Wiesel goes full-Jew in full-page advert attacking Iran as wanting to exterminate Israel

Saturday, February 14th, 2015

By Carolyn Yeager

Elie Wiesel is featured in a new full-page ad placed in The New York Times and the Washington Post that is headlined: Iran’s Plan for the Jews, Ancient and Present.

Full page ad featuring Elie Wiesel appeared on Feb. 14, 2015 in the New York Times and the Washington Post.

The ad is was organized, produced and paid for by New Jersey Rabbi Shmuley Boteach‘s “This World: The Values Network.US, an organization of which Boteach is Executive Director. The theme, text, politics and intent of the ad are all so Jewish as to give the message: We don’t need you ordinary non-Jews to attend this speech; we’re only addressing the voting members of Congress and the Jewish community.

The ad uses the totally fictional biblical Book of Esther as the backdrop for the storybook approach to presenting Iran as a wicked nation and the world’s greatest enemy of the Jews. The story goes that a  “wicked man” named Haman, a minister of the Persian King (whose biblical name is not mentioned in the ad since it is not historical) was discovered as having a plan to kill all the Jews in the kingdom. But a beautiful Jewish girl in the royal harem got word of it and told the King, who then discovered the plot to be true and hanged the wicked Haman and all of his accomplices. This has become the Feast of Purim celebrated every March 5 when “Jewish children in synagogues around the world will shout down the name of Haman when it is pronounced in the Book of Esther.” After which each good little Jewish child receives a cookie in the shape of Haman, encouraging them to destroy Haman all over again by eating the cookie.

The moral of the story: As the brave Esther saved all her people then, the brave holocaust survivor Elie can do no less today. Netanyahu’s speech on the day before Purim (scheduled for March 3) is presented as “an urgent message” on “the catastrophic danger of a nuclear Iran” that America needs to hear.

Though the ad is directed at President Obama, Vice President Biden and members of Congress, I think it is mainly directed to American Jews and  Christian Zionists because Jews are divided over Netanyahu’s visit – divided between Republicans and Democrats, between conservatives and liberals. Abe Foxmann of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) denounced a petition drive opposing Netanyahu’s speech by the Democrat-leaning pro-Israel J Street as “inflammatory and repugnant.” It’s clear to me that Wiesel and Boteach both work for Israel – Wiesel since 1948. The prose of the ad is written in 4th – 6th grade level, which is the level of newspaper writing in general.

Text of the Ad:

Many centuries ago a wicked man in Persia advised: “There exists a nation scattered and dispersed among the others … it is not in our interest to tolerate them.”

And the order went out to all the provinces “to annihilate, murder and destroy the Jews, young and old, children and women.

Now Iran, modern Persia, has produced a new enemy. The Ayatollah Khamenei has been as clear as his predecessor in declaring his goal: the “annihilation and destruction” of Israel. He is bent on acquiring the weapons needed to make good on the deadly promise.

The disaster of ages past was averted, but the event is remembered in the holiday of Purim. On March 5 Jewish children in synagogues around the world will shout down the name of Haman when it is pronounced in the Book of Esther. They understand a simple truth that at times eludes world leaders. [Oh brother, they just do what they’re told without understanding a thing. -cy] When someone in power threatens your destruction, you must loudly condemn him.

On the day before Purim, the prime minister of Israel will address Congress on the catastrophic  danger of a nuclear Iran. I intend to be there. Should we not show our support for what might be the last clear warning before a terrible deal is struck? Santayana wrote that those who cannot remember history are condemned to repeat it. I believe that those who deny history – specifically the Holocaust – are determined to repeat it.

President Obama, Vice-President Biden, distinguished members of Congress, I ask you – as one who has seen the enemies of the Jewish people make good on threats to exterminate us, how can I remain silent? [No you have not seen that. You lie. This whole website devoted to you proves it. But you are unwilling to answer a single question. The first one is: Why won’t you show us your Auschwitz tattoo? It’s not because of “privacy.” It can only be because you don’t have one but claim to have one. Which makes you quite a reckless liar. -cy ]

As Queen Esther said when addressing her King: “How can I behold the destruction of my people?”

