…by Jonas E. Alexis
Using William Whewell’s phrase “consilience of inductions,” Michael Shermer, publisher and editor of Skeptic magazine, argues that Holocaust historians base their arguments on essentially four key foundations: a convergence of evidence made by eyewitnesses, a collection of reliable documents, photographs, and physical evidence.
What Shermer does not tell his readers was that there was a “convergence of evidence” showing that people were gassed at Belsen, Dachau, and other places; there was a “convergence of evidence” showing that the Nazis used Jewish fat to make soap. Alleged eyewitnesses were summoned, supposed documents were used, photographs were forged, and physical evidence was fabricated.
Those claims were made by a wide range of Jewish organizations and leaders, including Simon Wiesenthal, one of the most colossal hoaxers and forgers in the twentieth century.
These stories, particularly the soap story, spread like wildfire in Poland, Slovakia, and even Germany. This was so popular that “by July 1942 rumors were rife all over Eastern Europe that Jews were killed in great numbers and ‘boiled into soap.’”
Yet it took Jewish historian Walter Laqueur years to declare that the soap story was demonstrably false. Now no serious Holocaust historian believes those stories. They were first challenged by people labeled “deniers,” some of whom were persecuted for challenging accepted dogma.
Consider Paul Rassinier, a French anti-Nazi history and geography teacher who smuggled Jewish refugees into Switzerland. Rassinier was captured by the Nazis in 1943 and sent to Buchenwald. When the war was over, he was released and returned to France, where he was awarded the highest decoration from the French government.
Rassinier, however, was appalled at some of the claims being propagated. Although he hated the Nazi policies, he knew that there were no people being gassed in gas chambers.
Yet despite that the soap and Jewish fat stories have been disbanded by the Holocaust establishment itself, many continue to propagate them as if they were true. Michael Shermer and his co-author Alex Grobman write:
“What can we conclude about this story? Soap was never manufactured on an industrial scale from victims’ bodies, but it may have been done experimentally.
“As in the case of renegade SS unit abusing corpses, there may have been isolated cases of turning human fat into soap, but certainly not an organized plan to do so on any scale. We agree with the holocaust historian Yisrael Gutman, who concludes that ‘it was never done on a mass scale.’”
Jewish anthropologist and doctor Melvin Konner of Emory University even goes so far as to say that
“under the pressure of the Soviet advance, fat was rendered from the Jewish bodies in cremation to be poured back onto the flames and accelerate the burning.
“Jewish blood was extracted from seven hundred women at Auschwitz to be transfused to German soldiers, casting racial purity to the winds, and of course without concern for the women’s survival; ‘the women were lying on the ground, faint, ‘and deep rivers of blood were flowing around their bodies.’”
Now Konner again is a doctor who was trained in the sciences at Harvard. It is amazing that he provides not a single evidence for his assertion. If the Germans were concerned about racial purity, why would they take Jewish blood and mix it with German soldiers? Were the Germans that stupid?
For Richard L. Rubenstein of Florida State University, there were “subordinate industries” in Nazi Germany, “such as the turning of the fat from Jewish bodies into reine judische Seife, ‘pure Jewish soap,’ their gold teeth into Reichsbank deposits, and occasionally, their skin into luminous lampshades.”
Is that historically accurate?
“had been put to use. The normal method of execution was Genicksschuss—a shot in the back of the head—and there was a special part of the camp where the killing took place. To gas the Dachauer, the usual method was to transfer them to Hartheim, across the border in Austria. Over 3,000 died this way.”
In other words, no one was gassed in Dachau. Paul Berben, who was at one of the camps, declared that “the Dachau gas-chamber was never operated.”
Dr. Johannes Neuhausler, a Catholic priest who was sent to Dachau by the Nazis and lived there from July 12, 1941, until April 24, 1945, noted that
“Dachau had…its own gas chamber. But its ‘showers’ were never used. Instead, the inmates of the Dachau camp were sent to Linz in Austria to be gassed.”
Tales of people who were sent to be gassed at other places were based solely on hearsay. Yet French Jewish historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet tells us that even “‘hearsay witnesses who in fact did not see’ [people gassed] have something to teach us.”
Indeed they do, but for them to say that they actually saw people being gassed is a lie. All they can tell us is that there were indeed gas chambers, and that hearsay about people being gassed was popular. In fact, the legendary stories that people were being gassed were popularized by the Soviets, most specifically by Alexei Tolstoy, who had an undying hatred for the Germans.
