One of the main Jewish preoccupations is worrying about going out of existence. Following in the footsteps of Alan Dershowitz, who wrote The Vanishing American Jew 26 years ago, Dominic Green wrote in The Jewish Chronicle that “Suddenly, everywhere you look, Jews are disappearing.” As one proof of his claim, Green states that under Biden the percentage of Jewish judicial appointees has dropped from the historic norm of 20 percent to 8 to 9 percent. In his rush to tell us that the sky is falling, Green neglected to tell us that in controlling 20 percent of the judiciary, the Jews are massively over represented in how the laws of this country get enforced. Ignoring the fact that Jews make up only 2 percent of the population, Green, more importantly, claims that Jews are disappearing from “the upper echelons” at the very moment when the Biden West Wing has enough Jews to constitute a minyan, the number of Jews required to hold a prayer service at a synagogue. As Jason Kornbluh pointed out in the Forward:
As President-elect Joe Biden announced his picks for the Cabinet, the joke went around on Jewish Twitter that the West Wing would have a minyan. Indeed, at least 10 prominent Jews have been nominated to key positions. There’s Ronald Klain (chief of staff); Anthony Blinken (Secretary of State); Janet Yellen (Treasury); Merrick Garland (Attorney General); Alejandro Mayorkas (Homeland Security); and Avril Haines (Director of National Intelligence). One level down are Wendy Sherman (deputy Secretary of State); Eric Lander (science and technology adviser); Ann Neuberger (deputy National Security Adviser); and David Cohen (deputy CIA director).
Shortly after Biden’s inauguration, the Virtual Jewish Library published a list of 46 Jews in the Biden Administration, making it clear that there were enough Jews in the Biden Administration to form an entire congregation. At the top of the list we find, Janet Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury, Anthony Blinken, Secretary of State, Merrick Garland, Attorney General, and Alejandro Mayorkas, who is Secretary for Homeland Security. Mayorkas’s main qualification for the job is being Jewish. His main achievement in office is being incapable of preventing illegal aliens from crossing our Southern border.
Pete Buttigieg is not Jewish, but as Secretary of Transportation, he is the recipient of Jewish Privilege as the Biden administration’s homosexual affirmative action hire, but equally incompetent. During his time in office, Pete posted numerous pictures of the two children he purchased, including one in a hospital bed, from which he announced that he was going on paternity leave, but perhaps because he was missing in action at that moment, he showed himself incapable of solving the supply chain crisis. He also can’t prevent the airlines from gouging passengers for baggage fees or trains from derailing in Ohio because he is too busy being gay and taking care of the sick children he acquired through human trafficking. Buttigieg’s partner tweeted a heart-warming picture of Pete with one of those unfortunate children on his lap in a hospital room explaining how much he loved them without explaining why, if he really loved them, he felt the need to deprive those children of the mother who should be taking care of them. Pete has Jewish privilege because he is a homosexual. He also shares the Jewish view on abortion because he feels that life begins when the child takes its first breath.
In addition to being Jewish, the above-mentioned cabinet members share other characteristics. All have had their pictures taken with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky at a crucial moment when they should have been attending to their duties at home, where a series of crises which they had not anticipated and could not solve broke out in their absence. All of them have shown themselves incompetent when it comes to performing the duties they were appointed to perform.
The story of Jewish incompetence in the Biden administration began when Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri interrogated Garland about how the law gets enforced at the Justice Department. Following Senator Cruz, who got no answer to his question about whether Garland intended to prosecute arsonists who burned down pregnancy counseling centers, Hawley made it clear that Garland was using the FBI to prosecute prolife Catholics. Unfortunately, he never established Garland’s motivation because he was unwilling to identify him as a Jew who felt that abortion was a fundamental Jewish value. This also explains why Garland did not arrest Antifa terrorists who were the prime suspects in the firebombing of prolife centers. Antifa is a Jewish organization, and as such it has Jewish Privilege, which insures immunity from prosecution when a Jew is America’s chief law enforcement official. Shortly after Garland’s testimony about an SPLC hit list describing Latin Mass Catholics as domestic terrorists showed up in the Richmond, Virginia office of the FBI, an SPLC lawyer was arrested as part of an Antifa attack on the Cop City construction site in Atlanta. Garland disavowed the memo but showed no inclination to investigate the SPLC as a Jewish domestic terrorist organization.
Instead of taking Hawley’s criticism to heart and looking into the problem of selective law enforcement at the Justice Department, Garland flew off to the Ukraine two days after being grilled by Senator Hawley to confer with fellow Jew Zelensky on how they could create Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunals for the Russians. Incapable of enforcing the law evenhandedly in America, the Attorney General has decided to impose it on Russians. And what qualifies him to take on this role? According to the New York Times, “Mr. Garland told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he was determined to hold Russians accountable for war crimes they are committing in Ukraine” because his “family escaped the Holocaust in Eastern Europe.”
