…by Jonas E. Alexis
The late Christopher Hitchens wrote way back in 2001 in the LA Times that “The Holocaust has become a secular religion, with state support in the form of a national museum.”
In a similar vein, Israel Shamir writes that “the cult of the Holocaust” is actually “an adaptation of the Jewish spiritual rule of Christian minds, as it replaces Christ with Israel, Golgotha with Auschwitz, and the Resurrection with the creation of the Jewish state.
“People who argue with the dogma of the Holocaust are met with treatment the heretics were given in the days of yore. They are excommunicated and excluded from society.”
Our esteemed colleague and perceptive writer Gilad Atzmon argues that “The Holocaust was a ‘Zionist victory,’ just as each single rape is interpreted by feminist separatist ideologists as a verification of their theories.” Citing Uri Avnery and continuing to cut the Holocaust establishment to pieces, Atzmon writes,
“‘Yeshayahu Leibowitz, the philosopher who was an observant Orthodox Jew, told me once: ‘The Jewish religion died 200 years ago. Now there is nothing that unifies the Jews around the world apart from the Holocaust.’
“Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz, a Latvian-born philosopher at the Hebrew University, was probably first to suggest that the Holocaust has become the new Jewish religion.
“The Israeli philosopher Adi Ophir also pointed out that far from being merely a historical narrative, ‘The Holocaust’ contains numerous essential religious elements. It has priests (e.g. Simon Wiesenthal, Elie Wiesel, Deborah Lipstadt) and prophets (Shimon Peres, Binyamin Netanyahu, those who warn of the Iranian Judeocide to come).
“It has commandments and dogmas (e.g. ‘Never Again’) and rituals (memorial days, pilgrimage to Auschwitz, etc). “It has an established, esoteric symbolic order (e.g. kapos, gas chambers, chimneys, dust, shoes, the figure of the Musselmann, etc.).
“It also has a temple, Yad Vashem, and shrines—Holocaust museums—in capital cities worldwide. The Holocaust religion is also maintained by a massive global financial network…
“This new religion is coherent enough to define its ‘antichrists’ (Holocaust deniers), and powerful enough to persecute them (through Holocaust-denial and hate-speech laws.
“It took me many years to understand that the Holocaust, the core belief of the contemporary Jewish faith, was not an historical narrative, for historical narratives do not need the protection of the law and politicians.”
Finally, Atzmon put the final nail in the coffin when he declares that
“The Holocaust religion is, obviously, Judeo-centric to the bone. It defines the Jewish raison d’être. For Zionist Jews, it signifies a total fatigue of the Diaspora, and regards the goy as a potential irrational murderer.
“This new religion preaches revenge. It could well be the most sinister religion known to man, for in the name of Jewish suffering, it issues licenses to kill, to flatten, to nuke, to annihilate, to loot, to ethnically cleanse. It has made vengeance into an acceptable Western value…
“In the new religion, instead of old Jehovah, it is ‘the Jew’ whom the Jews worship: a brave and witty survivor of the ultimate genocide, who emerged from the ashes and stepped forward into a new beginning.”
Finally, Jewish historian Tim Cole of the University of Bristol writes,
“‘Shoah [Hebrew for Holocaust] business’ is big business…[In] the twentieth century, the ‘Holocaust’ is being bought and sold. $168 million was donated to pay for the building of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on a plot of Federal Land in Washington, DC.
“Millions of dollars have financed memorial projects throughout the United States, ranging from the installation of Holocaust memorials to the establishing of University chairs in Holocaust studies. Steven Spielberg’s movie Schindler’s List netted over $221 million in foreign box offices and even Academy Awards.”
Why has the Holocaust become a secular religion? Why has this issue become so sensitive to the point that one ought not to probe historical and rational questions anymore? How did that come about?
A number of Jewish historians have argued that Nazi Germany was “unique” and “unparalleled” in history. According to this dogma, nothing before or after can be compared to what happened in the Third Reich.
Jewish scholar and prolific writer Jacob Neusner declared that “the Holocaust…was unique, without parallel in human history.” Daniel Goldhagen made similar claims in his book Hitler’s Willing Executioners.
French Jewish historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet espoused similar views. Jewish philosopher Emil L. Fackenheim of the University of Toronto implicitly argues the same thing.