German historian Joachim Hoffman declared that
“discussion in this regard gained renewed momentum after Soviet troops crossed the border of the form General Government of Poland and captured the Majdanek concentration camp in August 1944.
“The Soviet writer and propagandist Simonov, who devoted elaborate coverage to this event in an official report, as early as August 17, 1944, for the first time stated in one of his articles that fixed extermination camp of Lublin, in addition to murder vans of the usual type for killing purposes—which Ehrenburg called the ‘gas-van method.’
“Simonov wrote a detailed report on the gassing of people allegedly having occurred in Majdanek in an article under the headline ‘Nazi gas chambers’ on August 24, 1944, but without solid proof; in so doing, he unreservedly admitted, or at any rate made no effort to conceal the following: ‘By the way, Cyclon [sic; Zyklon] (the killing gas) is, in reality, a disinfection agent.’”
We are also not told that Zyklon-B, the product that was allegedly used to gas people in concentration camps, was primarily used to disinfect buildings as well as the clothes of the prisoners in many of the camps.
The stories of people being gassed were presented to the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg by Soviet prosecutor Chief Justice Counselor L. N. Smirnov, and were later believed to be fact.
Jewish historian Arno J. Mayer, who firmly believed in the gas chamber story, notes that “sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable,” and talks about the “many contradictions, ambiguities, and errors in the existing sources.”
Polish scholar and historian Franciszek Piper of the Historical Department at the Auschwitz state Museum portrayed some inconsistencies when he tried to present the gas chamber story as true. He writes that
“to avoid leaving any evidence in writing, Himmler called camp commandant Rudolf Hoss to Berlin and verbally informed him of his plan, without the usual presence of the Reichsfuhrer’s aide-de-camp.”
Does Piper give evidence that Himmler did not want to leave evidence? No. Then Piper moves on to his next hypothesis with no evidence:
“It can also be hypothesized that in locating the center for the mass killing of the Jews in this relatively new…concentration camp, Himmler tried to use the camouflage of the well-known camps of the 1930s to hid the radical purposes of Auschwitz.”
But Piper provides his own death sentence in his treatment of Auschwitz:
“Documentary sources are essential for writing history, marking both the direction and scope of research, and narrowing the latitude for speculation and hypotheses.
“The essential sources for research on the Nazi concentration camps would in principle include the files of the camp offices and such administrative agencies as the Inspectorate of Concentration Campos, the Reich Security Main Office, and the SS Central Office for Economy and Administration. These files, however, were largely destroyed since they could have been used in prosecutions after the war.”
If the files were destroyed, how can Piper know authoritatively the number of people who actually died and so on? The evidence suggests that the Soviets destroyed most of the documents in order to continue to propagate their own ideological worldview. Since the files do not exist, Piper tells us that
“the researcher has to employ, much more frequently than is otherwise common, indirect sources, including materials for the camp resistance movement as well as reports, memoirs, and testimonies by inmates and other eyewitnesses.”
Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman declare that Arno J. Mayer is taken out of context by people who do not believe in the gas chamber story.
In examining the case for the gas chamber, Shermer and Grobman do not even mention that the concentration camps were taken over by the Soviets, because that would weaken their premises.
Moreover, they do not give the fact that the six-million figure was already in circulation in 1919, long before World War II even started.
It was primarily popularized by Martin Henry Glynn, a politician from New York and a writer for the American Hebrew who wrote an article in the same year entitled “The Crucifixion of the Jews Must Stop.” This article referred to the six-million figure at least three times.
Then, Ilya Ehrenburg, the most anti-German propagandist during that period, promoted the six-million figure even before World War II ended, as early as 1944. Ehrenburg, who was Jewish, wrote:
“In regions they seized, the Germans killed all the Jews, from the old folks to infants in arms. Ask any German prisoner why his fellow countrymen annihilated six million innocent people, and he will reply quite simply, ‘Why, they were Jews.’”
By March 1945, Ehrenburg again propounded, “The world now knows that Germany has killed six million Jews.”
Joachim Hoffman wrote,
“The stereotypical repetition of a total six million murder victims, already claimed with precise clarity on December 22, 1944—and this in the propaganda newspaper Soviet War News, intended for English-speaking readers—gives rise to the conclusion that the six-million figure…is a product of Soviet propaganda, intended to influence and indoctrinate public opinion, particularly, the thinking of the Anglo-Saxon countries.”
