one of them was killed in a gas chamber. Instead, five of the eight were transported back to Germany-Austria in November 1944.”
The details of the eight individuals from the Annex are:
- Anne Frank– sent to Auschwitz, then transported to Belsen where she died of typhus (in Belsen not Auschwitz).
- Otto Frank– left behind in Auschwitz with those in the sick barracks. Survived the War.
- Edith Frank-Holländer–left behind in Auschwitz as the Germans retreated.
- Margot Frank (Anne’s older sister) died of typhus in Belsen (not Auschwitz).
- Fritz Pfeffer, sent to Auschwitz then transported to Neuengamme concentration camp where he died on 20 December 1944. His cause of death is listed in the camp records as “enterocolitis.”
- Auguste van Pels born Auguste Röttgen (Hermann’s wife), whose date of death is unknown. Witnesses testified that she was with the Frank sisters during part of their time in Bergen-Belsen. According to German records, van Pels was sent to Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in Germany with a group of eight women on November 26, 1944. Hannah Goslar’s testimony was that she spoke to van Pels through the barbed wire fence “in late January or early February”. Auguste was transferred on February 6, 1945 to Raguhn (Buchenwald in Germany), then to the Czechoslovakia camp Theresienstadt ghetto on April 9, 1945.
- Peter van Pels died in Mauthausen (not Auschwitz).
- Hermann van Pels died in Auschwitz. It is often claimed that he was “gassed.” However, according to eyewitness testimony, this did not happen on the day of his arrival there. Sal de Liema, an inmate at Auschwitz who knew both Otto Frank and Hermann van Pels, said that after two or three days in the camp, van Pels mentally “gave up.” He later injured his thumb on a work detail, and requested to be sent to the sick barracks. There is no evidence whatever for the assertion that Hermann van Pels was gassed.
The pattern is the same with other groups closely associated with Anne Frank who were also sent to Auschwitz from Holland.
- Eva Geiringer — born May 11, 1929. Sent to Auschwitz May 1944 Step-sister of Anne Frank. Survived the War. Married Zvi Schloss, also refugee from Nazi Germany. She is a co-founder of the Anne Frank Trust UK. Her experiences story was made into the play And Then They Came for Me – Remembering the World of Anne Frank.
- “Fritzy” Geiringer, mother of Eva, Married Otto Frank. Survived the War.
- Heinz Geiringer, brother. Survived Auschwitz but died on a forced march out of the camp.
- “Pappy” Geiringer. Survived Auschwitz but died on a forced march out of the camp.
The Geiringers were immigrants from Austria; They too ignored a call up for labor service received July 6, 1942 and went into hiding. They were found out on May 11, 1944, detained and were sent to Auschwitz that month.
- Janny Brandes-Brilleslijper. Was arrested for forgery. Was in the Westerbork, Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen concentration camps. Traveled to Auschwitz on the same train as the Frank family and to Belsen with Anne and Anne’s older sister Margot. Survived the War.
- Lientje, sister of Janny. Was in the Westerbork, Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen concentration camps with Janny. Survived the War.”
Not one of the group of 14 was gassed or executed.
There is more: Anne, Margo, Janny, and Lientje were put on trains and transported back across Poland into Germany. It is pretty obvious that they were not moved around due to their value as workers.
How do Believers in an alleged policy to “Exterminate all Jews” explain this? Rothstein dances around the issue, playing up the tragedy and avoiding the actual history.
“Otto Frank, Anne’s father and the sole survivor of the “secret annex”
Rothstein also skims over the transportation problem with lurid rhetoric, “where the Germans had shipped her from Auschwitz along with other condemned souls in the waning months of the war.”
The point is exactly that the people transported out of Auschwitz were NOT condemned but saved. Their later tragic deaths by disease, cold, etc. may have been negligence (or not) but to bray out that they were “condemned souls” is absurd and dishonest.
Even Rothstein’s “waning months of the War” claim is a conflation. Anne, et al were transported out in November 1944.
The display that Rothstein finds most meaningful in the Exhibit is a “symbolic” wall of children’s clothes: Typical of a Holocaust Believer to worship symbolism and ignore the Truth.
The obvious point is that (whatever German policy was earlier) by September 1944 the policy was not to “exterminate all Jews.”
The Shady Mr. Frank
The promoters of the Anne Frank story leave out unpleasant information about Otto Frank.
The official story was that Otto Frank and his family were detained because they were Jewish. However a recent book by Carol Ann Lee, The Hidden Life of Otto Frank (Penguin Books, 2003), brings to light never before documented information about Otto Frank.
The operative fact was that Otto Frank was always in need of money. With one broken engagement already behind him, in 1925 Frank married Edith Hollander, a women with a substantial dowry and heiress to a scrap-metal and industrial-supply business.
It was, he later admitted, ‘a business arrangement’, though not even his well-to-do wife could help when, in the early Thirties, the family banking business plunged once again into the red.
Getting out of Germany
Otto Frank and his family emigrated from Germany to Holland in 1933, evidently under a cloud of some illegal business transactions. It is interesting to note that the various Anne Frank Websites blame the emigration on anti-Semitic policies of the National Socialists.