Many Jewish writers indirectly advocate this form of doctrine in one way or another. For Deborah Lipstadt, downplaying the “uniqueness” of the Holocaust is to be a Holocaust denier.
German historian Ernst Nolte made the mistake of comparing the Holocaust to other crimes that have committed in history, such as Stalin’s extermination of the Russian people, the Armenian genocide, and Pol Pot’s crimes against humanity. For this, Lipstadt labeled him a Holocaust denier. Historian Joachim Fest defended Nolte on historical and rational grounds, and received the same treatment.
Abraham H. Foxman declared,
“The Holocaust is something different. It is a singular event. It is not simply one example of genocide but a nearly successful attempt on the life of God’s chosen children and, thus, on God himself.”
For Historian Steven Katz, “never before has a state set out…to annihilate physically every man, woman, and child belonging to a specific people.”
Yet not every historian pays homage to this Holocaust creed. While declaring that the Holocaust is an important chapter in human history and that “the depth of pain and suffering of Holocaust victims is difficult to describe,” Jewish historian Yehuda Bauer, whose work we shall examine in the future, admits that
“the Holocaust is certainly not unique, because ‘indescribable’ human suffering is forever there and is forever being described.”
In Bauer’s words, “coming up with a remote quasi-scientific approach” is “as inhuman as that of those who committed the crime or of those who stood by and watched it indifferently.”
The late historian Peter Novick put it quite well when he wrote,
“In Jewish discourse on the Holocaust we have not just a competition for recognition but a competition for primacy. This takes many forms. Among the most widespread and pervasive is an angry insistence on the uniqueness of the Holocaust.
“Insistence on its uniqueness (or denial of its uniqueness) is an intellectually empty enterprise for reasons having nothing to do with the Holocaust itself and everything to do with ‘uniqueness.’
“A moment of reflection makes it clear that the notion of uniqueness is quite vacuous. Every historical event, including the Holocaust, in some ways resembles events to which it might be compared and differs from them in some ways.”
If those words were just assertions built upon assertions with little or no historical or rational backbone, the Holocaust establishment would have had solid grounds to accuse their critics as irresponsible. But as we shall see, the historical data is just astounding.
Stalin killed more than 10 million Russian peasants in less than three years. Yet many in the Holocaust establishment desperately and hopelessly try to get around this fact in order to keep the Holocaust religion alive and well.
After toe-dancing around Stalin’s mass killings for a while and obviously seeing that her argument just dropped like an apple falling from a tree, Deborah Lipstadt declared:
“This is not a matter of comparative pain or competitive suffering. It is misguided to attempt to gauge which group endured more. For the victims in all these tragedies the oppressors’ motives were and remain irrelevant. Nor is this a matter of head count of victims or a question of whose loss was larger.
“In fact, Stalin killed more people than did the Nazis. But that is not the issue. The equivalencies offered by…historians are not analogous to the Holocaust…Whereas Stalin’s terror was arbitrary, Hitler’s was targeted at a particular group.”
If that is not silly, I do not know what is. Here was a man who was responsible for the death of at least sixty million people, but his terror was arbitrary! Lipstadt here certainly borders on the delusional as a person who claims to follow historical accuracies.
Is she actually saying that destroying the lives of those Russian peasants (kulaks) and dissents “arbitrary”? Wasn’t dekulakization one of Stalin’s primary goals? Did Stalin try to pursue those goals regardless of the cost?
Wasn’t Stalin also targeting particular groups as well? Didn’t Stalin call his victims “swine,” “dogs,” “cockroaches,” “scum,” “vermin,” “filth,” “garbage,” and other names? Did Stalin create a bloody regime that lasted for more than forty years? If Lipstadt is prepared to deny all of this, isn’t she assaulting truth here? Isn’t she a Holocaust denier?
As we shall see, whether Lipstadt likes it or not, her reasoning here is Talmudic or Rabbinic in nature.
Paul Hollander, a Jewish scholar and writer who fled his native Hungary because of political persecution, subscribes to the same ideology, declaring that the Nazis should never be compared with the Soviets on “moral equivalence” because, among other things, “Communist regimes, unlike the Nazis, did not seek to murder children.”