The six-million figure, as already noted, was widespread among some Jews who wanted to use the number for political activism. Felix Warburg for example was quoted in a New York Times article published in 1919, saying,
“The successive blows of contending armies have all but broken the back of European Jewry and have reduced to tragically unbelievable poverty, starvation and disease about 6,000,000 souls, or half the Jewish population of the earth.”
“The evidence, from the Soviet War News of December 22, 1944, January 4, 1945, and March 15, 1945, that it was Ehrenburg who introduced the six-million figure in the Soviet war propaganda, is not without importance to scientific discussion of this emotionally charged topic.”
Hoffman pointed out that Ehrenburg’s fabrication is in no way a license for anyone to assert that the Jewish people did not suffer at the hand of Nazi Germany.
“This must not, of course, distract attention from the fact that frightful atrocities were committed against the Jewish people in the occupied territories.”
Yet the six-million figure began to crop up in popular books as if it was a historical fact. Even Waclaw Dlugoborski, Professor of Economic and Social History and Curator for Research Inquiries at the Memorial Auschwitz-Birkena, noted in 1998:
“The figure was established by a Soviet Investigative Commission, without further investigation, at four million, shortly after the end of the war. Regardless of the existence of doubt as to the accuracy of the estimate, it became a dogma from the beginning.
“It was against the law to doubt the number of four million murder victims in Eastern Europe until 1989; employees of the Auschwitz Memorial Museum who doubted the accuracy of the estimate were threatened with disciplinary proceedings.”
Eyewitnesses can be accounted as evidence so long as they are reliable, but we have already seen that the Holocaust is riddled with mysteries and unanswered questions; it would be irrational for anyone to jump into the bandwagon of “eyewitnesses,” particularly when those alleged eyewitnesses produce contradictory statements.
But the skeptics are much more on a rational ground in proclaiming, “You show me the evidence, and I will believe you.” Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If extraordinary claims cannot be backed by rigorous historical data, then we must dismiss those claims as unreliable. Michael Shermer in particular knows this, but he does not want to apply it to the Holocaust stories.
As we shall see, many of the sources are largely unreliable because they came from the Soviets who not only had forged some of the data, but were determined to take revenge on the Germans.
The documents on the Nazis were supposed to have been lost, but the Soviets confiscated them and they were not made available until 1991. Some individuals who have seen the documents claim that “there are no less than 88,000 pages” of them.
When the war was over, the Soviets maintained control over the documents. Many alleged eyewitnesses who said that they witnessed Jews being gassed were also some of the eyewitnesses who propagated the human soap story.
Mayer declares that “from 1942 to 1945, certainly at Auschwitz, but probably overall, more Jews were killed by so-called ‘natural’ causes than by ‘unnatural’ ones.”
Shermer and Grobman make an argument in their book that works against them. They write,
“Keep in mind that the gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where the deniers have conducted their analyses, were completely destroyed by the Nazis as the Russians were closing in on the camp in late 1944…
“There is nothing but rubble there, completely exposed to the elements for over half a century. The partially reconstructed undressing rooms, gas chambers, and crematoria at Auschwitz-Birkenau are part of the recent restoration of the camp as a museum.”
If that is the case, then how can one be sure that the Nazis did indeed use the place to gas people? They go on to argue that some of the buildings, such as Crematorium I at Auschwitz I, were “reconstructed using both original materials and those from other buildings.”
That again begs the question: the Soviets are doing the reconstructions. Alexei Nikolayevich Tolstoy is largely credited as one of the first persons to propagate the gas chamber theory.
But Tolstoy was hardly a reliable source, since he and Ilya Ehrenburg both believed that revenge on the Germans was necessary, no matter what the cost, even if “facts” had to be fabricated. From 1927 to 1940, Soviet propagandists posited both explicitly and ideologically that the Bolsheviks were fighting the bad guys, i.e., Germany.
Alesandr Alexandrovich Fadeev for example wrote a novel in 1927 entitled Razgrom (Destruction) and then another, Molodaja Gvardija (Young Guard), in 1945 in which he extolled the Soviet regime as good and others as bad.
Fadeev committed suicide in 1956. Other propagandists include Konstantin Mikhailovich Simonov and Evgeni Viktorovich Tarle.
Tolstoy “received the Stalin Prize for the novel Petr Pervyj (Peter I), which has remained unfinished.” Ehrenburg, for his underground work, received the Stalin Prize First Class, the highest prize the Soviet Union had to offer.