Wait, didn’t the Russians liberate Auschwitz? The only thing which explains why the Attorney General is in a country half-way around the world, where he is acting as a surrogate secretary of state, is Jewish solidarity and Jewish dedication to spreading their revolutionary spirit at the expense of the natives, who, in the case of the Ukraine, had their own bitter experiences with Jews like Lazar Kaganovich, who starved millions of Ukrainians to death during the 1930s.
Like his colleague at the Justice Department, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken recently demonstrated an equally uncanny ability to be at the wrong place at the wrong time while using the offices of the federal government to pursue Jewish fantasies instead of doing the job he was appointed to do. On the same day in which China pulled off the diplomatic coup of the decade by brokering a peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken gave the State Department’s woman of the year award to a man from Argentina. As Michael Tracey pointed out, “In keeping with his staunch opposition to negotiating with Saddam in 2002, Blinken has a pattern of canceling diplomatic meetings and cutting off negotiations at important moments. Curious behavior for someone whose job is allegedly to be America’s top diplomat.” Blinken’s main characteristic as America’s chief diplomat is his insistence on breaking off negotiations. He does this because he is logos deficient, a characteristic of Jews who begin every discussion by announcing that they have relatives who have died in the Holocaust. Blinken’s meeting with Sergey Lavrov at the G 20 conference began with Blinken issuing ultimatums, unlike his meeting with Zelensky a year before, which showed that Blinken is only comfortable talking to fellow Jews. His even more recent interview with The Atlantic only reinforced this impression.
A little over a week before Blinken gave the woman of the year award to a man from Argentina, Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen exhibited the same sort of behavior. On February 27, Yellen met with Vladimir Zelensky to announce that the United States was giving the Ukraine “another $1.25 billion in economic support” at the very moment that Israeli computer criminals were siphoning funds from the soon to go bust Silicon Valley Bank to banks in Israel. Neither Yellen, nor Garland, the man responsible for prosecuting financial crimes, did anything to stop two of Israel’s banks engaging in criminal activity which contributed to the second biggest bank failure in American history. The Times of Israel reported that:
Israel’s two largest banks, Bank Leuimi and Bank Hapoalim, set up a situation room that has been operating around the clock to help firms transfer money from SVB—before it was seized—to accounts in Israel. Over the past few days, teams at Leumi Tech, the high tech banking arm of Bank Leumi, have been able to help their clients transfer about $1 billion to Israel, the bank said.
Yellen’s meeting with Zelensky drew attention away from the role her incompetence as Treasury Secretary in setting off a series of bank failures. After Yellen raised interest rates to fight inflation, inadvertently devaluing previous government long term bonds, she set into motion a chain of bank failures beginning with Silicon Valley Bank. During her trip to Kiev, Yellen highlighted “U.S. and Western actions to impose sanctions against Russia, which are meant to weaken its defense industry and constrain its economy.” Missing from this account is the fact that the economic sanctions which Yellen’s Treasury Department imposed on Russia have brought about the exact opposite of what the Biden Administration intended. One year into the war, Russia’s economy is booming while banks are failing in America. “Mr. Putin is counting on our global coalition’s resolve to wane, which he thinks will give him the upper hand in the war,” Yellen said in her New York Times op-ed. “But he is wrong. As President Biden said here last week, America will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.”
By now it should be obvious that President Biden will support every initiative proposed by his Jewish cabinet members. The big question, however, is who represents American interests at the Treasury? A little over a week after her return to Washington, the economy started to go sideways when the Silicon Valley Bank closed its doors, creating collateral bank failures and a run on the nation’s banks, but, as if to compensate for that failing, Yellen and her Jewish colleagues have shown themselves even more zealous in promoting Jewish projects like the war in the Ukraine.
ORDER IT NOW
Yellen, however, wasn’t simply guilty of neglect, she did nothing to discourage the Fed from raising interest raising interest rates to fight inflation. SVB failed because “they parked the majority of their depositors’ money ($119.9 billion) in US government bonds.” The irony here is that government bonds are traditionally the safest place to park money. That changed during Yellen’s tenure at the Treasury Department when the Fed raised interest rates from 1.75 to between 3.5 and 5 percent, a move which devalued banks’ main source of capital, which was government bonds. The Fed’s attempt to fight inflation by raising interest rates brought about $15 billion in “unrealized losses” in SVB’s government bond portfolio, which effectively wiped out all but $1 billion of the $16 billion the bank had in total capital. The other billion was stolen by Jewish crooks in Israel. There was no oversight; and there will probably be no prosecutions because Merrick Garland won’t prosecute Jews, and SVB was a Jewish-run bank. We have here a seamless network of Jews covering for Jewish interests. Jim Cramer, the Jewish stock analyst for CNN, pumped SVB stock as a good investment shortly before the company went belly up but after the Jewish CEO and other cronies got their money out by paying themselves big bonuses. Cramer makes $6 million a year persuading the goyim to invest in Jewish operations shortly before they go bust. On Wall Street, this is known as the suckers’ market.