I just could not hold my laughter here. If Hollander was some Joe on the street, there would be no problem. Hollander was a professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts and author of numerous books.
How can smart people like him absorb dumb ideas, when they know perfectly well that those ideas are just plain stupid? Well, ideology knows no boundary. As noted historian Steven Rosefielde humorously and beautifully puts it,
“Even if things got out of hand in the heat of battle, it could be claimed that kulak extermination wasn’t state policy. Even if terror and lethal Gulag labor exploitation occurred, they could be excused as self-defense for numerous reasons, including the imperative of rabid socialist constructions. There always seemed to be extenuating rationalizations.”
Historian J. Otto Pohl writes that “the Soviet Koreans were the first nationality the Stalin regime deported in its entirety on the basis of their ethnicity. It was an act of national repression on a grand scale.”
Historian Norman Naimark of Stanford declares that “a good argument can be made that Stalin intended to systematically wipe out the kulaks as a group of people—not just metaphorically as a class—and that therefore the result can be considered genocide.”
Later he continued, “The principled abstention from using the term genocide can serve politicized purposes as much as its application to specific historical circumstances.”
As we are beginning to see, the “uniqueness” doctrine is an ideology, one that has no foundation in historical scholarship, but only exists in the minds of people like Lipstadt. It is maintained not because it is intellectually and morally satisfying, but because it seeks to preserve the new ethos: the religion of the Holocaust.
By 1937, two years before Hitler came to power, Stalin had already starved and executed as many as ten million peasants. This period in history—from 1929-1937—is known as the Red Holocaust. By 1938, a total of 9.7 million perished, and from 1939 until 1953, another 9 million lost their lives. From 1937-1939, Stalin executed 50,000 clergymen alone.
Stalin’s terrorism began as early as 1918, when “he ordered the execution of all suspected counter-revolutionaries. Stalin burned villages in the countryside to intimidate the peasants and discourage bandit raids on food supplies a decade before he became Red tsar.”
Even after World War II, Stalin did not stop terrorizing the peasants. Minority groups such as the Greeks, Germans, Turks, Orthodox Christians, Lithuanians, and Vlasovites also fell prey to Stalin’s literal ethnic cleansing.
Lenin, like Sigmund Freud, Wilhelm Reich and other Jewish revolutionaries, the real enemy was the church. He passionately declared in 1922,
“Now and only now, when there is cannibalism in the famine areas and hundreds, if not thousands, of corpses are lying on the roads, we can (and therefore must) carry out the confiscation of Church valuables with the most furious and merciless energy, not stopping at the crushing of any resistance…
“Therefore I come to the inevitable conclusion that it is now that we must give the most decisive and merciless battle to the obscurantist clergy and crush its resistance with such cruelty that they won’t forget it for several decades.”
Historian Donald Rayfield of the University of London, who is not even a church sympathizer, noted,
“In the parishes some 2,700 priests and 5,000 monks and nuns perished. Across Russia there were 1,400 bloody confrontations between Cheka or Red Army and parishioners, and over 200 trials.
“On March 20, 1922, the Cheka ‘indicted’ Patriarch Tikhon for counterrevolutionary activity despite the latter’s eagerness to compromise; Trotsky wanted to arrest the entire Holy Synod.”
Senior clerics were arrested in Moscow and some were shot and sentenced to death.
There is no way that the “uniqueness” doctrine can square historically with Stalin’s Red Holocaust. As Rosefielde notes,
“Communism is indelibly stained by the Red Holocaust. Nonetheless, the will to deny, blur, soften, mitigate and pardon communist high crimes against humanity persists for complex personal, partisan, academic, cultural, political and pragmatic reasons.”
According to Rosefielde, Stalin was involved in the ethnic cleansing of the peasants by violent means, including executions, terror, and starvation, beginning with an attempt in 1917. As he puts it,
“The peasantry was the Bolsheviks’ first and primary target, because it did not fit Lenin’s Marxist paradigm, founded on the criminalization of private property, business and entreprenurship.”
We see the same pattern in Communist China, where Mao “forcibly collectivized the peasantry.” In the end, Communist China was responsible for the death of at least forty million.
It is clear by now that the “uniqueness” doctrine holds no historical validity. Yet by espousing it, people like Lipstadt, Hollander, Neusner, and others open themselves up for various cultural interpretations which say that Jewish blood is more important than Gentile blood.