However, Hitler did not gain power until after the passage of the Enabling Act on March 24, 1933 and the Nuremberg laws were not passed until September 1935. By then Otto Frank had been in Holland for over two years.
Frank had established his franchise for the Amsterdam branch of Opekta pectin company by September 1933, evidently after months of planning. Interestingly, Frank had previously managed managed a large rival firm named Pomosin, which also traded pectin to factories from the Dutch town of Utrecht.
All this clearly shows that failed business dealings had already prompted Otto Frank to look for a creditor free life in Holland.
Business with the Germans
Holland did not give the Franks Dutch citizenship. When the Germans occupied Holland in 1940 Frank was happy to do business with the Occupying German Army (the pectin his firm produced was essential for the preservation of the German army’s rations.) In her book, Lee writes…”Otto Frank made a pact with the devil […]”
Otto manufactured and wholesaled pectin and other products to the German army.
“Pectin was a preservative that could be put to many uses, depending upon the type of pectin it was. All pectin was useful for food production, but certain kinds could be applied as a balm for wounds and as a thickener for raising blood volume in blood transfusions.
Other types of pectin were used in the steel industry as a hardener and in the oil industry as an emulsifier. Therefore, it is possible that the Wehrmacht used the pectin they bought from Otto Frank’s company for the war industry.”
Carol Ann Lee details evidence that after the War Otto paid hush money to people to keep his business dealings with the Nazis secret.
Otto Frank’s illegal activities
Frank illegally re-registered his business naming the husband of a secretary, Jan Gies, owner and changing the business name to Gies & Co. but Frank continued to act as an illegal “sleeping partner.”
Two years later, in July 1942, Margot Frank receives a call-up to report for a German work camp. Otto Frank went into hiding.
There is also the matter of the two Opekta employees, Martin Brouwer and Pieter Daatzelaa, who were arrested in March 1944 for dealing in counterfeit ration cards. They worked in the same building as the Annex.
Rather than mention what appears to be a sizable black market food and fake ration card ring centered at the Gies & Co building, protectors of the “Anne Frank Brand name” make the dramatic claim that the family “had been betrayed” but, when Otto Frank was discovered in hiding, he and his family were illegal aliens in Holland with a string of legal violations by Otto Frank, including strong connections with a counterfeit ration card operation.
The family was held for almost a month at Westerbork Detention Center while all this was sorted out. When the Frank family’s legal status was determined they were all transported to Auschwitz. None of the women were registered into the camp and none seemed to work.
All of the family survived the alleged “Extermination Factory.” As mentioned above, Anne and her older sister were transported back to Germany, where Anne Frank died of typhus right at the end of the War.
The “official” Anne Frank website ignores all these inconvenient facts about Otto Frank and the Frank Family’s visit to Auschwitz.
The Diary and the Anne Frank Brand Name
The pages that constitute the “Diary” were actually various loose sheets of paper allegedly left by the police strewn on the floor of the Annex.
Whatever else one can say about the “Diary,” it has been a huge goldmine and everyone connected with young Anne Frank has exploited her story, usually by establishing a “Foundation” such as Eva Geiringer’s Anne Frank Trust UK. More than 30 million book copies have been sold along with movie rights, plays, and exhibits like the pay-to-view show at the Los Angeles Wiesenthal Center ($15.50 to enter. Not included with general admission. Advanced reservations are recommended.)
In his will, Otto Frank bequeathed the original manuscripts to the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation. The copyright however belongs to the Anne Frank Fonds, a Switzerland-based foundation.
Over the years, there have been numerous legal brawls over ownership of the publishing rights.
For example, Cornelis Suijk—a former director of the Anne Frank Foundation and president of the U.S. Center for Holocaust Education Foundation—announced in 1999 that he was in the possession of five pages that had been removed by Otto Frank from the diary prior to publication; Suijk claimed that Otto Frank gave these pages to him shortly before his death in 1980. It cost US$300,000 to Suijk’s Foundation to get the pages back to the The Netherlands Institute for War Documentation.
Also see: “a legacy feud is simmering between the owners of Frank’s writings — the Switzerland-based Anne Frank Fonds — and stewards of the “Secret Annex” museum visited by more than one-million people each year, the Anne Frank House.
The disputes among the various trusts and foundations aside, they all unite in preserving the value of the Anne Frank Brand name. The Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation paid for a report that claimed that the various papers were “authentic.”
But then, after years of claiming that the Diaries were the sole work of Anne, The Anne Frank Fund, based in Basel, Switzerland, has claims that it holds exclusive copyright because Otto Frank was a co-author!
It all leads one to suspect that the various Anne Frank trusts, foundations, and museums are not shooting straight with the facts.
Obviously the detention and death by disease of Anne Frank is a tragedy but a review the facts puts a slightly different spin on the story than the myth making exploitation of the tragedy by the folks at Anne Frank House, the Anne Frank Fonds, and the Simon Wiesenthal Museum.
 Edward Rothstein, “Playing Cat and Mouse With Searing History,” NY Times, October 13, 2013.
 Rachel Cooke, “The Hidden Life of Otto Frank,” Guardian, July 14, 2002.
 Matt Lebovic, “A most unseemly battle over the legacy of Anne Frank,” Times of Israel, December 18, 2014.