In responding to questions from the press, Yellen failed to mention the Jews who paid themselves big bonuses or the Israelis who moved $1 billion in assets into banks in Israel. Instead of taking measures which would have headed off the collapse of SVB, Yellen announced that she was “transferring $1.5 billion dollars to Kiev.” This amount was in addition to the $77 billion the Biden administration had already given to the most corrupt government in Europe. In addition to that the Ukraine needs another $40 billion to support its economy. Zelensky needs these emergency funds because the war was supposed to end in a matter of weeks after the sanctions imposed by the Treasury Department wrecked the Russian economy. That never happened. In fact, the opposite happened. The sanctions wrecked the economies of every member of NATO.
The Office of Foreign Assets Control, better known as the sanctions office at the Treasury Department has always been a Jewish operation. By the time Janet Yellen visited the Ukraine to hand over a billion dollars to fellow Jew Zelensky, the sanctions office had placed over 40 percent of the world’s population under sanctions and was one of the main agencies driving the world to come up with an alternative to the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Exhibiting a deadly combination of arrogance and incompetence, Yellen has collaborated with Blinken in turning their respective departments into a massive ATM machine whose main beneficiary is the Jew Zelensky and whose hidden grammar is the Holocaust. An important figure in this regard is Stuart Eizenstat, who is now listed as the Biden Administration’s “Special Adviser on Holocaust Issues.” During the 1990s, Eizenstat used the Sanctions Office of the Treasury Department to launch the Jewish looting of Swiss banks now known as the “Nazi Gold” caper.
On December 11, 1996, then Under Secretary of Commerce Stuart Eizenstat testified before the House Banking and Financial Services Committee in Washington, DC. Eizenstat claimed that “many injustices from World War II have gone unresolved for more than 50 years,” knowing full well that the Swiss had already negotiated a settlement of outstanding claims after the war. He then acknowledged that he was collaborating with representatives of the World Jewish Congress, who were working under the “leadership, tenacity, and energy” of New York Senator Alphonse D’Amato. As soon as the issue was termed “Nazi assets,” the Holocaust narrative, then at its apogee because of Schindler’s List, insured that the outcome of the investigation was a foregone conclusion. The same was a fortiori true of assets which Eizenstadt described as “Nazi gold,” another category of the mind which ensured that money would end up in the hands of lawyers at the WJC “to ensure that there could be no Nazi return to power.”
The Swiss were understandably outraged at what amounted to an act of war attacking their most important institution. Swiss Ambassador Carlo Jagmetti called the Nazi gold looting operation “a war which Switzerland must conduct on the foreign and domestic front, and must win.” Switzerland’s economics minister Jean-Pascal Delamuraz claimed that any restitution fund “was tantamount to Switzerland admitting its guilt” and described the tactics of American Jews like Eizenstat as “nothing less than extortion and blackmail” whose ultimate goal was to “destabilize and compromise Switzerland.” The Swiss counter-attack failed, however, because no one in Switzerland could identify the “Nazi Gold” caper as a Jewish operation. After he wondered aloud whether “Auschwitz is in Switzerland,” Delamuraz was forced to apologize, and eventually Swiss resistance collapsed, but not before Delamuraz warned the Jews that their tactics would stir up anti-Semitism. Eskin claims that the threat became a reality when “a letter writer in a Lausanne newspaper called Senator D’Amato ‘the ideal attorney for the American Jews, whose omnipotence in the USA is well known.’”
Binyamin Wilkomirski’s faux memoir Fragments played a crucial role in the looting of Swiss banks that Eizenstat and the WJC had orchestrated. As some indication of the connection, “the first payments” out of the $70 million “charitable fund” established by the settlement “went to poor Jewish survivors in Riga,” the town in Latvia that Wilkomirski was claiming as his birthplace.
Wilkomirski’s memoir appeared to universal acclaim in 1995, one year after the creation of the Shoah Foundation and two years after the premier of Schindler’s List. Harvard professor Daniel Jonah Goldhagen would later have credibility problems of his own, but as “one of the first critics to testify to its importance,” he claimed that “even those conversant with the literature of the Holocaust will be educated by this arresting book.” Goldhagen’s glowing review typified the “fawning” initial responses to Fragments. In his analysis of what would come to be known as the Wilkomirski hoax, Blake Eskin claims in his understated way that: “Binjamin Wilkomirski was taken very seriously.” But it would be hard to overstate the acclaim which surrounded his book:
The Jewish Book Council gave Fragments its 1996 National Jewish Book Award for Autobiography/Memoir. The book received similar prizes on the other side of the Atlantic: the Prix Memoire de la Shoah in France, the Jewish Quarterly Literary Prize in England. Professors of Holocaust courses added Fragments to their syllabi, school groups in Zurich and organizations abroad invited Binjamin to speak. Rosie O’Donnell held up a copy of Fragments and recommended it to the viewers of her daytime television show. The BBC invited Binjamin to be the celebrity guest on the classical-music show Private Passions, and he chose the hour’s playlist: the scherzo from Mahler’s First Symphony, an aria from The Magic Flute, a track from Songs of the Ghetto: A Jewish Child of Poland performed by Sarah Gorby. Newspapers quoted him as an authority on matters concerning the Holocaust.