I plead with you to put aside the politics that have obscured the critical decisions to be made.  Surely it is within your power to find a solution that will permit Israel’s Prime Minister to deliver his urgent message.

Will you join me in hearing the case for keeping weapons from those who preach death to Israel and America?

In traditional Jewish families we close the Sabbath with the lighting of the Havdalah candle and a quote from the Book of Esther retelling how danger was replaced by light and happiness, and the blessing: “And so may it be for us.”

End of text

Elie Wiesel, like Caroline Glick, is disappointed the “Holocaust” has not eradicated antisemitism

Sunday, December 28th, 2014

Have we had enough of this theater yet? Do “holocaust” images like this have any effect on our sympathies? This is a well-aged, healthy looking “survivor” at the 69th Anniversary of the Auschwitz liberation on Remembrance Day, Jan. 27, 2014

___________________________________________________________

By Carolyn Yeager

Wiesel: “I thought the memory of the Holocaust would shame those boasting anti-Semitic opinions. I was wrong.” … Jan. 28, 2014

It becomes more clear all the time that the massive goodwill that Jews and “Israel” gained from the propaganda hoax they named “The Holocaust” has been depleted, due in large measure to Israel’s uncivilized aggressive behavior against its neighbors in the Middle East.

But another major reason for the loss of goodwill is Israel’s and world Jewish organizations’ insatiable lust for ever more money and arms from Germany, the U.S. and all of Europe and North America. The Jews have played the phony guilt card for all it’s worth, and for a long time now (70 years!) – and it is finally wearing out. When Jews tell us that grandchildren of “survivors” are carriers of their grandparents’ “trauma,” that becomes the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

Both Elie Wiesel and Caroline Glick have made statements in 2014 referring to the “Holocaust” as a way – a vehicle – to do away with “antisemitism,” i.e. dislike of Jews. They thought the combination of the horrific atrocity stories camp survivors were able to dream up, and the incredible number of 6 million, plus having the governments of America, Britain and the Soviet Union on their side would keep Germans and all European people making amends to them for a good long time – long enough, anyway, for Jewish billionaires to completely consolidate their ownership/control of everything of value in the Western world (just as it’s told in The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion).

But as it turns out, European men and women are more resilient than that. And then Jews, in their chutzpah, make plenty of mistakes, too. The end result, as we enter the year 2015, is that Jews, rather than feeling victorious, are crying and gnashing their teeth over “the rise of antisemitism in Europe.”

Is there a conspiracy going on?

Today, I went  looking for what I remembered as Elie complaining about antisemitism in the same way that Caroline Glick does. I quickly came upon it, and it was from January 28, 2014, the exact same day that Glick’s blog post appeared! … the one I wrote about here.  Coincidence?

They are both saying the same thing, each in their own way, on the day after the “International Holocaust Remembrance Day” on Jan. 27, which was not such a big success. The major news story it conjured up was that the Israeli Knesset sent a large delegation that marched around on Auschwitz memorial grounds with giant blue and white flags, while having their picture taken. Elie Wiesel did not show up, which took away some of the news-worthy luster of the 2014 event.

It’s interesting that Benjy Netanyahu was saying pretty much the same as Glick and Wiesel just recently:

“We saw today examples […] of European prejudice. In Geneva, they are calling for an investigation against Israel for war crimes, while in Luxembourg the European court removed Hamas from the terrorist list. It looks like there are too many people in Europe, on the [same] ground where six million Jews were slaughtered, who haven’t learned a thing. The friendship we see from the United States stands in complete contrast to what we are seeing regretfully in Europe.”

Recall that Caroline Glick once worked as an assistant to Netanyahu. She and Elie Wiesel are both long-time Israeli assets, so do they coordinate their message?

What exactly did Wiesel say in this interview of eleven months ago?

“The Holocaust is a unique event, but it has a universal significance which must be memorized incessantly.”

“Unfortunately, anti-Semitism still exists. It has been alive for more than 2,000 years, and will likely continue living. I thought that the memory of the Holocaust would shame those boasting anti-Semitic opinions. I was wrong. It still exists in different countries, and it seems people are no longer ashamed to be anti-Semitic.”