This harmonizes with Talmudic reasoning, and there are examples of rabbis who espouse and even practice that belief system:
“Rabbi Yitzhak Ginzburg of Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus/Shechem, after several of his students were remanded on suspicion of murdering a teenage Arab girl: ‘Jewish blood is not the same as the blood of a goy.’
“Rabbi Ido Elba: ‘According to the Torah, we are in a situation of pikuah nefesh (saving a life) in time of war, and in such a situation one may kill any Gentile.’” On another occasion, the rabbi declared,
“‘If every single cell in a Jewish body entails divinity, and is thus part of God, then every strand of DNA is a part of God. Therefore, something is special about Jewish DNA…
“‘If a Jew needs a liver, can he take the liver of an innocent non-Jew to save him? The Torah would probably permit that. Jewish life has an infinite value. There is something more holy and unique about Jewish life than about non-Jewish life.’”
Stephen Steinlight, former Director of National Affairs for the American Jewish Committee, stated bluntly,
“I’ll confess it, at least: like thousands of other typical Jewish kids of my generation, I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a quasi-separatist…I was taught the superiority of my people to the gentiles who had oppressed us.
“We were taught to view non-Jews as untrustworthy outsiders, people from whom sudden gusts of hatred might be anticipated, people less sensitive, intelligent, and moral than ourselves. We were also taught that the lesson of our dark history is that we could rely on no one.”
Michael Chabon of the New York Times concurs:
“As a Jewish child I was regularly instructed, both subtly and openly, that Jews, the people of Maimonides, Albert Einstein, Jonas Salk and Meyer Lansky, were on the whole smarter, cleverer, more brilliant, more astute than other people.
“And, duly, I would look around the Passover table, say, at the members of my family, and remark on the presence of a number of highly intelligent, quick-witted, shrewd, well-educated people filled to bursting with information, explanations and opinions on a diverse range of topics.”
Chabon now pokes fun at what he referred to as “nonsense” and “our own stupidity as a people,” but this just shows how ingrained the smarter-than-thou attitude is.
Lipstadt hopelessly writes, “The fate of every Jew who came under the German rule was essentially sealed. In contrast, no citizen of the Soviet Union assumed that deportation and death were inevitable consequences of his or her ethnic origins.”
Lipstadt has a fantastic imagination, but imagination cannot be employed in historical and rational discourse. Alexander Solzhenitsyn disagreed with Lipstadt’s point when he wrote:
“If I would care to generalize, and to say that the life of the Jews in the camps was especially hard, I could, and would not face reproach for an unjust national generalization. But in the camps where I was kept, it was different. The Jews whose experience I saw—their life was softer than that of others.”
Perhaps one of the strongest arguments against Lipstadt’s speculative imagination is proposed by Dr. H. G. Adler, a Jewish author who was imprisoned in Theresienstadt concentration camp during the war.
“Certainly there were those among [the Germans] who, during the years of occupation, were guilty of some infraction or other, but the majority, among them children and adolescents, were locked up simply because they were Germans. Just because they were German?…That phrase is frighteningly familiar; one could easily substitute the word ‘Jew’ for ‘German.’
“The rags given to the Germans as clothes were smeared with swastikas. They were miserably undernourished, abused, and generally subjected to much the same treatment one was used to in the German-run camps…The camp was run by Czechs, yet they did nothing to stop the Russians from going in to rape the captive women.”
Lev Kopelev, a Jewish revolutionary who had first-hand knowledge of what happened to ten million Russian peasants, said it well:
“You mustn’t give in to debilitating pity. We are the agents of historical necessity. We are fulfilling our revolutionary duty. We are procuring grain for our socialist Fatherland.”
Historically and intellectually, this “uniqueness” doctrine is an abomination, and even Jewish author and journalist D. D. Guttenplan thinks that the argument works against those who promote it. But ideologically it is useful, since it puts Jewish suffering above any other suffering in human history. This became clear in 2011 when
“Jewish leaders and political groups in Germany condemned a proposed national day of remembrance for the 12 million ethnic Germans expelled from Eastern Europe after World War II.”