As the world’s most famous post-Schindler’s List Holocaust survivor, Wilkomirski had inherited the Jewish predilection for chutzpah, which allowed him to denounce other Holocaust profiteers as frauds, a privilege he exercised when Swedish poet Barbro Karlen came to Switzerland to promote a memoir in which she claimed to be Anne Frank reincarnate. “It is a fraud in a moral sense,” he told a Swiss newspaper, adding that the blame lay not with her but with the people making money off her. Karlen, he continued, “is simply disturbed.”
In the Washington Times, Arnost Lustig, himself a survivor and author, wrote, “It makes you feel, perceive and understand and, in so doing, makes you spiritually richer. The book is destined to become one of the five or so lasting books about the Holocaust.” Lustig was hardly alone in elevating Fragments to the top shelf of Holocaust literature. One British critic placed Fragments above the memoirs of Bruno Bettelheim and Primo Levi in terms of its emotional power; several reviewers mentioned it in the same breath as Elie Wiesel’s Night . . . . Jonathan Kozol, known for his compassionate writing about underprivileged children, wrote in The Nation that Fragments was “so profoundly moving, so morally important and so free from literary artifice of any kind at all that wondered if I even had the right to try to offer praise.” Schocken [Books]put Kozol’s quote on the back cover of the paperback edition.
Notre Dame University climbed onto the Wilkomirski bandwagon in April 1998 when Rabbi Michael Signer, then Abrams Professor of Jewish Thought and Culture, persuaded Wilkomirski to speak at a conference there. Signer’s wife Betty:
spent six months pursuing the author of Fragments before he finally committed to coming. “He is a very big name now in terms of his book and writing,” she boasted to a campus newspaper. Binjamin represented the conference’s mission to highlight the increasing consideration accorded to survivor memory in Holocaust studies. “Statistics don’t adequately represent what happened,” Rabbi Michael Signer told the South Bend Tribune. Many of the distinguished participants were themselves survivors or refugees, but none of them would embody humanity at the limit better than Binjamin Wilkomirski, who “received a nearly unanimous standing ovation from his international and interdisciplinary audience at Notre Dame.”
Not all historians were happy with the shift to memory and therapy which Spielberg’s Shoah foundation had brought about, Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg “sat on his hands” instead of joining the chorus of praise at Notre Dame. Hilberg had reason to be unhappy, but when it came to the shift from history to memory as the prime source of the Holocaust narrative, he had no one to blame but himself and his embarrassing performance at the Zündel trials in Canada.
ORDER IT NOW
The more the revisionists produced facts, the more the exterminationists retreated into the realm of fantasy. By 1996, the Shoah Foundation had unleashed a torrent of narratives which would eventually be exposed as frauds. One year after the publication of Fragments, Herman Rosenblat appeared on Oprah and told the story of the “Angel at the Fence,” a narrative which Oprah characterized as “the single greatest love story” she had ever heard. According to Routledge’s account:
The ridiculous tale deals with two Jewish people who met on a blind date in Coney Island. At the time, they had no inkling that they had met during the Holocaust when she, Roma, had tossed an apple to Herman each day over the fence at Buchenwald. Among the story’s ludicrous details was Herman’s appointment, in advance, to enter Buchenwald’s gas chamber on a particular day—not even Holocaustians claim the camp had such a chamber. As for the camp’s layout, including the location of the Kinderblock, Herman didn’t have a clue. In summary, the story, like Wiesel’s Night, was clearly a fabrication.
When reality finally caught up with Mr. Rosenblat, he invoked the “dream” trope which Elie Wiesel had made famous in Night:
Like Wiesel, who has been trying to figure out for decades if the flaming pits were real or a dream. Rosenblat played the same game, stating: “My mother came to me in a dream and said that I must tell my story so that my grandchildren would know of our survival from [sic] the Holocaust.” He went on: “In my dreams. Roma will always throw me an apple, but I now know it is only a dream.”
One year later, Jane Daniel of Mt. Ivy Press, brought out Misha: A Mémoire of the Holocaust Years, which tells the incredible story of how a nine-year-old Jewish girl traveled 900 miles across Europe accompanied by a pack of wolves who fed her and helped her avoid capture by the Nazis, allowing her to scale the wall surrounding the Treblinka concentration camp to rescue her adoptive parents. After garnering endorsements from Elie Wiesel, who found this preposterous narrative “very moving,” as well as the Anti-Defamation League, and the North American Wolf Foundation, Misha DeFonesca’s Holocaust story was made into a feature length film in France and released under the title Survivre avec les loups. Like Wilkomirski, DeFonesca spoke at synagogues and Holocaust education conferences, even though she admitted to the Sunday Times of London that some people found her tale “unbelievable.” Then, on February 29, 2008, DeFonesca was forced to admit that her book was an elaborate hoax. Her real name was Monique de Wael. Her parents were Roman Catholic, and she attended a Catholic school, where she was ostracized because her father collaborated with the Nazis. This left her with an enduring sense of shame which she sought to allay by inventing a fictional past as a courageous Jewish girl who actually killed Nazis, as a way of eradicating the shame her father’s collaboration with the Nazis caused her as a child.