“The modern anti-Semite is, first and foremost, anti-Israel. It’s very difficult to separate between the two.” (Anti-Israelism and antisemitism)

“There are anti-Semites who are only anti-Israel. Once I thought that anti-Semitism had ended; today it is clear to me that it will probably never end. It might weaken sometimes, but it will continue existing, because in different countries there is no shame in being an anti-Semite. We must remember that anti-Semitism led to Auschwitz. Without anti-Semitism there would have been no Auschwitz.”

“It’s clear to me that one can’t be Jewish without Israel. Religious or non-religious, Zionist or non-Zionist, Ashkenazi or Sephardic — all these will not exist without Israel. The [Israeli] State’s existence is the oxygen of the image and ideas of the new anti-Semitism.“

“Recent attacks on Jews in the United States are expressions of anti-Semitism, yet we can’t talk about an anti-Semitic movement but about groups of anti-Semites which operate in different places, and we don’t know how many members they have. This reality must also concern us, because it could expand.”

The difference between Wiesel and Glick is that he did not say the Jan. 27th International Holocaust Remembrance Day made antisemitism worse, not better, but he DID rather dismiss it by saying that in the United States it is only marked with an event held at the UN building.

He agrees with Glick that the real American commemoration is on Yom haShoah, the same day as for the State of Israel. According to Yoel Rappel, the Israeli whom Wiesel appointed to be the director of his archive at Boston University, it was Wiesel who proposed this day to the American Congress when he was chairman of the President’s Commission on the Holocaust under President Carter. It has become a “fixed tradition” in the U.S., said Rappel. ~

Elie a no-show at Auschwitz event, but delivers an interview saying Jews can’t be Jews without Israel

Sunday, February 2nd, 2014

Elie Wiesel, right, in his office at Boston University with his Israeli editor, Yoel Rappel, whose interview with the famous survivor was published on January 28th in Israel’s Y-Net News.

By Carolyn Yeager

“Personal reasons” has been given for Elie Wiesel’s failure to attend this year’s annual International Day of Commemoration in Memory of Victims of the Holocaust at Auschwitz-Birkenau January 27th.  This United Nations-declared commemoration day (since 2006) is being incorrectly called “Holocaust Memorial Day” or “Holocaust Remembrance Day” by the media and others who don’t feel like repeating the long, actual title.

The latter can become a problem because, as Wiesel’s interviewer pointed out in what follows :  “The American nation officially commemorates the memory of the victims of the Holocaust on the same day as the State of Israel” — that is,  on  Yom Hashoah according to the Hebrew calendar, which  falls in the Spring (April or May). This event is called “Days of Remembrance” and lasts for 7 days, beginning on Saturday evening Shabbat and ending at Shabbat one week later.  In this, like in so much else, the U.S. is in lock-step with Israel (with Israel leading, the United States Congress following).

However, both the U.S. and Israel also support and join in with the newer January 27th United Nations-proclaimed commemoration, since it was conceived and pushed through the UN by the State of Israel.  See here at bottom of page. That gives the world two major “Holocaust remembrance” events, all the better to “engrave” the holocaust into the minds of all humanity, but especially Western man.

 The Interviewer

Yoel Rappel grew up in Israel and lived most of his life there.  We’re not told if he was born there, but it seems so. He worked 40 years as a journalist and senior program editor at the Israel Broadcasting Authority, Israel’s main radio channel.  Before coming to Boston University as Visiting Scholar at the Elie Wiesel Center for Jewish Studies,  he also taught at Bet Berl College, the Avshalom Institute for Israel Studies,  and served as content manager at the Center for Jewish Identity in Bar Ilan University … all in Israel.

He serves as project manager for the Elie Wiesel Archive. He is the editor of the Hebrew editions of Prof. Wiesel’s books “The Biblical Soul,” “The Hasidic Soul” and “The Talmudic Soul,” which were published in Hebrew by the Yedioth Books publishing house. [Getting everything ready for Elie Wiesel’s coming sainthood -cy]

The Interview

[Rappel points out that it was Wiesel who coined the expression,  “Not all victims were Jews, but all Jews were victims.” ]

Wiesel:  “The Holocaust is a unique event, but it has a universal significance which must be memorized incessantly.”