Mao Zedong exterminated at least seventy million people, much more than what is presumed to have happened in Nazi Germany. The Stalinist and Leninist regimes exterminated millions more—some historians have calculated that they destroyed more lives than the Nazi and Fascist regimes combined. The Black Book of Communism tells us that Communism is responsible for taking the lives of approximately one hundred million people.
So who is responsible for deciding what is unique and what is not?
If people like Steven Spielberg are really committed to honoring the lives of those who suffered under violent regimes, why aren’t there movies for those who lost their lives under Communist/Stalinist/Socialist regimes? And what about other countries around the world?
At the end of World War II, some Jewish scholars asserted that “at least 10 million Chinese were dead and 60 million left homeless. Four million Indonesians were either killed by the Japanese or died of hunger, disease, or lack of medical attention; and other Asian countries suffered similar losses.” Other historians such as Chinese-American historian Ping-ti Ho agree.
In light of these figures, how can any scholar or historian be intellectually honest with himself and the rest of the academic world while maintaining that Jewish suffering is “unique”? It simply does not add up.
We know that Nazi Germany did exist; we know that many Jews suffered under Nazi Germany; we also know that Jews were not the only ones to suffer under Nazi Germany. No serious historian or person with an ounce of common sense would deny these basic historical truths.
But which parts of the popular Holocaust tales are complete fabrications and which are not? This is where the historical data, files, and documents come in. Real history should not hinge on political correctness. To quote Gilad Atzmon again:
“To a certain extent, the Holocaust religion signals the final Jewish departure from monotheism, for every Jew is potentially a little God or Goddess. Abe Foxman is the God of anti-defamation, Alan Greenspan the God of ‘good economy,’ Milton Friedman is the God of ‘free markets,’ Lord Goldsmith the God of the ‘green light,’ Lord Levy the God of fundraising, Paul Wolfowitz the God of US ‘moral interventionism.’
“AIPAC is the American Olympus, where mortals elected in the US come to be for mercy, forgiveness for being Goyim and for a bit of cash…
“Thus the Holocaust religion is protected by laws, while every other historical narrative is debated openly by historians, intellectuals and ordinary people. The Holocaust sets itself as an eternal truth that transcends critical discourse…
“As we can see, the Holocaust functions as an ideological interface. it provides its follower with a logos….To a certain extent, we are all subject to this religion; some of us are worshippers, others are just subject to its power.
“Those who attempt to revise Holocaust history are subject to abuse by the high priests of this religion. The Holocaust religion constitutes the Western ‘real.’ We are neither allowed to touch it, nor are we permitted to look into it. Very much like the ancient Israelites who were to obey their God but never question Him, we are marching into the void.”
If you think that Atzmon is just doing some intellectual exercise here, the New York Times came out with an article last month entitled, “The Line to Kiss [Sheldon] Adelson’s Boot.” Perhaps it is pertinent to quote it in part here:
“It’s hard to imagine a political spectacle more loathsome than the parade of Republican presidential candidates who spent the last few days bowing and scraping before the mighty bank account of the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson.
“One by one, they stood at a microphone in Mr. Adelson’s Venetian hotel in Las Vegas and spoke to the Republican Jewish Coalition (also a wholly owned subsidiary of Mr. Adelson), hoping to sound sufficiently pro-Israel and pro-interventionist and philo-Semitic to win a portion of Mr. Adelson’s billions for their campaigns.
“Gov. John Kasich of Ohio made an unusually bold venture into foreign policy by calling for greater sanctions on Iran and Russia, and by announcing that the United States should not pressure Israel into a peace process. (Wild applause.) ‘Hey, listen, Sheldon, thanks for inviting me,’ he said. ‘God bless you for what you do.’
“Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin brought up his father’s trip to Israel, and said he puts ‘a menorah candle’ next to his Christmas tree. The name of his son, Matthew, actually comes from Hebrew, he pointed out.
“Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey also described his trip to Israel, but then did something unthinkable. He referred to the West Bank as the ‘occupied territories.’ A shocked whisper went through the crowd.
“How dare Mr. Christie implicitly acknowledge that Israel’s presence in the West Bank might be anything less than welcome to the Palestinians? Even before Mr. Christie left the stage, leaders of the group told him he had stumbled, badly.
“And sure enough, a few hours later, Mr. Christie apologized directly to Mr. Adelson for his brief attack of truthfulness.”