Like Rosenblat, de Wael took refuge in the claim that the story of Misha was “not actual reality but was my reality.” Like Wilkomirski, de Wael had created moments in the book when she “found it difficult to differentiate between what was real and what was part of my imagination.”
In 1997, as Wilkomirski was being compared to Anne Frank and Elie Wiesel and Fragments was elevated to canonical status in Holocaust narrative texts, Eizenstat was able to use Fragments to shake down a settlement from the Swiss Banks. If the Wilkomirski story reached its climax in the looting of Switzerland’s banks, it found its denouement there too. In August of 1998, the Swiss journalist Daniel Ganzfried published an article in the Swiss weekly magazine Weltwoche which questioned not only the veracity of the Fragments narrative but the identity of its author as well. Wikomirski claimed to be a Jew born in Latvia, but Ganzfried showed that Binjamin Wilkomirski was in reality Bruno Grosjean, an illegitimate child born to an unmarried mother by the name of Yvonne Grosjean from Biel in Switzerland and later adopted by the Doessekkers, a wealthy, childless couple from Zurich. One year after Ganzfried’s article appeared, “Swiss historian and anti-Semitism expert Stefan Maechler” confirmed Ganzfried’s claim and “concluded that Ganzfried’s allegations were correct, and that Wilkomirski’s alleged autobiography was a fraud.” Surveying the field, Franklin concludes that:
The Holocaust narrative has been so rife with fraud, “the real surprise” concerning “Wilkomirski’s fraudulent narrative is that it did not happen sooner. For the pathetic fraud perpetrated by Wilkomirski was the inevitable consequence of the way Holocaust literature has been read, discussed, and understood—in America especially, but also in Europe—over the last sixty-plus years.”
Another Jew listed as serving in the Biden Administration is Deborah Lipstadt, who is listed as “Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism.” Lipstadt became famous in the 1990s by coining the term “Holocaust denial.” She was also a fervent defender of Wilkomirski’s fraudulent Holocaust book Fragments. Confronted with one fraud after another, the Holocaust Industry entered a period of what might be termed denial. It is no coincidence that the term “holocaust denial” entered the lexicon at this point. Deborah Lipstadt, professor of Jewish Studies and Holocaust Studies at Emory University, invented the term in her book Denying the Holocaust, which appeared in 1993. Lipstadt unfortunately had been caught up in the Fragments mania and was fulsome in its praise. After Ganzfried’s damning revelations, she continued to justify retaining Wilkomirski’s fraudulent memoir on the syllabus of her Holocaust courses. She accomplished this sleight of hand by referring to Fragments as “a very powerful work of literature,” ignoring the fact that Wilkomirski, like Jerzy Kozinski before him, claimed that every word in his memoir was based on fact and actually happened. “Nobody,” Lipstadt continued, “is saying the Nazis did this to little children based on Binjamin’s story,” again ignoring the fact that Wilkomirski made precisely this claim. Lipstadt then said that it was necessary to “triangulate” the material in Fragments, but even that isn’t necessary because even if Fragments is “a counterfeit memoir, it’s still powerful.” Or, as the Italians would say, Non e vero ma e ben trovato.
Lipstadt became famous, not because of any research she did substantiating the claims of the Holocaust narrative, but because she successfully defended herself against a libel suit brought by David Irving in 1996. The case, which Irving lost, effectively established “holocaust denial” as a significant trope in the Holocaust narrative after the revisionists had succeeded in making their case in the Ernst Zündel 1985 and 1988 trials in Canada, at which Leuchter and Irving testified as witnesses. Lipstadt’s defense of Fragments even after it was exposed as a hoax is not an isolated incident. Elie Wiesel remained obstinate in his defense of Jerzy Kosinski long after his “basic Holocaust text,” The Painted Bird, “was exposed as a fraud.” Wilkomirski’s fraudulent memoir found another defender in Yisrael Gutman, a director of the Yad Vashem center for documentation of the Holocaust in Jerusalem. Intensity of feeling makes up for lack of veracity. Or as Gutman put it: “Wilkomirski has written a story which he has experienced deeply; that’s for sure… he is not a fake. He is someone who lives this story very deeply in his soul. The pain is authentic.”
The notion that if the pain is authentic, the narrative must be true has become the official position of both Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial in Israel, and the United States Holocaust Museum in Washington, but it is clearly at odds with University of Georgia French professor David O’Connell’s conclusion that Elie Wiesel is “a con man who has enriched himself with his tall tales.”