As the Soviet War News declared in 1944, “The Soviet people regard him as one of their best writers and their greatest patriot.” In light of these facts, one would expect little or no mercy from the Soviets. Why did Ehrenburg receive those accolades? Here’s what he said about the Germans:
“Germans are not human beings. Henceforth the word German means to us the most terrible curse. From now on the word German will trigger your rifle…If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day.
“If you think that instead of you, the man next to you will kill him, you have not understood the threat. If you do not kill the German, he will kill you. If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet.
“If there is calm on your part of the front, if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German before combat. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman.
“If you kill one German, kill another—there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days; do not count miles. Count only the number of Germans you have killed.
“Kill the German—this is your old mother’s prayer. Kill the German—this is what your children beseech you to do. Kill the German—this is the cry of your Russian earth. Do not waver. Do not let up. Kill.”
The gas chamber controversy again became an issue that refused to go away in 1985 when Raul Hilberg was summoned to testify at the trial of Ernst Zundel, who was falsely accused of Holocaust denial.
Zundel’s attorney, Douglas Christie, pressed Hilberg to give historical evidence of a Hitler order to exterminate all Jews in Germany, a claim which Hilberg made in his widely read book 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—a mathematical impossibility.
Moreover, he maintained before he committed suicide in a French prison that at least 20 million people were gassed. Christopher R. Browning admits that Gerstein makes things even harder with his massive exaggeration in claiming that at least 20 million people were gassed.
Richard J. Evans presents Gerstein as a reliable eyewitness and seems to trust wholeheartedly in his testimony, but neglects to mention the difficulties presented by his testimony. The same goes for Israeli historian Saul Friedländer who, like many others, does not doubt for a moment the Gerstein testimony.
Lucy Dawidowicz, who mentions Gerstein in her book, does not say a word about the falsehood of Gerstein’s story.
Hilberg used Gerstein as a testimony six times in his book. Christie told Hilberg that a person like Gerstein 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…
“Christie produced the Gerstein statement and proceeded to ask Hilberg whether certain statements 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.”
In other words, Gerstein was one of the best “eyewitness evidence” that Holocaust historians like Hilberg had for people being gassed, but Hilberg himself had to quietly admit that under serious scrutiny, Gerstein was a hoaxer. He was probably forced to say things that he himself could not take seriously.
Yet incredibly, even after declaring that Gerstein’s statistics were “manifestly erroneous,” French Jewish historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet moved on to say that Gerstein’s testimony “had victoriously survived the test”!
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.
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 declined. 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 establishment is a package deal, and that package deal is riddled with unanswered questions and unsolved mysteries.
Be that as it may, we can certainly see that the trial, for good or bad, made Hilberg think. There is much to be learned from Hilberg, who was appalled at how the Holocaust is taught:
“The way in which the Holocaust is now spread in the high schools and so on makes me gag.”
Even The Destruction of European Jews created quite a stir, since many Jews thought that Hilberg should have taken a stronger stance on the Holocaust. Hannah Arendt, author of the popular book The Origins of Totalitarianism, advised Princeton University not to publish the work. Arendt declared that Hilberg
“is pretty stupid and crazy. He babbles now about a ‘death wish’ of the Jews. His book is really excellent, but only because it is a simple report. A more general, introductory chapter is beneath a singed pig.”
The letter in which Arendt said those words appeared in the American translation in 1992, and the words “stupid” and “crazy” were omitted. When Hilberg asked why, he “was told that the statement was struck on legal advice.” Hilberg also took on Dawidowicz, who argues that the idea of a Final Solution was already at work in the mind of Adolf Hitler in the 1920s.
To sum up, the Soviet Union propagated the gas chamber story (as in the case of Ehrenburg), and desperately tried to prove that the Germans committed the mass murder in Katyn, a crime that has been proven to be committed by the Soviets themselves.
What does all that tell us? If Nazi Germany did not exist, the Zionist world would have almost certainly invented it.
As we have argued in the previous article, the Zionist world supposedly hated Nazi Germany in the 1940s but now loves neo-Nazis in 2014 in Ukraine and supports the government with millions of dollars.
The Zionist world flooded the international community with fake news saying that Jews were being gassed, but they turned around decades later and started killing people with drones in the Middle East and absolves themselves from any responsibility by saying things like, “U.S. drones and Yemeni forces kill Qaeda fighters.”