To sum up, the Holocaust establishment settled on the uniqueness doctrine long ago because they were determined to force that religious dogma on everyone. But that dogma has also taken a contradictory life of its own.
If the Holocaust is unique, why can’t the Zionist world stop invoking Hitler when they want to demonize countries or people they do not like? Why is Vladimir Putin the new Hitler? Why did Hilary Clinton call Putin the new Hitler?
Why did Rick Santorum and his co-writer Joel C. Rosenberg, a former aide to Benjamin Netanyahu, also called both Putin and Iran two new Hitlers? Why do they keep telling us that the Middle East has countless Hitlers who ought to be expunged? Jewish neocon Max Boot has recently declared that
“It is by now obvious that the West’s self-restraint—so reminiscent of similar self-restraint after Adolf Hitler’s military buildup, militarization of the Rhineland, Anschluss with Austria, and seizure of the Sudetenland—has not convinced Putin to exercise self-restraint in response.”
But the Holocaust is unique! How can those people maintain those contradictory and grossly untenable ideas while their heads do not explode?
As it turns out, whenever the neo-Bolsheviks want to commit murder and destroy countries in the literal sense, they will continue to make use of Hitler. Whenever they want to torture prisoners and sexually humiliated people, Hitler’s name will certainly pop up.
The New York Times itself reported last month that “the Syrian civil war has ground down a cultural and political center of the Middle East, turning it into a stage for disaster and cruelty on a nearly incomprehensible scale.”
The Times continued in another article,
“The Syrian civil war’s impact on the health of Syria’s children is far more insidious than has been widely understood, a leading children’s advocacy group reported Sunday, with large numbers dying or at risk from chronic and preventable diseases that have flourished because the country’s public health system has basically collapsed.
“…at least 1.2 million children have fled to neighboring countries, that 4.3 million in Syria need humanitarian assistance and that more than 10,000 have died in the violence.”
Yet the time will never come out and say that this plan was carefully orchestrated by the neoconservatives, most specifically by people like Daniel Pipes.
I perceive that the Times reported some of those statistics because they still want America to invade Syria and continue to support the rebels/terrorists. After all, the Associated Press has recently reported that the Syrian jihadists have already put to use some of the weapons the U.S. has been sending to that region.
Keith David Watenpaugh of the University of California could talk about “the arrival of sanguinary jihadist fighters, and the West’s inaction” in Syria, but he could never addressed the issue that America has been supporting those jihadist fighters in that region for years.
And while Hillary, Santorum, and Rosenberg are afraid that Russia or Iran might be a resurrection of Nazi Germany, the Israeli regime is continuing to build its concentration camp in Gaza. ABC News itself has recently reported:
“Israel has barred 30 runners, including an Olympic athlete, from leaving the Gaza Strip to participate in a marathon later this week, highlighting Israel’s tight restrictions on travel in and out of the Hamas-ruled territory…”
But who is paying the bill? Who is going to suffer while concentration camps are up and running? Hold your breath:
“American workers would have to cough up a one-time ‘debt reduction fee’ of $106,000 to pay off the nation’s debt that has grown 58 percent under President Obama, according to Harvard University’s Institute of Politics annual report on the USA.”
At the same time, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, an orthodox Jew, “signed a $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine Monday, as the U.S. tried to bolster that nation’s efforts to resist Russia’s push into the region.”
 Christopher Hitchens, “The Strange Case of David Irving,” LA Times, May 20, 2001.
 Israel Shamir, Cabbala of Power (Charleston, SC: BookSurge, 2007), 91.
 Gilad Atzmon, The Wandering Who?: A Study of Jewish Identity Politics (Winchester & Washington: Zero Books, 2011), 43.
 Ibid., 148.
 Ibid., 149.
 Tim Cole, Selling the Holocaust: From Auschwitz to Schindler, How History is Bought, Packaged and Sold (New York: Routledge, 2000), 1.
 Quoted in Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry, 42.
 Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Assassins of Memory: Essays on the Denial of the Holocaust (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992), 15-17.
 Emil L. Fackenheim, To Mend the World: Foundations of Post-Holocaust Jewish Thought (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994).
 Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry, 70-71.
 Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Assault on Truth (New York: Penguin, 1994), 211.