The idea that “inaccurate testimony can nonetheless represent the truth” could not exist outside of the hothouse confines of the Holocaust Industry and its therapy sessions. The Fragments bubble burst on February 7, 1999 when 60 Minutes’ investigator Ed Bradley “presented the Binjamin Wilkomirski story as a hoax, plain and simple.” Ignoring the psychological issues surrounding his case, Bradley claimed that Wilkomirski “fit the classic profile of a fraud.” The ultimate question, Bradley pointed out, bringing the Wilkomirski story back to reality, was “whether it was true.” When the voice over announced that Wilkomirski “was given a standing ovation wherever he went,” the visual showed Notre Dame professor Michael Signer embracing Wilkomirski at his lecture at that university. At this point, Raul Hilberg got trotted out to express his doubts. The man who refused to join the standing ovation at Notre Dame now told Ed Bradley that “This work hovers between the highly unlikely and the utterly impossible.” When Bradley produced the birth certificate which proved that Wilkomirski had been born Bruno Grosjean in Biel, Switzerland in 1941, Wilkomirski once again dissociated himself from reality, claiming that “The document is true, but it doesn’t belong to me.”
After exposing Grosjean/Wilkomirski as a fraud, Bradley remained puzzled at the avidity with which the world accepted what was such an obviously concocted story. “Why,” he asks Hilberg, “do you think they were all taken in by him? His book is described as one of the great works of the Holocaust.” In testifying against Wilkomirski/Grossjean/Doeseker, Hilberg unwittingly indicted Spielberg’s Shoah Foundation by tracing the Holocaust child memory mania back to “an effort to elicit the story from every survivor who is still able to talk. So, in that sense everyone who a survivor and has a story will be told, ‘come on in.’ And if he’s capable of writing something very interesting, he’ll be celebrated.”
Like Japanese soldiers in the caves of Okinawa, many of Wilkomirski’s supporters refused to surrender, even after the 60 Minutes segment aired. Harvey Peskin, author of an article entitled “The Second Holocaust: Therapeutic Rescue when Life Threatens,” which appeared in the Journal of Personal and Interpersonal Loss, predictably called the 60 Minutes piece a “second Holocaust.” Like Deborah Lipstadt, Peskin equated “disbelieving Binjamin Wilkomirski and denying the Holocaust . . . .” And in a sense Peskin was right. If the Holocaust were based in this sort of testimony, it had every right to be denied. Even Eskin the skeptical journalist felt that questioning what he knew to be a fraudulent narrative was tantamount to Holocaust denial:
Can [Wilkomirski] believe everything he has said? Does he know he’s putting one over on us? How did he weave this story together? Is he merely making all this up as he goes along? And what made me believe him in the first place? Was it his writing voice? The reputations of the publishers and museum that brought us together? My own feeling that I had to believe him, that to do otherwise would be to deny the Holocaust?
The Holocaust Industry remained unmoved by Bradley’s expose on 60 Minutes. The U.S. Holocaust Museum continued its policy of accepting the testimony of anyone who showed up to be interviewed, no matter how absurd his story. Numerous “survivors” swore they had been examined by “Josef Mengele himself” upon their arrival at Auschwitz, an assertion which those in charge of Holocaust Museum policy refused to challenge even if the person in charge of recording the memory knew that “Mengele wasn’t there when they were.” As soon as the interviewer asks “’How did you know it was Mengele?’ and they say, ‘I found out afterwards.’ It’s clear what’s going on.” Ethnic blood runs thicker than journalistic water. Like the U.S. Holocaust Museum, which won’t remove testimony even if it’s proven false, Eskin feels deeply conflicted for betraying a fellow Jew “on German television of all places,” even after he’s convinced that Wilkomirski made it all up.
ORDER IT NOW
In 1999 the Suhrkamp Verlag issued a statement confirming Ganzfried’s allegations and withdrawing Fragments from circulation, thus bringing the Wilkomirski affair to an end, at least in Ganzfried’s eyes, but the issue of what constituted an authentic Holocaust narrative was far from over, and fraudulent narratives continued to pour off the presses of an industry which demanded increased quantity as compensation for the dramatically decreasing quality of their texts. Eventually, the Shoah Foundation and the U.S. Holocaust Museum presided over the birth of a new literary genre, fictional autobiography. Eskin recounts listening to Holocaust survivors “drone on and on.” One survivor who is determined to describe her own experience as a hidden child in Lithuania was forced to write a fictional autobiography “because I don’t have enough facts.”
This expanded version of poetic license was only issued to Jews. In 1993, a 23-year-old Australian wrote an account of the Ukrainian Holodomor under the name of Helen Demidenko, claiming, as the name implies, that she was a Ukrainian. After she claimed that most of the victims of the Holodomor had been killed by “Jewish Communist Party officials,” she was condemned as an anti-Semite even though the claim was true. Truth, once again, was shown to be the opinion of the powerful. Only Jews, however, are allowed to write false memoirs. When an Australian pretended to be a Ukrainian and accused Jews of responsibility for the Holodomor, she is guilty of lying precisely because she told the truth. The Holodomor was a Jewish operation from start to finish which began when Lazar Kaganovich arrived in the Ukraine in 1928 to engage in the forced industrialization of agriculture, and it reached its horrible climax five years later when the Cheka under Genrikh Yagoda, another Jew, finished the job.