Christopher Browning buries the academic word beneath the avalanche of imaginary and preposterous statements by saying that the Nazis wanted to murder “every single Jew in Europe.”
Since Nazi Germany is no longer in existence, the Zionist world has to find new victims. Now we are being told that the Palestinians want to murder all the Jews. In a letter in the New York Times, Walter Schimmerling tells us:
“The ‘conflict’ between Arabs and Jews is not the result of the ‘Zionist lobby’ preventing the United States from enforcing ‘peace.’ Left unsaid is the extent to which such a ‘peace’ may imperil the survival of Israel, although that is a likely goal of ‘Zionist lobby’ detractors. The ‘conflict’ exists because, by word and deed, Palestinian Arabs have avowed as their goal the killing of all Jews.”
The Zionists declared that Jews were being killed daily in Nazi Germany, but then they turned around and flooded the Middle East with perpetual wars and esthetic terrorism, which end up liquidating Palestinians on a daily basis and literally sodomizing people.
They declared that Jews were being tortured in Nazi Germany, but then they began to use torture right after the Iraq invasion, an immoral act that was completely foreign to America.
They declared that Nazi Germany spied on Jews virtually everywhere, but then they turned around and spied on virtually the entire world through the NSA.
They blamed al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden for 9/11 and convince the American people that they are at war with terrorist groups, but then they are supporting al-Qaeda in Syria and terrorist regimes such as Saudi Arabia.
The CIA supported bin Laden during the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, but then the Zionist world turned around and made bin Laden responsible for 9/11.
In a nutshell, much of the world is being manipulated like puppets in a Zionist machine factory.
Immanuel Kant argues in his Critique of Pure Reason that there are basically two worlds: the noumenal world and the phenomenal world. The phenomenal world is the world of experience, and the noumenal world is the one that cannot be deduced using experience but it is the world as things really are.
Many people, if they happen to examine the issues surrounding the nature of American politics, only see the phenomenal world—the Left, or the Right, or the government, etc.
People hardly see the noumenal world where the dreadful few are actually playing with the political remote control. The dreadful few can switch the ideological channel at their whims and only a few seem to notice.
But if truth will win in the end, if Alexander Solzhenitsyn is right in saying that “one word of truth outweighs the world,” one needn’t be too frustrated that the dreadful few are actually winning. There is hope.
Granted, truth is certainly outnumbered in the ideological war, but numbers, like appearance, can be deceiving. If only twelve fishermen (some of them unlettered), from an obscure place in the world called Galilee, challenged an empire, then truth does not generally need numbers.
I have said that Jewish behavior is a moral problem, not a genetic problem. I further pointed out that Christ himself destroyed the genetic hypothesis, saying that by rejecting him, the Pharisees and the Jewish people in general could not be the descendent of Abraham.
If the issue was genetic, it would be ridiculous for Christ to reject it and appeal to morality. However, this theological issue has been challenged by a number of writers of various stripes.
Paul Austin Murphy of the neoconservative flagship the American Thinker has insinuated quite subtly that Shlomo Sand, author of the Invention of the Jewish People, is a “self-described communist” who has appealed to the “Khazar theory” to buttress his point. By deduction, the Khazar theory somehow must be false.
The “Khazr theory,” Murphy concludes, is really “Jew-hatred.” Even if this theory is false, Murphy tells us, “A confirmed and professional hater of the Jews will simply find another reason to hate them. And that reason will no doubt also be racial in nature.”
Murphy is certainly locked in the genetic fallacy here, which is a false argument in formal reasoning and in logic and which is literally an unconvincing way to prove a point.
In formal logic, the genetic fallacy is the idea that you can invalidate a person’s belief by pointing out how the belief originated in the first place. Every freshman in logic knows that this is demonstrably and hopelessly false.
For example, suppose I pick up a comic book in a trash can. Upon inspection, I discover that the comic book declares that the earth is round. Does that mean that the earth is not round because I picked up the comic book from a trashcan? Obviously not.
Throughout his analysis, Murphy trivializes the issue and does not analyze Sand’s claims and the evidence Sand provides for those claims. Murphy appeals to straw man, ad hominem, and illogical leaps, such as the following:
“Shlomo Sand’s all-encompassing Leftist ideology—as well as his zealous hopes for a fully socialist Israel (which would amount to Israel’s annihilation)—permeates just about every single word he utters.
