Josef Mengele – the Creation of a Myth

Iconvenient History

May I ask my dear reader whether he or she recognizes any of the following names:

Fritz Klein, Heinz Thilo, Bruno Kitt, Erwin von Helmersen, Werner Rohde, Hellmuth Vetter, Horst Schumann, Carl Clauberg, Hans Wilhelm König, Franz Lucas, Alfred Trzebinski, Oskar Dienstbach, Siegfried Schwela, Franz von Bodmann, Kurt Uhlenbroock, Eduard Wirths, Hans Münch, Johann Paul Kremer, Horst Fischer, Friedrich Entress?

Unless you’re an expert in the field, you probably have no clue who these people are. The only name I would recognize, if I were to turn off my expert knowledge, is Clauberg, and that only because that was the name of my high-school art teacher (first name unknown).

All the men listed above were at some point or other SS physicians at the infamous Auschwitz Camp.[1]

I omitted one name from the list, and that for a good reason, because that name would give it all away:

Josef Mengele.

SS officers at Auschwitz. From left to right: Richard Baer, Josef Mengele, Josef Kramer, Rudolf Höss (From the so-called Höcker Album, USHMM Archive)

Why is it that we all recognize this one name, but have no idea about all the others? And with all, I am not just referring to any of us. This all also includes Auschwitz survivors. If we read or listen to the many testimonies of the thousands of Auschwitz survivors, there seems to have been only one evil person in that entire huge camp: Josef Mengele. Almost every survivor mentions him as an evil SS doctor sending people either to the gas chambers or subjecting them to some cruel, senseless, torturous experiments. Just as Auschwitz has become the symbol for the Holocaust in general, so does Mengele symbolize the evil of Auschwitz. They are synonymous.

Why is that so?

Mengele Hysteria

Most of the above-listed individuals were arrested after the war at some point and either committed suicide while incarcerated or were sentenced to death or to extended prison terms. Mengele escaped. He was never caught. In 1985, years after his death in 1979 in his South-American exile, however, his former whereabouts were revealed, his remains eventually exhumed and identified.[2]

Mengele wasn’t the only Auschwitz physician who managed to escape, though. Hans Wilhelm König was even better than Mengele. König disappeared without leaving a trace. But no one has ever heard that name, or have you?

We get an idea what the basis of the “Mengele Myth” is if we listen to one of the most-determined Nazi hunters of the world, the Israeli Efraim Zuroff. While hunting for Josef Mengele during the 1980s, he stumbled upon the remarkable fact that survivors immediately after the war did not describe Mengele as the same evil criminal as he was portrayed in the 1980s or even later. Sifting through newsletters published right after the war by and for “survivors,” he came across the (false) news that Mengele had been arrested in early 1947. On that occasion, survivor newsletters asked their readers for incriminating testimonies against Mengele, and such testimonies were then even published. But, as Zuroff summarizes:[3]

“The content of these articles proved quite surprising because they clearly indicated that the Mengele of 1985, who had become a symbol of evil and the personification of the perversion of science, did not enjoy the same notoriety in 1947. […Zuroff noted] that Mengele was not considered a very high-ranking criminal [in 1947], nor was his supposed arrest regarded as an event of exceptional significance. […] This notice was, in effect, the first indication that the status of the infamous ‘Angel of Death’ had grown by leaps and bounds over the years.[…Mengele was], in a certain sense, not the same person who was simultaneously hunted for in South America.”

Of course, memories are more accurate a short time after an alleged event than decades later, so the image survivors had of Mengele in 1947 was most certainly more accurate as well.

In 1986, shortly after the hunt for Mengele had been over, the Czech-German historian Zdenek Zofka wrote these memorable lines about how Mengele had become the center of attention of the Holocaust Industry:[4]

“After the fortieth anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and after the ‘Mengele Tribunal’ had been staged on occasion of that anniversary in Jerusalem, the search for Mengele was intensified drastically. The reward leading to his capture was increased by the government of the German state of Hesse from 40,000 to one million deutschmarks, and the reward finally reached the staggering height of ten million deutschmarks due to private donations. Along with the intensified search for Mengele, the media’s interest in the case escalated as well. The ‘Angel of Death of Auschwitz’ offered perfect opportunities for an incessant flood of sensational news, and increasingly cruel and shocking crimes committed by Mengele were revealed with reference to witnesses. The mass murderer Mengele turned into the evil incarnate as such, the outright superhuman demon, as Robert Lifton writes.”

Zofka’s aim with his paper was an attempt to “correct the image of Josef Mengele, which has been distorted and exorbitantly exaggerated by the sensational media.” He admits that, when trying to assess the crimes allegedly committed by Mengele, there is basically no documentary evidence to rely on, and that relying on witness accounts in such an atmosphere of hysteria is problematic, to say the least. He continuous by stating:

“All too often, it is impossible to be sure that their [the witnesses’] recollections really refer to Mengele at all. It is all too often possible to show that Mengele has been confused with other SS physicians. Almost all the inmates state that they were selected by Mengele on the ramp [to be sent to the gas chamber]. But camp physicians performed the selections in shifts; Mengele performed no more selections than any of the others.” (ibid., p. 246)

This underscores the point I made earlier.

When assessing Mengele’s purported crimes, we have to distinguish three different sets:

  1. Selecting inmates for the gas chambers.
  2. Experiments with twins.
  3. Random medical experiments.

Let’s discuss all three of them here briefly, with reference to further reading for those who want to learn more. Let’s start with the last one first, because it can be dealt with rather swiftly.

Random Medical Experiments

There is “eyewitness” testimony galore about utterly senseless, cruel experiments allegedly performed by Mengele, like changing eye colors by injecting dye into an eye, transplanting limbs and organs to random places in the body, and other nonsense. While studying hundreds of “survivor” testimonies, I’ve come across a good share of these insults to the intellect, so insulting, indeed, that I will not waste my time listing them here. Google the net, and you’ll stumble across these Halloweenish horror stories all over the place. People evidently like to gawk at guts and gore, so the survivors, protected from scrutiny by their aura of sainthood, cater to that need. Interestingly, the alleged victims of these experiments, quite frequently the very witnesses telling these tales, show no signs whatsoever of these cruel procedures. And it goes without saying that there is not the slightest proof for any of it: no documents, no autopsies, no medical examination on survivors proving it. Nothing. It’s all a pack of lies, sweet and simple.


The alleged cruel experiments Mengele is said to have performed with twins deported to Auschwitz were so lethal that most of the twins he had enrolled in his research not only survived the war, but were even able to form an association in 1984, toward the peak of the Mengele hysteria, which was meant to lobby for their and their descendants’ interests: Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiment Survivors (CANDLES). Read and rethink the association’s name: How can deadly lab experiments have any survivors?

In fact, as Italian historian Carlo Mattogno has shown in his paper on Mengele’s twin research,[5] there are three facts which clearly prove that Mengele did not commit any crimes on those twins:

  1. All the surviving paperwork clearly shows that his research was limited to anthropological and behavioral studies, but did not include any surgical or other intrusive procedures.
  2. All the twins enlisted for his research were enrolled in that program for months on end, with none of them ever dying.
  3. Most of those involved – the twins as well as Mengele’s inmate assistants – survived Auschwitz and the war.

Separately, think of that: Children are not supposed to have gotten beyond the camp’s railway ramp. Since they were obviously unfit for labor, the Holocaust orthodoxy has it that they were sent to the gas chamber straight away, but that’s evidently not what happened, not just with Mengele’s twin children, but in general.

For the long list of twins and children at Auschwitz who survived the camp, see Mattogno’s paper.

Gas-Chamber Selections

Which brings me to the final point: The selections at the railway ramps near the Auschwitz Camp and (later) inside the Auschwitz-Birkenau Camp. There can be no doubt that these selections took place. They happened at Auschwitz, and they happened at other German wartime camps as well. They were usually performed by physicians, and it is safe to say that Mengele, as one of the many Auschwitz physicians, was ordered to do them as well.

But what were they about? Did those in charge, Mengele among them, decide who got to live and who was to die in the gas?

To answer this question comprehensively would require the analysis of tens of thousands of documents that survived the war. I’m not going to do this here, most importantly because there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Others have done that already, and I’ll point the reader to them.

The issue boils down to two questions:

  1. Are there any documents indicating that homicidal gas chambers existed at Auschwitz?
  2. What do the documents reveal about the purpose of selection(s) made?

Regarding a., let me quote from an article published in late 2016 in the conservative mainstream periodical Taki’s Magazine. It was written by Jewish activist David Cole, who in the 1990s was dabbling for a while in Auschwitz research. In this Taki article, Cole, who believes in all other aspects of the orthodox Holocaust narrative, explains why he has problems with Auschwitz:[6]

David Cole

“Ah, Auschwitz. Yes, here’s where we still have a problem. […]there are genuine problems with what is commonly claimed to be part 3 [of the Holocaust]—that in 1943 Auschwitz-Birkenau was ‘renovated’ to become an ultra-super be-all end-all extermination facility. To me, the evidence just isn’t there, and the evidence that does exist calls that claim into question. […Orthodox historians] backed themselves into a corner by putting Auschwitz, with its phony, postwar tourist-attraction ‘gas chamber’ and its complete lack of documentary evidence supporting a killing program, front and center as the heart of the Holocaust. They’re in so deep at this point that they can’t back off.

It’s surprisingly easy to get the leading lights of anti-denial to admit as much one-on-one. Rick Eaton has been the senior researcher at the Simon Wiesenthal Center for thirty years. He’s as major a player in the fight against Holocaust denial as anyone on earth. Two years ago, I corresponded with him (under a pseudonym, of course… he’d never speak directly with the likes of me!) regarding the Auschwitz problem. I explained my thesis to him, that Auschwitz, having various ‘issues’ that call the credibility of extermination claims into question, should not be used to represent the Holocaust. He agreed […].

Keep in mind that even though I was using a pseudonym, I was not falsely claiming to be anyone of note. In other words, Eaton made that admission to a complete nobody, a total stranger. One gets the feeling that many of these experts are secretly longing for the day when they can be open about the ‘Auschwitz problem’ and move past it […].”

Fact is that challenging the orthodox Auschwitz – and Mengele – narrative is a crime in many countries, and in those countries where it is not, doing so will still turn challengers into social pariahs. Hence, you won’t hear a word from any mainstream scholar about the fact that “the evidence just isn’t there.” When scientists have to act under the threat of legal or professional penalty, we can neither trust them nor their research results.

All that remains are the studies of those who don’t bend to the pressure; who literally risk loss of life, limb and liberty when publishing their iconoclastic research results. I may point out two of those studies which can give the reader a good overview as to why we have an “Auschwitz problem”:

1. The Real Case of Auschwitz by the already-mentioned Carlo Mattogno.[7] This thick volume of some 750 pages thoroughly discusses all the relevant documentary evidence on those buildings which are said to have contained homicidal gas chambers. This is the main foundation upon which Cole based his conclusion that the evidence for the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz “just isn’t there,” and that “the evidence that does exist calls that claim into question.”

2. The Chemistry of Auschwitz, by, well, myself.[8] This 440-page book summarizes the documentary situation succinctly (which saves you having to read the 750 pages of the first book mentioned) and forensically evaluates various kinds of material evidence of the purported crime scene.

There are many more studies that could be listed, but the interested reader can learn about them when perusing the two works just mentioned.

The upshot of all these studies is quite simply that there cannot have been any homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. The forensic and documentary evidence positively refutes even the possibility of their existence.

This brings us to Point b. If the selections where not designed to send people to the gas chambers, what purpose did they serve? Well, if a camp received hundreds of inmates in one swoop, what was the SS supposed to do? Just let those deportees walk in and do whatever they pleased? Some kind of admission procedure had to be in place where it was figured out which deportee was to be lodged in which building in which part of the camp, or who of them will even be sent to another camp. Such an admission procedure happens in every prison and camp in every country. That wasn’t any different at Auschwitz. Having physicians involved to assess the health of incoming deportees makes sense, too. A detailed analysis of the surviving documentation clearly shows in this regard as well that there was nothing sinister or unusual about those selections at Auschwitz.[9]


Cover art for an upcoming study of the testimonies of one of the key witnesses propping up the orthodox Auschwitz narrative.

But what about all those witnesses? Well, if we look into witnesses who testified about their experiences with Dr. Mengele right at the end of the war, before memories got corrupted by the Mengele hysteria starting at the late 1970s/early 1980s, there is really only one witness saying anything of substance: the Jewish physician Miklos Nyiszli from Hungary, who for several months of his incarceration at Auschwitz was the assistant of Dr. Mengele, if we are to believe him.

The late German mainstream historian and expert of Third Reich history Prof. Dr. Werner Maser said about Nyiszli simply that he “lied excessively.”[10] He didn’t justify this harsh assessment, however, because that would have required citing the writings of heretics, which Maser didn’t want to do to prevent getting himself in trouble (so he admitted to me). In his above-quoted paper on Mengele, Mattogno gave a brief summary of the main reasons why Nyiszli was indeed an imposter and excessive liar. The reader interested in a thorough, 300-page critique of Nyiszli’s various tall tales in English will have to wait until later this year, though, when a study dedicated to this key witness is slated to appear.[11]

The Legacy

A drawing of a prisoner showing Dr. Wirths, garrison physician at Auschwitz between September 1942 and early 1945, as a knight in shining uniform battling against lice infestation and thus typhus

Mengele is special, so special, indeed, that this is the only uncommon German last name my English spell checker doesn’t complain about. Like blitzkrieg and Auschwitz, this term has become a fixed part of the English language. What a proud legacy of a reviled concentration-camp physician!

In Mengele’s case, however, it is safe to say that this isn’t his fault. As Wikipedia writes correctly, quoting the one book that was most influential in cementing the Mengele hysteria:[12]

“Rolf [Mengele, Josef’s son], who had not seen his father since the ski holiday in 1956, visited him there [in São Paulo, Brazil] in 1977 and found an unrepentant Nazi who claimed he had never personally harmed anyone and had only done his duty.”

Mengele was a deputy of the Auschwitz garrison physician Dr. Eduard Wirths. Wirths, in turn, was celebrated by hundreds of Auschwitz inmates as a hero, as the “Angel of Auschwitz” saving the lives of tens of thousands of them with his selfless efforts to improve their lot and to battle the epidemics reaping a gruesome harvest at Auschwitz.[13] Mengele was Wirths’s right-hand man – in the battle to save as many lives as possible of those whom the authorities of the Third Reich had recklessly and irresponsibly deported to Auschwitz.

Mengele was not just innocent of the crimes he is accused of. Together with Eduard Wirths and the other physicians at Auschwitz, his tireless efforts saved the lives of ten thousands of inmates.

[1] See the list of all known Auschwitz SS personnel at
[2] For the orthodoxy’s story, see
[3] E. Zuroff, Occupation Nazi-Hunter: The Continuing Search for the Perpetrators of the Holocaust, KTAV, Hoboken, N.J., 1994, pp. 127f.
[4] Zdenek Zofka, “Der KZ-Arzt Mengele zur Typologie eines NS-Verbrechers,” in: Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, Vol. 34, No. 2 (1986) pp. 245-267, here p. 245f.;
[5] Carlo Mattogno, “Dr. Mengele’s ‘Medical Experiments’ on Twins in the Birkenau Gypsy Camp,” Inconvenient History, Vol. 5, No. 4 (2013);
[6] David Cole, “OY VEY! Denial Is Dead,” Taki’s Magazine, Sept. 29, 2016;
[7] Carlo Mattogno: The Real Case for Auschwitz: Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed, 2nd ed., Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, 2015;
[8] Germar Rudolf, The Chemistry of Auschwitz: The Technology and Toxicology of Zyklon B and the Gas Chambers. A Crime-Scene Investigation, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2017;
[9] See C. Mattogno, Healthcare in Auschwitz: Medical Care and Special Treatment of Registered Inmates, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2016;
[10] Werner Maser, Fälschung, Dichtung und Wahrheit über Hitler und Stalin, Olzog, Munich 2004, p. 348.
[11] Carlo Mattogno, Miklos Nyiszli, An Auschwitz Doctor’s Eyewitness Account: The Tall Tales of Dr. Mengele’s Assistant Analyzed, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, in translation;; an older, shorter study is available only in Italian: C. Mattogno, “Medico ad Auschwitz”: Anatomia di un falso, Edizioni La Sfinge, Parma 1988.
[12] Gerald L. Posner, John Ware, Mengele: The Complete Story, McGraw-Hill, New York 1986, pp. 2, 279.
[13] See Christoph M. Wieland, “Eduard Wirths, M.D., Garrison physician of Auschwitz – a Key Witness to the Holocaust!?,” in: C. Mattogno, Healthcare in Auschwitzop. cit. (Note 9), pp. 219-269.



The Nazis’ Nuremberg Race Laws: Made in USA?

A Review

In 1933, Germany’s National Socialists found themselves in command of one of the world’s most advanced states with a pressing agenda to remove Jews from the command structure of its society, along with the upper strata of lucrative professions such as law, medicine and the media. With typically German methodicality, they set about crafting a body of law under which to bring this massive change about. Again in keeping with traits of order and logic for which the people are famous, they first launched an inquiry into precedents of law for carrying out programs such as theirs. There weren’t many, around the world, with but one batch of 31 exceptions all in one country: the United States of America. This book examines the Germans’ project of lawfare on the Jews, but never touches on the supreme irony that that very same United States of America outfitted and supplied the bulk of the massive military effort that laid their country waste and conquered less than ten years later.

Hitler’s American Model: The United States and Making of Nazi Race Law. James Q. Whitman. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 2017, 224 pp.

In 1933, when the National Socialists became able to fulfill their long-stated ambition to rid German society of Jews, no modern state had ever before undertaken to formulate and enact laws to bring such a thing about. All previous episodes resembling the mooted cleansing had been accomplished by little more than royal decrees received by subjects to a greater or lesser extent eager to carry them out (and, of course, acquire such property as the victims had to leave behind, or surrender in exchange for safe passage). The National Socialists initially feared that they might have to invent an entire body of law and jurisprudence from whole cloth, as it were.

Fortunately for them, it turned out that it would not be quite necessary to reinvent this evil “wheel.” There were, by their meticulous count, fully thirty-one governments that had enacted anti-miscegenation, anti-integration and/or multi-tiered citizenship and immigration laws. Every one of these, with the exception of the federal government itself, was a state of the United States.

Like good inventors everywhere, the Germans carefully cataloged those laws and actually published their findings in a number of lists and compendia preparatory to the process that ultimately, in 1935, produced the infamous Nuremberg Laws that as-precisely as-possible defined who in Germany was a racial undesirable, and what disabilities these unfortunates were to be subjected to for as long as they remained in the territory claimed by the Master Race of National Socialist ideology. These unfortunates were, of course, the Jews. Perhaps the chief among many authentic sources Whitman cites for the product of the German inquiries is Heinrich Krieger’s 1936 opus Das Rassenrecht in den vereinigten Staaten (Race Law in the United States), the 361-page product of a two-year residence in the United States by Krieger.

Americans in particular misconceive the thrust of American race law as relating to segregation of public facilities such as bathrooms, drinking fountains, lunch counters and seats on a bus. Such segregation was never much on the minds of Germans, whose disfavored minority differed so little from themselves that ultimately Jews were required to display yellow stars on their clothing to distinguish themselves from the rest of the population. This “disconnect” has enabled past inquirers into connections between American and German race law to conclude that there is little to none. The author points out that this is a gross error.

The parts of American law that interested the Germans were those parts barring sexual relations and interbreeding as well as those that defined who was to be identified as members of the minority. Some states’ standards for “qualification” as a member of the minority (“one drop of blood”) indeed were so stringent that the Germans ultimately rejected those in favor of a system that gave a “pass” to candidates with only one Jewish grandparent who otherwise behaved themselves by not marrying Jews nor practicing the Jewish religion.

Aside from restriction of social/reproductive interactions with the “superior” majority, the Germans had other racialist goals that did not align quite so well with the aims of US laws, but that hardly rendered the American legislation irrelevant for the eager-to-learn Germans. For example, as Whitman repeatedly asserts, the goal of National Socialist racial policies was removal of Jews first from government, academia and the professions and then removal of the Jews from the territory of Germany. Ever since the death of Abraham Lincoln’s mass-deportation dream for emancipated Blacks, no such eventuality figured into American legislation: the Blacks were here to stay, and so had to be kept down (by the Whites). Removing them from government, academia and the professions was no issue beyond making sure to keep them out.

The antecedents to Germany’s “problem” vis-à-vis that of the United States were profoundly different. The objects of American policy were “up from slavery,” so to speak; the hapless victims (immigrated very much under duress, hardly of their own volition) had always been an underclass. The Jews, on the other hand, occupied socio-economic strata concentrated toward the middle and ranging upwards to the very peaks of German society and government. Removal from the upper strata was swift and straightforward; removal from the territory prior to the advent of eastward conquests in 1939 took the form of encouragement of emigration together with arrangements (the Haavara Agreement) with Zionists to support emigration specifically to Palestine. In that the latter was not a feature in any way enshrined in US law, Whitman gives it nary a mention.

Whitman does emphasize (again, repeatedly) that examples of this sort of law and regulation were nowhere to be found in the world for the inquiring Germans, except in scattered local traditions and practices in various colonial outposts of the British Empire. The United States was indeed the mother lode of such law and practice as the Germans sought to derive lessons from, albeit for reasons originally profoundly different from those impelling the Germans in the early and mid 1930s. One pervasive element at least of style, if not of substance, distinguishing American precedents from German imitations was the need of the pioneers, particularly in the southern states, to reconcile their aims with the equality and race-blind implications of the US Constitution, particularly its Fourteenth Amendment, in which slavery was abolished. Again, of course, slavery was not among the German antecedents to begin with, but the notions of racial “equality” at least before the law imparted a certain sub rosa quality to the American legislation that was altogether superfluous to the latter-day racists in Europe.

A subject such as the one of this book imposes an almost irresistible force upon the author to engage in German-bashing, up to and including the allegations of genocidal intent that form the noxious core of the common assaults upon the national nemesis of Jewry. Whitman admirably abjures it all, while at the same time avoiding the distastefully anodyne tone that can afflict such efforts when they are so scrupulously carried out. In a negative way, this phenomenon points to a very happy attribute that suffuses this text: Whitman is a serious, informative writer who manages at the same time to maintain an altogether engaging atmosphere in his writing. He does this entirely without artifice, without resort to tricks—at least, devices apparent to this reviewer—by means of which artificially to impart tension or arouse curiosity in the narrative. The story itself as rendered is quite sufficient to motivate brisk reading, without extraneous adornment.

On the other hand, this thorough, punctilious legal scholar does take the trouble to provide full context for the developments he reports. For example, what connection could there be between the famous 1935 incident aboard the North German Lloyd liner Bremen in New York harbor when a gang of communists stormed aboard and tore down the swastika banner on its bow, and the Nuremberg Laws? There most-definitely is a connection, and the author relates it clearly and carefully, and one comes away from the account with a renewed appreciation for the importance of what lately has acquired the label “path dependency.”

Photographs and reproductions of period maps round out this most-worthy account of a connection most would find surprising, and all could find informative in most-vital ways.

Cum Nimis Absurdum: Nuremberg Laws Were Catholic Papal Laws

Papa Paolo IV In 1555, Pope Paul IV wrote Cum Nimis Absurdum

Papa Paolo IV In 1555, Pope Paul IV wrote Cum Nimis Absurdum

Germany: Return Of The Holy Roman Empire: In a previous post I pointed out “To summarize, we are indebted to the noted historian, Don Salavadore Borrego, who has pointed out how remarkably National Socialist principles and practices coincide with those propounded in Papal Encyclicals”! (*ed note: the author is well all aware of what is happening today with the anti-Pope/s, so spare us a “lecture”, hence “Sedevacantism / sede vacante” is the position, held by traditional Catholics)” 

Papa Paolo IV In 1555, Pope Paul IV wrote Cum Nimis Absurdum and Jews were restricted to ghettos (ed note: apart from constantly being expelled completely) remained in Europe for the next 315 years, which after “emancipation of a minority” circa 1870 in Continental Europe the Jewish greed would take over again.

This Papal bull (law) introduced a series of religious and economic restrictions on Jews throughout Europe:

“1. Desiring firstly, as much as we can with (the help of) God, to beneficially provide, by this (our decree) that will forever be in force, we ordain that for the rest of time, in the City as well as in other states, territories and domains of the Church of Rome itself, all Jews are to live in only one (quarter) to which there is only one entrance and from which there is but one exit, and if there is not that capacity (in one such quarter, then), in two or three or however many may be enough; (in any case) they should reside entirely side by side in designated streets and be thoroughly separate from the residences of Christians, (This is to be enforced) by our authority in the City and by that of our representatives in other states, lands and domains noted above.

2. Furthermore, in each and every state, territory and domain in which they are living, they will have only one synagogue, in its customary location, and they will construct no other new ones, nor can they own buildings. Furthermore, all of their synagogues, besides the one allowed, are to be destroyed and demolished. And the properties, which they currently own, they must sell to Christians within a period of time to be determined by the magistrates themselves.

3. Moreover, concerning the matter that Jews should be recognizable everywhere: (to this end) men must wear a hat, women, indeed, some other evident sign, yellow in color, that must not be concealed or covered by any meansand must be tightly affixed (sewn); and furthermore, they can not be absolved or excused from the obligation to wear the hat or other emblem of this type to any extent whatever and under any pretext whatsoever of their rank or prominence or of their ability to tolerate (this) adversity, either by a chamberlain of the Church, clerics of an apostolic court, or their superiors, or by legates of the Holy See or their immediate subordinates.

4. Also, they may not have nurses or maids or any other Christian domestic or service by Christian women in wet-nursing or feeding their children.

5. They may not work or have work done on Sundays or on other public feast days declared by the Church.

6. Nor may they incriminate Christians in any way, or promulgate false or forged agreements.

7. And they may not presume in any way to play, eat or fraternize with Christians.

8. And they cannot use other than Latin or Italian words in short-term account books that they hold with Christians, and, if they should use them, such records would not be binding on Christians (in legal proceedings).

9. Moreover, these Jews are to be limited to the trade of rag-picking, or “cencinariae” (as it is said in the vernacular), and they cannot trade in grain, barley or any other commodity essential to human welfare.

10. And those among them who are physicians, even if summoned and inquired after, cannot attend or take part in the care of Christians.

11. And they are not to be addressed as superiors (even) by poor Christians.

12. And they are to close their (loan) accounts entirely every thirty days; should fewer than thirty days elapse, they shall not be counted as an entire month, but only as the actual number of days, and furthermore, they will terminate the reckoning as of this number of days and not for the term of an entire month. In addition, they are prohibited from selling (goods put up as) collateral, put up as temporary security for their money, unless (such goods were) put up a full eighteen months prior to the day on which such (collateral) would be forfeit; at the expiration of the aforementioned number of months, if Jews have sold a security deposit of this sort, they must sign over all money in excess of the principal of the loan to the owner of the collateral.

13. And the statutes of states, territories and domains (in which they have lived for a period of time) concerning primacy of Christians, are to be adhered to and followed without exception.

14. And, should they, in any manner whatsoever, be deficient in the foregoing, it would be treated as a crime: in Rome, by us or by our clergy, or by others authorized by us, and in the aforementioned states, territories and domains by their respective magistrates, just as if they were rebels and criminals by the jurisdiction in which the offense takes place, they would be accused by all Christian people, by us and by our clergy, and could be punished at the discretion of the proper authorities and judges.

15. (This will be in effect) notwithstanding opposing decrees and apostolic rules, and regardless of any tolerance whatever or special rights and dispensation for these Jews (granted) by any Roman Pontiff prior to us and the aforementioned See or of their legates, or by the courts of the Church of Rome and the clergy of the Apostolic courts, or by other of their officials, no matter their import and form, and with whatever (even with repeated derogations) and with other legally valid sub-clauses, and erasures and other decrees, even (those that are) “motu proprio” and from “certain knowledge” and have been repeatedly approved and renewed.”


Germany brought back all of these laws and more.

The Nuremberg Laws, passed in 1935, were clearly influenced by Catholic policy:

“Section 1

1. Marriages between Jews and citizens of German or kindred blood are forbidden. Marriages concluded in defiance of this law are void, even if, for the purpose of evading this law, they were concluded abroad.

2. Proceedings for annulment may be initiated only by the Public Prosecutor.

Section 2

Extramarital sexual intercourse between Jews and subjects of the state of Germany or related blood is forbidden.

Section 3

Jews will not be permitted to employ female citizens under the age of 45, of German or kindred blood, as domestic workers.

Section 4

1. Jews are forbidden to display the Reich and national flag or the national colours.

2.On the other hand, they are permitted to display the Jewish colours. The exercise of this right is protected by the State.

Section 5

1. A person who acts contrary to the prohibition of Section 1 will be punished with hard labour.

2. A person who acts contrary to the prohibition of Section 2 will be punished with imprisonment or with hard labour.”

Cum Nimis Absursdum” and the Nuremberg Laws had slightly different approaches. “Cum Nimis Absurdum” focused on religion, the Nuremberg Laws mentioned “blood” and “race” i.e. to preserve our unique European culture, heritage and history, and this was complimented in full within the 25 Point Third Reich Christian Principles of National Socialism

However, both had the same goals and strategies. Both implemented Jewish Ghettos forced Jews to wear badges of identification.

Both were created with the same goal: Protecting European society against foreign influences, defending Christendom and preserving it.

Saint Thomas Aquinas has been given the Latin name “Doctor Angelicus” (the Angelic Doctor) and is widely considered the greatest philosopher and theologian of the Catholic Church.

In 1271, Countess Margaret of Flanders wrote him a letter and requested political advice. She wanted to know the Catholic view of the Jewish people.

In response, Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote:

Jews by reason of their fault are sentenced to perpetual servitude” for killing Jesus Christ.

He also noticed that Jews “seem to have nothing except what they acquired through the depravity of usury.”

Therefore, he believed that “Jews may not keep those things which they have extorted from others through usury”. He added “the Jew should be punished with a greater fine than anyone else in a similar case.”

Later in the letter, he wrote “Jews of each sex in all Christian provinces, and all the time, should be distinguished from other people by some clothing.”

The badges for Jews which were introduced by the Catholic Church did not start with the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, it has a long history.

Pope Innocent III declared that “Jews and Muslims of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress.”

The Catholic Church forced the Jews to wear these badges to distinguish themselves from Christians.

Later, the Jewish Ghettos were invented by the Catholic Church in 1555.

Pope Paul IV wrote “Cum Nimis Absurdum”, which created the Roman Ghetto. The area was surrounded by four walls with three gates that were locked at night. These walls and gates were built by Italian architect Giovanni Sallustio Peruzzi. Pope Paul IV forced the Jews to fund the construction.

The location Pope Paul IV chose for the Roman ghetto was very dirty and often flooded by the Tiber River. Jews had to request permission to live there and had to pay a yearly tax to stay.

Each year, these Jews were required to swear loyalty to the Pope at the Arch of Titusin Rome (the Arch of Titus is an ancient Roman victory arch, which celebrated the Sack of Jerusalem, which destroyed the Jewish temple in 70 AD).

Their Rabbi was also forced to travel to Rome’s Capitoline Hill and meet with the political rulers of the city. In this “ceremony”, the Rabbi was kicked on his bottom. In exchange, the Jewish community was allowed to stay in Rome for one more year.

The Roman Ghetto existed for more than 500 years and protected Catholics from the Jews.

In 1798, Napoleon invaded Rome and took over the Papal States. He allowed Jews to leave the ghetto and live anywhere in the city.

The next year though, the Papal States were restored and the Catholic Church forced the Jews to return to the ghetto.

The Papal States officially dissolved when they were absorbed by the Kingdom of Italy in 1870. However, Jews were still forced to live in the ghetto until 1882.

Therefore, the Roman Ghetto was the last remaining ghetto in Europe until they were brought back in the 1930s.

On April 26th 1933, Hitler had a well documented meeting with the Bishop of Osnabrück Wilhelm Berning. During this meeting, Hitler explained:

As for the Jews, I am just carrying on with the same policy which the Catholic Church has adopted for fifteen hundred years, when it has regarded the Jews as dangerous and pushed them into ghettos.”

Then, Hitler added:

I don’t put race above religion, but I do see the dangers in the representatives of this race for Church and State, and perhaps I am doing Christianity a great service.”

The list of expulsions of Jews from European society and Papal Bulls against the Jews started long before with Gregory I, in 598 A.D.

Long Live Catholic Europe!

Featuring: Generalissimo Francisco Franco (Spain), Miguel Primo de Rivera (Spain), Jose Primo de Rivera (Spain), Antonio Oliveira de Salazar (Portugal), Philippe Petain (France), Leon Degrelle (Belgium), Kurt Alois Josef Johann Schuschnigg (Austria), Dr. Jozef Tiso (Slovakia), Andrej Hlinka (Slovakia), Dr. Ante Pavelic (Croatia), and “Il Duce” Benito Mussolini (Italy), with special appearances by Adolf Hitler (Germany).

Adolf Hitler Defended Catholic Dogma:

The Catholic Church should not deceive herself: if National Socialism does not succeed in defeating Bolshevism, then Church and Christianity in Europe too are finished. Bolshevism is the mortal enemy of the Church as much as of Fascism. …Man cannot exist without belief in God. – Adolf Hitler in conversation with Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber of Bavaria, November 4, 1936

“It must be noted too that the attack on the dogmatic principles underlying ecclesiastical teaching increased steadily in violence. And yet this human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief. The great masses of a nation are not composed of philosophers. For the masses of the people, especially faith is absolutely the only basis of a moral outlook on life. The various substitutes that have been offered have not shown any results that might warrant us in thinking that they might usefully replace the existing denominations. But if religious teaching and religious faith were once accepted by the broad masses as active forces in their lives, then the absolute authority of the doctrines of faith would be the foundation of all practical effort. There may be a few hundreds of thousands of superior men who can live wisely and intelligently without depending on the general standards that prevail in everyday life, but the millions of others cannot do so. Now the place which general custom fills in everyday life corresponds to that of general laws in the State and dogma in religion. The purely spiritual idea is of itself a changeable thing that may be subjected to endless interpretations. It is only through dogma that it is given a precise and concrete form without which it could not become a living faith. Otherwise the spiritual idea would never become anything more than a mere metaphysical concept, or rather a philosophical opinion. Accordingly the attack against dogma is comparable to an attack against the general laws on which the State is founded. And so this attack would finally lead to complete political anarchy if it were successful, just as the attack on religion would lead to a worthless religious nihilism.” – Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Following the commemorative activities of 10 June 1923, which included a massive rally in honour of Albert Leo Schlageter, staged on Munich’s Konigsplatz and attended by 20-30000 activists—a Catholic memorial mass was held immediately after the rally in St. Boniface Abbey, organised exclusively by the NSDAP which was presided over by Schachleiter — Schachleiter could also consecrate the standards of the SA. Schachleiter delivered a eulogistic sermon that was remembered as having a powerful impact—a young and devoutly pious Heinrich Himmler joined the NSDAP in the wake of Schachleiters eulogy! Hitler visited in mid-May to personally congratulate Schachleiter on his 50th anniversary as a Benedictine. Following his (Schachleiter) death in June 1937 the Third Reich ordered a state funeral arranged by Bavarian minister-president Ludwig Siebert.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.