Unable to defend the double standard which allows Jews to assume false identities but denies it to the goyim, Eskin flies to Prague and consults Czech psychiatrist Robert Krell, who explains the difference between “Demidenko” and “Wilkomirski” and why one false narrative is good and the other one bad. “Demidenko,” according to Krell’s hermeneutic “made up a story that is false from a premise that is false and has something false to say. If Wilkomirski is inauthentic, then it still captures something beautiful about the fragments of memory that child survivors have.” The narrative determines the truth, in other words; the truth does not determine the narrative.
As the Swiss bank looting operation showed, the Holocaust narrative is driven by money, but as the troubled histories of “Wilkomirski” and “Grabowski” equally showed, it is also driven by unresolved psychological problems stemming from an unhappy childhood. Analyzing specific Holocaust narratives is like peeling an onion. After stripping away layer upon layer of motivation from the financial, to the psychological, to the moral, to the theological, the investigator is left with nothing which corresponds to reality. So, to move from financial to psychological motivation, Fragments was what Freud would call a “family romance,” which Eskin describes as:
a common type of fantasy in which your actual parents aren’t the imperfect, disappointing people who gave you life and raised you; they must have been kings or Gypsies, noblemen or outsiders who, like the parents of Oedipus, Moses, and other heroic or tragic figures, abandoned you for urgent reasons that must remain secret.
Shortly after revisionism fatally undermined whatever factual basis the Holocaust had, the psychologists took over the Holocaust narrative and promptly banned the historians from their meetings. The Holocaust Industry then began honoring Wilkomirski “not as historians or as politicians, but as mental health professionals.” This strategy wasn’t going to work because Wilkomirski wasn’t simply a psychologically troubled individual. He was also a con man, who may or may not have believed his own story. Eskin recounts how Wilkomirski had gone to Riga years before writing Fragments to ask questions about the plausibility of certain events which would end up in his childhood memory narrative, questions like whether:
a person could have escaped from a certain house on the edge of the Riga ghetto on the eve of the first mass murder at Rumbula. Vestermanis [Riga’s archivist] told the men that it was possible. He had no idea that one of his visitors was the potential escapee or that he was writing a book. Vestermanis forgot about the two men—the author of Fragments and his friend Elitsur Bernstein—until the investigations of Binjamin Wilkomirski’s authenticity began.
The protagonists in the Holocaust narrative were driven by many different forces, from the psychological to the economic, but one of the main motivations was guilt. The Holocaust narrative is a form of virtue signaling, and all virtue signaling is driven by guilt. Wilkomirski mentions the “problem of guilt,” but only once, claiming that he “was involved in events that led to the death of the boy in my barrack”—the boy who soiled the bed—“and felt very guilty for that.” After this cryptic statement, the idea of guilt disappeared from Fragments but got picked up later by Ganzfried, who claims that the main attraction of the Holocaust narrative is freedom from guilt: “The Holocaust victim today is like Jesus. He has on his shoulders every evil deed that was ever committed. We give him some money for it, some public reputation, some respect. So, he goes on with his story, I am freed from my guilt, and we all end up in heaven” (my emphasis).
Is guilt the key which explains the Jewish takeover of the Biden Administration, where being Jewish precludes any consideration of competence? Attorney General Garland, the country’s chief law enforcement officer, can’t enforce the law evenhandedly. In fact, he can only enforce it against people Jews perceive as their enemies. Secretary Blinken, the country’s top diplomat, can’t negotiate, and Treasury Secretary Yellen can’t keep banks from failing. All of these cabinet members have had their pictures taken with fellow Jew Zelensky, the man presiding over the destruction of the Ukraine and the main conduit for Jewish money laundering. All are incompetent. All are Jews. All are protected by Jewish Privilege from any criticism. If, as Dominic Green tells us, “Jewish Americans are losing their footing at the top of American life like Hemingway’s bankrupt: gradually, then suddenly,” the time of our deliverance is nigh. The silver lining to this cloud is consciousness. Knowing where the problem lies is the first step to finding its solution.
Which leads us to draw certain conclusions based on the lessons that Biden’s minyan is teaching us. First of all, we have to recognize that Jews are constitutionally incapable of representing the interests of the American people. Whenever they get appointed to any governmental office, they use that opportunity to punish people they don’t like, like Catholic prolifers, while at the same time defending fellow Jews by not prosecuting them for the crimes, largely financial, which they are constitutionally inclined to commit. The conclusion which we need to draw from Biden’s minyan is inescapable: no Jew should be allowed to serve in any public office. This may sound harsh, but it is in keeping with the Catholic principle Sicut Iudeis non, which provided a modus vivendi in Europe for 1,500 years. It is also in keeping with the common practice of European countries for that same period of time. Jews were allowed to live in European countries as resident aliens at the pleasure of the sovereign, but Jews were never granted citizenship. Napoleon was the first sovereign to break that tradition, and he did so because he needed Jewish support in the Pale of the Settlement for his invasion of Russia. When Napoleon stopped in Strassbourg on his way back to Paris after the Battle of Jena, he learned that the Jews had already abused their newly granted citizenship by financially exploiting their fellow Frenchmen, as the city fathers of Strassbourg told him in no uncertain terms.
When asked what he thought about the French Revolution, Chou en lai famously said, “It’s too soon to tell.” Well, it is no longer too soon to tell. The 200-year-long experiment of allowing Jews to be citizens has failed. America has provided the proof. No country has gone out of its way to welcome Jews more than America, and the Jews have repaid the favor by declaring war on the American people by denouncing anyone who disagrees with the ADL party line as anti-Semites, racists, homophobes, transphobes, and whatever other insults the Jews can think up. Biden’s minyan is proof of that. Biden’s minyan is proof that Jews hate the American people and that they will express that hatred as soon as they get into position of power by punishing the American people and letting Jewish criminals, like the cabal at SVB bank, off the hook.
So now it’s time repay the favor by implementing Sicut Iudeis non, whose first principle is that no one has the right to harm the Jew. This should calm the hysterical Jews who are the main supporters of the ADL and the SPLC. This will open the way to implementation of the second principle of Sicut Iudeis non, which is that Jews have no right to destroy our culture. This means that they have to be removed from positions of authority if the culture is to survive. That means they have no right to impose Jewish values like abortion, sodomy, usury, bank fraud, etc., on us in the name of the law, as they did in Roe v. Wade and the more recent Obergefell decision. As Justice Clarence Thomas put it, Obergefell has to go the way of Roe v. Wade because both involve the imposition of Jewish Moloch worship on the American people. We need to do this while we have the chance. We need to take these decisions out of the hands to the Jews, because as the façade of the cathedral at Strassbourg teaches us, Jews are blind, and they are blindly heading toward their doom by sowing the seeds of a violent reaction which will fall on them like a thief in the night when the goyim finally wake up to what has happened to them.
Notes
https://forward.com/news/462330/enough-for-a-minyan-a-jewish-whos-who-of-bidens-cabinet-to-be/
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jews-in-the-biden-administration
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/03/world/europe/merrick-garland-ukraine-zelensky.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/03/world/europe/merrick-garland-ukraine-zelensky.html
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1628152666189602817
https://thehill.com/policy/international/3875840-yellen-in-kyiv-to-meet-with-zelensky/
https://thehill.com/policy/international/3875840-yellen-in-kyiv-to-meet-with-zelensky/
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/simon-black-unraveling-can-happen-instant
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/simon-black-unraveling-can-happen-instant
https://www.realjewnews.com/?p=1571
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRCXkHImtTM
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jews-in-the-biden-administration
“Holocaust Assets,” U.S. Department of State Archive, released online prior to Jan. 20, 2001, https://1997-2001.state.gov/regions/eur/961219eizen.html
https://1997-2001.state.gov/regions/eur/961219eizen.html
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 132.
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 133.
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 134.
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 134.
Franklin, A Thousand Darknesses, p. 1.
Blake Eskin, A Life In Pieces, (New York, London: W. W. Norton & Company, 2002), p. 69.
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 69
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 33-4.
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 81
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 85
Routledge, Holocaust High Priest, p. 345.
Routledge, Holocaust High Priest, p. 345.
Routledge, Holocaust High Priest, p. 346.
“Misha: A Mémoire of the Holocaust Years,” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misha:_A_M%C3%A9moire_of_the_Holocaust_Years
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 197
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 197
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 197
“Misha: A Mémoire of the Holocaust Years,” Wikipedia.
“Fragments: Memories of a Wartime Childhood,” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragments:_Memories_of_a_Wartime_Childhood
“Fragments: Memories of a Wartime Childhood,” Wikipedia.
Ruth Franklin, A Thousand Darknesses: Lies and Truth in Holocaust Fiction, Kindle, p. 2.
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 118.
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 119.
Bradford Hanson (ed.), “The Wilkomirski Affair: How a Holocaust Hoaxer Was Rewarded for His Lies,” National Vanguard, May 14, 2016, https://nationalvanguard.org/2016/05/the-wilkomirski-affair-how-a-holocaust-hoaxer-was-rewarded-for-his-lies/
Hanson (ed.), “The Wilkomirski Affair.”
O’Connell, “Elie Wiesel and the Catholics,” Culture Wars, p. 32.
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 149
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 150
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 150
CBS – 60 Minutes Program, “The Holocaust Surivivor [sic] “Fraud,” Benjamin Wilkomirski,” Internet Archive, Publication date Sept. 9, 1998, https://archive.org/details/the-holocaust-surivivor-fraud-benjamin-wilkomirski
CBS – 60 Minutes Program, “The Holocaust Surivivor.”
CBS – 60 Minutes Program, “The Holocaust Surivivor.”
CBS – 60 Minutes Program, “The Holocaust Surivivor.”
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 151
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 153
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 157
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 159
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 166
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 200
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 200
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 203
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 203
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 238
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 167
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 179
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 64
Eskin, A Life In Pieces, p. 230