“If his readers don’t understand that, then they will have no idea about where this man is coming and what he is trying to achieve through his books and articles… incidentally, almost all of the contemporary believers are either Leftists, Nazis, or Islamists.”
“Leftists,” Murphy continues, “propagate the theory, or myth,” because they want “to destroy Israel. Both Nazis and Leftists want to destroy Israel because it is a capitalist and democratic state for Jews; which is a three-level heresy for any respectable Leftist or Nazi. All this clearly shows us how deeply both International Socialists and National Socialists fuse on the Jews and on so much more.”
I wish Murphy would take logic seriously and realize that this is not an argument which deserves serious consideration. But it is so sad to see that this sophomoric tactic has become somewhat popular in current thinking.
If people want to dismiss Sand and others, they have some serious thinking to do. In some cases, an idea has to be dismissed by the evidence.
For example, Jewish geneticist Eran Elhaik gave specific example of how other Jewish geneticists such as Harry Ostrer forge their evidence and how Ostrer himself refused to tell others how he got his sources. This has been a consistent pattern in the debate. As a serious scientist, Elhaik approached Ostrer and asked him quite frankly,
“It was a great pleasure reading your group’s recent paper, ‘Abraham’s Children in the Genome Era,’ that illuminate[s] the history of our people. Is it possible to see the data used for the study?”
A very simple inquiry, and scientists of all persuasions would unanimously agree here. Here is Ostrer’s response,
“It is possible to collaborate with the team by writing a brief proposal that outlines what you plan to do. Criteria for reviewing include novelty and strength of the proposal, non-overlap with current or planned activities, and non-defamatory nature toward the Jewish people.”
As a scientist, why would that statement even pop up in Ostrer’s head? How do you present a scientific research when you cannot show your critics how you arrive at the evidence? I thought we were talking about a scientific enterprise here?
Likewise, Sand historically documented how the genetic theory originated and some of the major flaws in the system. Furthermore, there have been other substantial historical studies on this issue. But none of those studies got a fair hearing by the genetic theorists. They ridicule them and brush them aside and move on to believe what they want to believe.
It simply amazes me to see that people who profess to move by reason and evidence sometimes would abandon reason and evidence and even intellectual honesty in order to adore and embellish their cherished ideology.
Jewish behavior is genetic, but genetic theorists keep getting upset when they see Jewish revolutionaries act on that basis. If those theorists cannot see that this is a risible argument, we cannot help them. There is nothing else to discuss.
If one follows their logic consistently, the only way to solve the genetic problem is to destroy the gene that caused the wicked act in the first place—or to isolate those who do possess bad genes.
That, friends, is real anti-Semitism or racism. Whether they like it or not, genetic theorists cannot avoid the implication of their weltanschauung, which inexorably is as wicked and repugnant as Zionism.
 Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1997 and 2002), 214, 240-241.
 For documented accounts, see for example Guy Walters, Hunting Evil: The Nazi War Criminals Who Escaped and the Quest to bring Them to Justice (New York: Broadway Books, 2010); Tom Segev, Simon Wiesenthal: The Life and Legends (New York: Doubleday, 2010).
 Walter Laqueur, The Terrible Secret: Suppression of the Truth about Hitler’s “Final Solution” (New York: Henry Holt, 1998), 145.
 Ibid., 82.
 See Paul Rassinier, The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses: A Study of the Nazi Concentration Camps and the Alleged Extermination of European Jewry (Newport Beach, CA: Noontide Press, 1977).
 Michael Shermer and Alex Grubman, Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? (Berkley: University of California Press, 2002), 117.
 Melvin Konner, The Jewish Body (New York: Random House, 2009), 104.
 Richard L. Rubenstein, After Auschwitz: History, Theology, and Contemporary Judaism (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1966 and 1992), 59.
 MacDonogh, After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation (New York: Basic Books, 2007), 67-68.
 Berber, Dachau, 8.
 Neuhausler, What Was it Like?, 29.
 See Joachim Hoffmann, Stalin’s War of Extermination (Chicago: Theses and Dissertations Press, 2001), 181-183
 Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Assassins of Memory (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), 25
 Hoffmann, Stalin’s War of Extermination, 182.
 Ibid., 182-183.
 See Franciszek Piper, “Gas Chambers and Crematoria,” Israel Gutman and Michael Berenbaum, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1998), 157.
 Hoffmann, Stalin’s War of Extermination, 185.
 Arno J. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The “Final Solution” in History (New York: Pantheon Books, 1998), 362, 363.
 Franciszek Piper, “Auschwitz Concentration Camp,” Gutman and Berenbaum, Anatomy of Auschwitz, 373.
 Ibid., 373.
 Ibid., 379-380.
 For a historical survey, see Hoffman, Stalin’s War of Extermination.
 Piper, “Auschwitz Concentration Camp,” Gutman and Berenbaum, Anatomy of Auschwitz, 381.
 Martin H. Glynn, “The Crucifixion of the Jews Must Stop,” American Hebrew, October 31, 1919; http://jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/The%20Crucifixion%20of%20Jews%20Must%20Stop.htm.
 Hoffman, Stalin’s War of Extermination, 189.
 Ibid., 190.
 Ibid., 190.
 “Tells Sad Plight of Jews,” NY Times, November 12, 1919.
 Hoffman, Stalin’s War of Extermination, 190.
 Ibid., 192.
 Ibid., 187.
 See Jurgen Graf, The Giant with Feet of Clay (Chicago: Theses & Dissertations Press, 2001), 20.
 Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?, 365.
 Shermer and Gobman, Denying History, 132.
 Hoffmann, Stalin’s War of Extermination, 153-154.
 Ibid., 155.
 Ibid., 157.
 Ibid., 158.
 Norman M. Naimark, The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995), 396.
 See Alfred Maurice de Zayas, A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 40; Norman M. Naimark, The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 72; Antony Beevor, Berlin: The Downfall 1945 (New York: Penguin, 2002), 169; Richard Bessel, Germany 1945: From War to Peace (New York: Harper Perennial, 2009), 150; Hoffman, Stalin’s War of Extermination, 235-236.
 Zundel does not say that Jews did not suffer under Nazi Germany; He simply asked the puzzling question, “Did six million really die?” In fact, according to Raul Hilberg, Yehuda Bauer and many others, the answer is a resounding no.
 Graf, The Giant with Feet of Clay, 113-114.
 Saul Friedlander, Kurt Gerstein: The Ambiguity of God (New York: Afred A. Knopf, 1969), 112.
 Christopher R. Browning, “Evidence for the Implementation of the Final Solution” http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/en/trial/defense/browning/.
 Evans, The Third Reich at War, 558-559.
 Saul Friedlander, The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945 (New York: HarperCollins, 2007), 458-459.
 Lucy S. Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews (New York: Bantam, 1986), 350.
 Graf, The Giant with Feet of Clay, 92-93.
 Ibid., 114-115.
 Graf, The Giant with Feet of Clay, 92-93.
 Ibid., 114-115.
 Graf, The Giant with Feet of Clay, 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.
 Guttenplan, The Holocaust on Trial, 304.
 Raul Hilberg, The Politics of Memory: The Journey of a Holocaust Historian (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1996), 155.
 Ibid., 144-146.
 See Hoffmann, Stalin’s War of Extermination, chapter 8.
 For a recent development, see Scott Wilson, Will Englund, and William Booth, “In Kiev, Biden Pledges Support for Fair Election, Help to Weather Economic Pressure,” Washington Post, April 22, 2014.
 For recent developments, see Jason Ditz, “At Least 68 Killed as US Drone Strikes on Yemen Enter Third Day,” Antiwar.com, April 21, 2014.
 Erich Schmidt, “U.S. Drones and Yemeni Forces Kill Qaeda Fighters,” NY Times, April 21, 2014.
 Christopher R. Browning, “‘Final Solution,’” Israel Gutman, ed., The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Vol. II(New York: Macmillan, 1990), 488-489.
 “Letters: ‘Peyton Place’ Revisited,” NY Times, March 19, 2014.
 See for example David Hackett Fischer, Washington’s Crossing (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).
 See for example “Al-Qaeda’s Origins and Links,” BBC, July 20, 2004; Robin Cook, “The Struggle Against Terrorism Cannot Be Won by Military Means,” Guardian, July 8, 2005.
 Paul Murphy Austin, “Anti-Semitism and the Khazar Theory,” American Thinker, February 23, 2014.
 Quoted in Rita Rubin, “‘Jews a Race’ Genetic Theory Comes Under Fierce Attack by DNA Expert,” Jewish Daily Forward, March 10, 2013.
 See for example Kevin Alan Brook, The Jews of Khazaria (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010).