 Abraham Foxman, ADL on the Frontline, January 1994, 2.
 Quoted in Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American Life (New York: Mariner Books, 1999), 196.
 Bauer, Rethinking the Holocaust, 7.
 Peter Steinfels, “Ideas and Trends,” NY Times, November 12, 1989.
 Novick, The Holocaust in American Life, 9.
 See for example Jean-Louis Panne, Andrzej Paczkowski, et al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999); Robert Conquest, The Great Terror: A Reassessment (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008); Steven Rosefielde, Red Holocaust (New York: Routledge, 2010).
 Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 212-213.
 See for example Hiroaki Kuromiya, The Voices of the Dead: Stalin’s Great Terror in the 1930s (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007).
 See for example Sheila Fitzpatrick, Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).
 See Norman Naimark, Stalin’s Genocide (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010).
 Hiroaki Kuromiya, Stalin (New York: Routledge, 2005), 201.
 Quoted in Naimark, Stalin’s Genocide, 126.
 Rosefielde, Red Holocaust, 4.
 J. Otto Pohl, Ethnic Cleansing in the USSR, 1937-1949 (Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press, 1999), 9.
 Naimark, Stalin’s Genocides, 63.
 Ibid., 124.
 Rosefielde, Red Holocaust, 40.
 Ibid., 50.
 Ibid., 20.
 Ibid., 44.
 Ibid., 42.
 Ibid., 46.
 Ibid., 79-80.
 Donald Rayfield, Stalin and His Hangmen: The Tyrant and Those Who Killed for Him (New York: Random House, 2005), 126.
 Ibid., 126.
 Ibid, 126-127.
 Rosefielde, Red Holocaust, 7.
 Ibid., 35.
 Ibid., 35-36.
 Ibid., 103.
 See Dikotter, Mao’s Great Famine.
 Shahak and Mezvinsky, Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, 43, 62.
 Stephen Steinlight, “The Jewish Stake in America’s Changing Demography : Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration Policy,” Center for Immigration Studies, October 2001.
 Michael Chabon, “Chosen, but Not Special,” NY Times, June 4, 2010.
 Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 212.
 Nick Paton Walsh, “Solzhenitsyn Breaks Last Taboo of the Revolution,” Guardian, January 25, 2003.
 Alfred-Maurice De Zayas, A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans (New York: Palgrave, 2006), 97.
 Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 230.
 Ibid., 295-296. Guttenplan’s answer as to why many are still pushing this is “perhaps because there is no guarantee an appeal not grounded in guilt will be heard either.”
 “Jewish leaders slam memorial day for expelled Germans,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, February 17, 2011.
 For further research, see for example John Arch Getty and Roberta Thomson Manning, ed., Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
 Goodman and Miyazawa, Jews in the Japanese Mind, 136-137; the authors got these figures from John W. Dower’s War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War (New York: Pantheon Books, 1986); see also Werner Gruhl, Imperial Japan’s World War Two (Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2010).
 See for example Ping-ti Ho, Studies on the Population of China, 1368-1953 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959).
 Atzmon, The Wandering Who?, 150, 152.
 David Firestone, “The Line to Kiss Sheldon Adelson’s Boots,” NY Times, March 31, 2014.
 Max Boot, “The West Is Emboldening Putin,” Commentary, April 14, 2014.
 For a recent development, see for example Spencer Ackerman, “Senate Torture Report Leaked CIA and White House Under Pressure,” Guardian, April 11, 2013; Ali Watkins, Jonathan S. Linday, and Marisa Taylor, “CIA’s Use fo Harsh Interrogation Went Beyond Legal Authority, Senate Report Says,” McClatchy Newspaper, April 11, 2014.
 Anne Barnard, “Three Years of Strife and Cruelty Puts Syria in Free Fall,” NY Times, March 17, 2014.
 Rick Gladstone, “Report Cities ‘Devastating Toll’ on Health of Syria’s Children,” NY Times, March 9, 2014.
 Keith David Watenpaugh, Syria’s Lost Generation,” Chronicle of Higher Education, June 3, 2013.
 Paul Bedard, “Harvard Study: Your Share of the Federal Debt Is $106,000,” Washington Examiner, April 10, 2014.
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.
ATTENTION READERSWe See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed
In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.
About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy