…by Jonas E. Alexis and Henry Makow
Henry Makow has a Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982 and is the author of the best-selling book Cruel Hoax: Feminism & the New World Order. Makow grew up in a Jewish family.
Jonas E. Alexis: The “Holocaust” has always been used as a weapon. In fact, it has been used as a manipulation tool to seduce the masses both in academic circles and in the media. As we have pointed out in the past, Jewish historian Tim Cole of the University of Bristol, England, has written extensively on this very issue. The title of Cole’s study is Selling the Holocaust: From Auschwitz to Schindler—How History is Bought, Packaged and Sold.
Jewish scholar Norman Finkelstein argues that there is a “Holocaust Industry” out there, a machine which constantly produces lies and fabrications as historical facts. The same machine is also in the business of sacking billions upon billions of dollars from banks around Europe in the name of Holocaust reparation.
So there is an ideological purpose to keep the Holocaust Industry alive and well. My dear friend and colleague Henry Makow has an excellent take on this, and we are presenting his assessment below. However, we do disagree on Raul Hilberg. As I will show below, Hilberg knew very well that the main tenets of the so-called Holocaust were historically incoherent and logically worthless, but he went on to produce them anyway for ideological reasons, not for historical accuracy.
Henry Makow: Israel’s most potent psychological weapon is the Holocaust. The Zionist battle cry is “Never again!” The real motivation behind traumatic events like Hiroshima and Sept. 11 might be to impose a new mental paradigm upon humanity. Zionists and their globalist sponsors may have contributed to the severity of the Holocaust for the same reason.
Because of the Holocaust, the world became convinced that Jews needed their own country. The Palestinians were identified (in many minds) with the Nazis, and the Israelis were given moral sanction to drive them from their homes and subjugate them. Criticism of Israel is often equated with Nazi anti-Semitism.
As a psychological weapon, the holocaust also serves an array of New World Order causes.
The world is divided into heroic victims (Jews) and haters (Nazis). The “victims”, who are funded by the Khazarian Bankster Cult, include oppressed women, homosexuals, and the minority flavor-of-the-day. The “haters” are the intolerant people who defend the things the globalists want to destroy: nuclear family, religion, democracy, individualism, and nationhood. The haters are “right-wingers” for whom the tolerant liberals have “zero tolerance.”
It is not my intention to mitigate Nazi responsibility for what happened in World War II but to scrutinize the use of the Holocaust by Zionists and globalists as a psychological weapon. Before I continue, I had better declare myself.
I am a non-observant, non-self-hating Canadian Jew who believes in God and Christ’s gospel of love. My grandparents all died in Nazi Germany; my parents narrowly survived by passing as non-Jews. I lived in Israel in 1972-3 but left because Israelis seemed as materialistic as Canadians. Israel also struck me as a country that devoured its own people.
Nevertheless, I remained a Zionist until 2002 when I discovered its hidden imperialist character. Still, I support Israel’s existence within the 1967 boundaries, with restitution to the Palestinians. I believe most Israelis and Jews have been hoodwinked as I was.
DEFENDING A PSYCHIC MONOPOLY
The definitive history of the Holocaust is “The Destruction of the European Jews” by [now deceased] Raul Hilberg, a Jewish professor of Political Science at the University of Vermont. Hilberg’s three-volume work is largely based on meticulous Nazis documentation.
Hilberg could barely get his book published because he documented the extent to which the Nazis depended on the Jewish Councils (“Judenrat”) to administer the final solution and the lack of any real Jewish resistance. He estimated that fewer than 200 Nazis died due to Jewish resistance.
Why the negative reaction? Hilberg concluded that the mythology of the Holocaust requires that the victims appear to be heroic and to be engaged in a struggle, however unequal. In fact, the Jews went to their death like lambs to the slaughter. (Hilberg, The Politics of Memory p.135)
In the 1960’s the Jewish philosopher, Hannah Arendt was slandered and ostracized when she concluded from Hilberg that “almost without exception” the Jewish leadership cooperated with the Nazis.
In her book, “Eichmann in Jerusalem” she wrote, “In Amsterdam as in Warsaw, in Berlin as in Budapest, Jewish officials could be trusted to compile the list of persons, and of their property, to secure money from the deportees to defray the expenses of their deportation and extermination, to keep track of vacated apartments, to supply police forces to help seize Jews and get them on trains, until, as a last gesture, they handed over the assets of the Jewish community in good order for final confiscation. They distributed the Yellow Star badges [and sometimes sold] cloth and fancy plastic armbands which were washable.” (p.117) http://www.aldeilis.net/zion/zionhol02.html
Had the Jews been totally unorganized and leaderless, Arendt writes, there would have been chaos and misery aplenty but the total number of deaths would have been far less. (p.125)
The reason Jews went quietly is not a mystery. Jewish leadership betrayed them. Hilberg attributes it partly to an age-old Jewish habit of persevering in the face of overwhelming odds. But a more important factor is that both Jewish world leadership and the Judenrats were dominated by Zionists.
Zionists had a record of cooperation with the Nazis in the 1930’s. They had a trading plan by which German Jews could redeem their property in Nazi goods exported to Palestine.
Zionists did not believe in the Jewish diaspora and actively sabotaged rescue attempts. If Jews could escape to other countries, what would be the purpose of Israel? Thus the Zionist Rabbi of Sweden Dr. Ehrenpreis scuttled a Swedish attempt to rescue 10,000 Jews. Zionists torpedoed a similar move by the British parliament. They also rejected numerous legitimate ransom attempts and discouraged resistance.
Generally the Zionists served the globalist elite agenda, suppressed news of the holocaust and didn’t agitate for special measures. The Allies bombed factories a few kilometers from Auschwitz but the crematoriums and railroad tracks were untouched. The Zionists believed that the greater the Jewish losses, the greater the world’s moral obligation to them.
WE WERE LIED TO
Young Jews like myself were told that Arab countries attacked peace-loving Israel after the 1948 U.N. Partition. They broadcast messages for the Palestinians to leave until the Jews were cleaned up.
In fact, Israel was given 57% of Palestine but immediately took more land and caused 700,000 Palestinians to flee in terror by slaughtering over 250 at Deir Yassin and another 250 at Lydda. The Arab radio broadcasts were a fable. Arab broadcasts encouraged the population to stay put. (Michael Prior, Zionism and the State of Israel: A Moral Inquiry, 1999, pp.16-29, 187-205).
David Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, told TIME magazine (Aug. 16, 1948) that he envisaged a Jewish state of ten million souls. Asked if that many could be accommodated within the U.N. partition boundaries, he replied: “I doubt it.”
Unknown to its citizens, Israel has always been designated to colonize the Middle East and be a linchpin in the new world order.
“Our policy must be the unity of the human race,” Ben Gurion told the TIME reporter. “We consider the United Nations to be a Jewish ideal.”
Look at how the Mossad website “Debka Weekly” characterized the Iraq war:
“Washington will have its hand on the oil lever and the ability to make Iraq’s neighbors dance to its plan for reshaping the national borders and governments of the Middle East.” (Vol. 2, Issue 94, January 23, 2003)
In conclusion, the holocaust gave the globalists the “moral authority” to invade Palestine, and enlisted unwitting Jews worldwide to their cause. In fact, they betrayed the trust of European Jewry in the most heinous fashion.
Yet Israelis and Jews, in general, blindly follow their leaders, as European Jewry did.
Raul Hilberg and Historical Forgeries
Jonas E. Alexis: The gas chamber controversy, which is one of the main tenets of the Holocaust story, became an issue that refused to go away in 1985 when Raul Hilberg was summoned to testify at the trial of the late Ernst Zundel, who was also accused of “spreading false news.” (Keep in mind that Hilberg was the first Holocaust historian, and many Holocaust historians and scholars had relied on his voluminous work, The Destruction of the European Jews, which was first published in 1961. It was reprinted intact in 1967 and 1979.)
All of that changed in 1985. Zundel’s able attorney, Douglas Christie, pressed Hilberg to give historical evidence of an Hitler order to exterminate all Jews in Germany, a claim which Hilberg made in The Destruction of the European Jews. Hilberg eventually confessed that no such order existed. Then Christie moved on to his next point: evidence for the gas chamber theory.
“What do you mean by a scientific report?,” asked Hilberg.
“I don’t usually have to define simple words,” said Christie, “but by ‘scientific report’ I mean a report conducted by anyone who purported to be a scientist and who examined physical evidence. Name one report of such a kind that showed the existence of gas chambers anywhere in Nazi occupied territory.”
“I still don’t quite understand the import of your question,” said Hilberg.
“Are you referring to a German, or a post-war—”
“I don’t care who—German, post-war, Allied, Soviet—any source at all. Name one,” said Christie.
“To prove what?,” asked Hilberg.
“To conclude that they have physically seen a gas chamber. One scientific report,” repeated Christie.
“I am really at loss. I am very seldom at such a loss, but…”
Judge Locke interrupted: “Doctor…do you know of such a report?”
“No,” replied Hilberg.
The debate became interesting when Christie asked Hilberg about some of his sources, particularly Kurt Gerstein, who allegedly witnessed the gassing of some 3,000 Jews in camps such as Belzec and Treblinka. Gerstein maintained that there were between 28 and 32 people per square meter in a room 1.8 meter high!
Moreover, Gerstein maintained before he committed suicide in a French prison that at least 20 million people were gassed. Hilberg used Gerstein as a testimony six times in his book. Christie told Hilberg that a person like that would be either crazy or a liar, to which Hilberg responded:
“Well, on this particular datum I would be very careful because Gerstein, apparently, was a very excitable person. He was capable of all kinds of statements…”
Then why was Hilberg so quick to use Gerstein as a credible source? Could it be that he didn’t think serious writers and scholars would verify his sources?
Christie produced the Gerstein statement and proceeded to ask Hilberg whether certain categorical lies appeared in the statement. Hilberg agreed that in his statement, Gerstein alleged that 700-800 persons were crushed together in 25 square metres in 45 cubic metres; he also agreed that he had ignored this part of Gerstein’s statement in his book.
“And he refers to Hitler and Himmler witnessing gassings, right?,” asked Christie.
Hilberg agreed that Gerstein had made this statement and that it was ‘absolutely’ and ‘totally’ false…
Christie asked Hilberg whether he considered Gerstein’s statement—that at Belzec and Treblinka nobody bothered to make a count and that in fact about 25 million people, not only Jews, were actually killed—was credible.
“Well, parts of it are true, and other parts of it are sheer exaggeration, manifest and obvious exaggeration. To me, the important point made in this statement is that there were no counting at the point at which people entered the gas chamber,” said Hilberg.
Hilberg eventually admitted that the evidence for mass murder in the eastern camps came directly from the Soviets.
“The whole site,” suggested Christie, “was within the Soviet sphere of control, and nobody from the west was allowed into those camps to investigate, isn’t that right?”
“Well, I don’t know of any requests made to investigate…When you say no one was allowed, it implies some request,” said Hilberg…“All I could say is, I know of no Western investigators early on in Auschwitz, or any of…”
“Treblinka?,” asked Christie.
“Well, there was no more Treblinka in 1945.”
“That was no more.”
“Majdanek is another matter.”
“Was there anybody from the West that went to Majdaneck?,” asked
“Not to my knowledge.”
“Belzec was the first camp to have been obliterated.”
“Chelmno or Stuftthof?”
“Auschwitz or Birkenau?”
Finally, Christie confronted Hilberg with another source which he had quoted as a witness for mass murder—Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Hoss, who was an SS lieutenant colonel from 1940 to 1943, and was one of the first commandants of Auschwitz. Hilberg cites Hoss as one of his authorities, but Christie asked Hilberg why he mentioned Wolzek, a non-existent camp, in his book:
“Yes, I have seen that garbled reference,’ said Hilberg. ‘It may have been Belzec. It’s very hard, if the man did not write anything, if he said things, if he was tired, if he was misunderstood, if he misspoke himself…”
Christie pointed out that Hoss referred to Belzec as well as Wolzek.
“I suggested to you,” he said to Hilberg, “that there is a reason to believe that this man was not only being obliged to sign a confession in a language he didn’t understand, but things were being put into a statement for him that were patently absurd, like Gerstein.”
“There was obvious confusion in this one statement,” said Hilberg.
Christie produced Nuremberg document 3868-PS, the Hoss affidavit. Hilberg agreed he had seen the document before and agreed he had seen the Wolzek reference. “Yes, I’ve seen that reference. It’s terrible.”
“It’s obvious that something wasn’t quite right about that individual, would you agree?,” asked Christie.
“No, I wouldn’t say that something wasn’t quite right about the individual,” said Hilberg. “I would say that something wasn’t quite right about the circumstances under which this was made as an affidavit.”
Hilberg’s second edition of his voluminous work was ready to go to press that same year. Within weeks after the trial, Hilberg made sure that a Hitler order for the “Final Solution,” a point which he argued in the first edition, was removed completely, without an explanation.
Historian Christopher Browning, who believes that Hitler’s 1941 speech to the Gauleiters may have alluded to a Hitler order and who also believes that “the argument over whether Hitler gave an order or not is not commonly part of the issue of Holocaust denial” because enough reputable historians like Hans Mommsen and Martin Broszat do not believe in it, was quite surprised that Hilberg would make such a decision.
Yet in an interview with journalist D. D. Guttenplan, Hilberg said that he made the change “in the interest of precision about the evidence,” and never mentioned the trial during which he was asked to provide evidence for the assertion and could not. Deep down Hilberg believed a Hitler order still existed, even though he had no evidence.
In 1988, Hilberg was asked to testify against Zundel by prosecutor John Pearson, but this time he refused. Here is a “confidential” letter, which Hilberg sent to Pearson, in which he laid the whole issue out:
“I have grave doubts about testifying in the Zündel case again. Last time, I testified for a day under direct examination and for three days under cross-examination. Were I to be in the witness box for a second time, the defense would be asking not merely the relevant and irrelevant questions put to me during the first trial, but it would also make every attempt to entrap me by pointing to any seeming contradiction, however trivial the subject might be, between my earlier testimony and an answer that I might give in 1988.
“The time and energy required to ward off such an assault would be great, and I am afraid that the investment of time alone would be too much, given all the commitments and deadlines I am facing now.”
It is now obvious that the Holocaust story is a package deal, and that package deal is riddled with unanswered questions. Once again we are forced to ask: how was the establishment able to persecute Zundel when he was simply asking for serious evidence for extraordinary claims?
Well, J. J. Goldberg and other Jewish writers and scholars have always had the freedom to brag about “Jewish Power.” It’s only the Goyim who can’t talk about these issues without being called disgusting names.
-  Tim Cole, Selling the Holocaust: From Auschwitz to Schindler; How History is Bought, Packaged and Sold (New York: Routledge, 2000).
-  Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (New York: Verso, 2000 and 2015).
-  See Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Ilan Pappe, The Forgotten Palestinians: A History of the Palestinians in Israel (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011); The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oxford: One World, 2006).
-  See for example Benjamin Kerstein, “Yes, all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic,” Jerusalem Post, May 20, 2012; “Criticizing Israel is fine, but questioning its legitimacy crosses the line into anti-Semitism,” LA Times, September 19, 2018; Jill Jacobs, “How to tell when criticism of Israel is actually anti-Semitism,” Washington Post, May 18, 2018.
-  Jurgen Graf, The Giant with Feet of Clay (Chicago: Theses & Dissertations Press, 2001), 113-114.
-  Saul Friedlander, Kurt Gerstein: The Ambiguity of God (New York: Afred A. Knopf, 1969), 112.
-  Graf, The Giant with Feet of Clay, 92-93.
-  Ibid., 114-115.
-  Ibid., 115-116.
-  Ibid., 116.
-  D. D. Guttenplan, The Holocaust on Trial (New York: W. W. Norton, 2002), 212-213.
-  Graf, The Giant with Feet of Clay, 26.
-  Guttenplan, The Holocaust on Trial, 303.
-  Ibid., 303.
-  “The ‘False News’ Trial of Ernst Zundel—1988,” Institute for Historical Review.
-  J. J. Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Establishment (New York: Perseus Book, 1997); Benjamin Ginsberg, Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993).