[The reason for this, Rappel tells us, is so it will be engraved in people’s minds, so that the events of 1939-1945 will  not repeat themselves and the world will not be indifferent and silent*, as it was then.]  *A reference to the Yiddish book, “And the World Remained Silent” claimed to have been written by Wiesel.

Wiesel:  “Unfortunately, anti-Semitism still exists.  It has been alive for more than 2,000 years, and will likely continue living. I thought that the memory of the Holocaust would shame those boasting anti-Semitic opinions. I was wrong. It still exists in different countries, and it seems people are no longer ashamed to be anti-Semitic.”

[Rappel says “the murky wave of anti-Semitism sweeping over the Western world, as well as Eastern Europe (with the recent incidents in Hungary and Ukraine), is fresh.]

Wiesel:  “The modern anti-Semite is, first and foremost, anti-Israel. It’s very difficult to separate between the two. There are anti-Semites who are only anti-Israel.  Once I thought that anti-Semitism had ended; today it is clear to me that it will probably never end. It might weaken sometimes, but it will continue existing, because in different countries there is no shame in being an anti-Semite. We must remember that anti-Semitism led to Auschwitz. Without anti-Semitism there would have been no Auschwitz.”

[Rappel says that Wiesel is one of the State of Israel’s greatest advocates, and that Wiesel argues that the fundamental problem {today?} is the attitude towards Israel and not anti-Semitism.] 

Wiesel:  “It’s clear to me that one can’t be Jewish without Israel*. Religious or non-religious, Zionist or non-Zionist, Ashkenazi or Sephardic – all these will not exist without Israel. The State’s existence is the oxygen of the image and ideas of the new anti-Semitism.”  *Dangerous, fanatical talk. It follows that if Israel goes, so also do Jews. With that thinking, anything is allowed to Jews to prevent it … is what Wiesel is getting at. The failure of Israel would be  another form of “extermination of the Jews,” another “holocaust.” -cy

[Wiesel is asked whether the public dispute over circumcision and ritual animal slaughter also stem from anti-Semitism.]

Wiesel:  “In my opinion, it stems first of all from ignorance and disregard of the Jewish faith. Those who raise such ideas and others will soon come up with the idea to cancel Shabbat, so that Jews will rest on Sunday. It’s more of a case of ignorance, and it leads to harassment against the foundations of Judaism.”

[Rappel wants to know if  the different phenomena experienced recently by the Jewish community in the United States can be defined as anti-Semitism.]

Wiesel:  “There are expressions of anti-Semitism, yet we can’t talk about an anti-Semitic movement but about groups of anti-Semites which operate in different places, and we don’t know how many members they have. This reality must also concern us, because it could expand.”

What Wiesel Missed – Members of Israeli parliament, the Knesset, ceremoniously and ostentatiously mark the 69th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz in Oswiecim, Poland on Jan. 27, 2014. The delegation spokesman made it a point to say that the difference between then and now is that they now have a state and a military force of their own with which to protect themselves.

Is it time to call Ken Waltzer a fraud?

Monday, April 1st, 2013

By Carolyn Yeager
copyright 2013 Carolyn Yeager

Updated April 7th

Prof. Kenneth Waltzer is looking at a Buchenwald registration card at the International Tracing Service in Bad Arolsen, Germany.

Kenneth Waltzer is a professor of history  at Michigan State University since the early 1970’s. He helped to create the Jewish Studies program which opened in 1992, and which he heads. Waltzer has been researching into evidence of a special ‘boy’s protection program’ run by prisoners at Buchenwald for going on 10 years now. As an “approved” researcher, he is allowed to peruse all the files at the International Tracing Service in Bad Arolsen, Germany,  something that is made much more difficult, if not impossible,  for revisionists.

Waltzer is considered one of the top scholars in the U.S. of the ill-named holocaust but his work has been sloppy, and his attempts to cover up the sloppiness amount to fraud. This, along with his continual promotion and defense of Elie Wiesel as a Buchenwald survivor, is what has drawn me to study him ever more closely.

Because of the seriousness of the charge I am making against him, I will list right up front my reasons for thinking it is time for such a call. They are:

1. Waltzer habitually tells fibs in the form of false information which is intended to mislead. When called out for it, he tells more fibs to cover for the first ones.
   
2. He has been in the service of the “Holocaust Industry,” not academic rigor and fair-mindedness, from the very start of his career.
3. He knowingly defrauds his students, his university and the public (you and I) with his dishonest “holocaust scholarship.”
4. While he is drawing high pay as a tenured American professor of history at MSU, he is working to advance the State of Israel.

I am going to show that these charges have a strong basis in fact. Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features. (see here)

Legally, fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant’s actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact, (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

I am not intending to bring legal charges of fraud against Prof. Waltzer, but to try him in the court of public opinion. Therefore, it will be up to Waltzer to defend himself against my charges.

*     *     *

Two years ago, I asked the question on this web site:  “What happened to Ken Waltzer’s book about the boys of Buchenwald?” It was claimed to be, at that time, in it’s final stages. Eight years after he publicly announced he was researching for a book about the so-called children’s barracks at Buchenwald (Barracks #66 ), it still has not materialized. Five years after his book was described as “upcoming,” it still has not materialized. During this time, he has not produced another book, or any major work that would have taken precedence over this book. So what is the delay?

It’s pretty plain that the book’s thesis has shifted considerably since 2005, when his MSU website featured Elie Wiesel as the most recognizable and famous child survivor from Buchenwald. That website was taken down between one and two years ago and is completely wiped clean from the Internet. The banner on all the six to eight  pages that were included showed a photograph very similar to the one below of the “boys” being marched out of the main Buchenwald camp to temporary quarters at the former SS barracks.

The USHMM (national holocaust museum in D.C) website dates this picture as being taken on April 17, 1945, six days after liberation.1 At this time, Elie Wiesel, by his own account in two books, was laying in a hospital sick almost unto death  from food poisoning. Details like this don’t deter Prof. Waltzer from backing up in every instance the standard holocaust narrative. “Elie Wiesel in Buchenwald” is the standard narrative, so evidence must be found for it.

Ken Waltzer claimed for years that one of these boys was Elie Wiesel. But Wiesel is not in this picture!

From at least 2005 (eight years now), Waltzer has identified the boy third or fourth from the front (hard to tell) in the left-side column (dressed in a black suit and in front of the tall boy wearing a beret) as Elie Wiesel, based on nothing but his own fraudulent intention that there was enough resemblance that people would believe it if he said so. In this article , I exposed this lie. Waltzer has never admitted that he was mistaken or was perpetrating a falsehood that he intended to put into his book. Instead, what he did when his fabrication was sufficiently exposed was to take the entire site down and not mention it again.

Left is a close-up of the boy Waltzer has maintained for several years is Elie Wiesel. Anyone can tell it is not and that’s why no one else ever publicly agreed with him.

I have some of what was on that site copied into articles here at EWCTW and also in my files. At left is the cropped section of the photo that Waltzer used on the banner of his MSU-Newsroom/Holocaust website that was very much dedicated to Elie Wiesel. (Another reader, Chris,  informed me that he had found pages from the site using the Way Back Machine. Many thanks to him.) This shows that Waltzer definitely identified the boy in the black suit as Elie Wiesel. In addition, Jack Werber, a known dishonest survivor, was the supposed supplier of the picture.

Below right, a screen shot of one of the pages as it existed then, sent by a friend of EWCTW. It shows more of the emphasis on Elie Wiesel.

When I pointed out much of this in a podcast of March 25th, Waltzer sent me an email on March 28th stating,

My websites at UM FLint are down because I was appointed there one year and am now back at Michigan State.

Of course I never mentioned UM Flint and never even saw his website there. I was speaking about his MSU website, which was titled something like Ken Waltzer’s “MSU Newsroom Special Report.” It was full of information about his projects and especially what he calls “the rescue operation of children at Buchenwald.”  It was up on the Net since at least 2008 2, then suddenly disappeared, with not even cache pages to be found.  Did Waltzer tell me a fib, or did he just read the podcast program description and misinterpret what it said about “taking down web pages?” By now, he will know what I mean and may answer.

I think it is very possible that he timed the take-down of his MSU “Newsroom” site with his one-year visiting professorship at UM Flint — putting up a temporary website there which he could take down when he left.  This is a way of confusing the picture in order to distract as much as possible from his more recent decision to put more distance between himself and his prior (false) assertions about Elie Wiesel.

His intention was and is clearly to deceive.  The harm is caused to ordinary people who believe and trust that they are getting knowledgeable answers from a professor of history and a holocaust scholar. In this particular case, all five of the elements necessary to prove fraud are there.

First, he sets up a University-sponsored website maintaining falsely that Elie Wiesel is the boy in the photograph of youthful “survivors” marching out of the camp (1). He knows it is false because he has no evidence or proof, only his own “wishful thinking.” The USHMM never identified Wiesel in that group of boys, nor did anyone else (including Wiesel himself), unless they did so from following Waltzer’s example (2). Waltzer’s intent was to make the public believe something that was not true – that he had proof of Elie Wiesel being one of the “rescued children” (3). Because Waltzer is a Professor of History and “holocaust expert” at a major university, and is at all times written up very favorably in the media, the public (you and I ) and his students will rely on his statements (4). These same students and public are injured when photographs are mislabled in order to foist on them a certain belief about an influential  historical event that affects their entire world view (5).

*      *      *

This is just one instance of the untruths that Ken Waltzer has told over the years. Another tactic he uses is to promise an upcoming answer to your doubts which he cannot or does not produce now. As we have seen, we continue to wait as he continues to promise. Still another tactic is to accuse others of lying when it is he who is doing so. But only people who are knowledgeable enough about these complex and purposely obscured issues can see who is doing the lying. In this same email, he wrote:

The book is on track, and I have also completed a separate essay to be published on Elie Wiesel and Buchenwald.

Completed, he says. And separate. Why separate? I wrote back to him asking where I could find his essay because I wanted to read it. No reply – which is typical because factual information is not his forte, emotional rhetoric is. I feel it’s quite possible he wrote a separate essay on Elie Wiesel so as not to tarnish his book with the false “facts” about Wiesel in Buchenwald. He can always get rid of an essay, if necessary, later – but not his entire book. What might there be in this essay? Will it be the same or quite different from what he wrote in a March 6, 2010 comment at Scrapbookpages Blog, when he said [my underlining-cy]:

For the skeptics [I was using the name skeptic then -cy] and know-nothings who have written in suggesting Eli Wiesel was not in the camps, that Night is purely fiction, you are all dead wrong. The Red Cross International Tracing Service Archives documents for Lazar Wiesel and his father prove beyond any doubt that Lazar and his father arrived from Buna to Buchenwald January 26, 1945, that his father soon died a few days later, and that Lazar Wiesel was then moved to block 66, the children’s block in the little camp in Buchenwald. THese documents are backed up by military interviews with others from Sighet who were also in block 66, and by the list of Buchenwald boys sent thereafter to France. All of this is public domain.

Wishful thinking by Holocaust deniers will not make their fantasies true. While Wiesel took liberties in writing Night as a literary masterpiece, Night is rooted in the foundation of Wiesel’s experience in the camps. The Buchenwald experience, particularly, runs closely to what is related in Night.

Comment by kenwaltzer — November 14, 2010 @ 6:57 am

How much untruth is contained in this, in order to defraud us all in his devoted service to the “Holocaust Industry” and the state of Israel? Plenty. As proof that Elie Wiesel was in Buchenwald, he points to documents for Lazar Wiesel and “his father.” It is even more absurd because Lazar Wiesel’s relative was only 13 years older than Lazar – it was in fact his brother Abram! Waltzer is passing off Lazar for Elie simply on the basis that Lazar also came from Sighet, Elie’s hometown and carries the same name. Sighet was a city of 50,000 or so with a very large Jewish population, and Wiesel was a common name. But the “scholar” who has taken years to research this and still isn’t finished, wants us to believe there can  be only one Lazar Wiesel, who is Elie. He attributes the difference in their birthdates to bureaucratic error.

Previously I may have called this stupidity, but now I’m calling it fraud, based on the above-given definition. Of course Waltzer can see the discrepancies here, but he hopes he can convince you not to see them. The Military Interview mentioned with Lázár Wiesel’s name on it also does not have the right birthdate for Elie Wiesel, nor does the signature match Elie’s well-known signature.

Will Waltzer repeat this nonsense in his latest “completed” essay? Notice that Waltzer never fails in the name-calling department, here  calling his critics names such as “know-nothings” and “Holocaust deniers.” Several months later,  he wrote a similar comment at EWCTW to the blockbuster article: “Signatures Prove Lázár Wiesel is not Elie Wiesel”

by kenwaltzer

On November 14, 2010 at 10:34 am

Contrary to Carolyn Yeager’s wishful thinking, Eli Wiesel was indeed the Lazar Wiesel who was admitted to Buchenwald on January 26, 1945, who was subsequently shifted to block 66, and who was interviewed by military authorities before being permitted to leave Buchenwald to go with other Buchenwald orphans to France. Furthermore, there is not a shadow of a doubt about this, although the Buchenwald records do erroneously contain — on some pieces — the birth date of 1913 rather than 1928. A forthcoming paper resolves the “riddle of Lazar” and indicates that Miklos Gruner’s Stolen Identity is a set of false charges and attack on Wiesel without any foundation.

The promise of a forthcoming paper turned out to be a fib. From Nov. 2010 to now, there has not been any paper. Maybe it’s the essay he mentioned in his March 28th email? “Forthcoming” to Waltzer means up to two and a half years, it seems. That in itself is the sign of an unreliable person.

There can be only one reason Ken Waltzer allows himself to look like a buffoon and a shyster. He doesn’t need to do it to keep his position at Michigan State University. He does it because it is his larger job to keep the Buchenwald atrocity stories and Liberation lies, including the Elie Wiesel myth, alive and well in the mind of the public. He works for purely Jewish interests – I will be writing a future article on the priority, meaning and funding of Jewish Studies programs in American universities. For now, I can add that Waltzer is more of a public relations (PR) worker for the Holocaust Industry, the State of Israel and maybe AIPAC, than he is an honest-to-god academic. Another organization connected to Israel that he serves is Scholars for Peace in the Middle East. He has written four attack-dog articles for them since 2009, functioning in a sort of Abe Foxman-pitbull style.

In Nov. 2009, he attacked Alison Wier as another “know-nothing” because she speaks up for Palestinian rights on college campuses, where she is popular.

In May 2010, he went after John Mearsheimer for calling Israel “an apartheid state” and also took out after Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, and “the crackpot Phil Weiss.”

Also in May 2010, another target was Judith Butler, who campaigned at the Berkeley campus for the university “to divest from companies making military weapons which Israel employs to commit war crimes.”

In August 2011, he wrote on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, arguing for Israel’s interests to be well and strongly presented on college campuses.

But this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Walzer’s pro-Israel activities. I will be writing further articles that present the evidence for Ken Waltzer being guilty of fraud in his public writings and during his entire career. Much of it revolves around Elie Wiesel and the Industry’s  need to place him at Buchenwald. My position, if you have somehow missed it, is that Elie Wiesel was never at Buchenwald. I am also saying that Waltzer is backing down or “stepping back” from his blatant, dishonest claims about Wiesel, but he can’t back down altogether.

Endnotes:

1.  I have also seen it dated April 27 at the USHMM and have used that date in other articles here.  Now I have only found this one picture which is very officially dated the 17th.  There may have been an attempt to move the date to the 27th so that Wiesel could be in the picture (though he supposedly would not have been released from the hospital until the 28th).  It is really too bad the USHMM cannot be relied upon; nor can Yad Vashem. When the museum “researchers” are involved in lying or in complacency, one really has nowhere to turn.

2.  http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2008/mapping-the-holocaust-archive-msu-prof-explores-records-of-nazi-atrocities At bottom of article, it reads “For more information, and to follow Waltzer’s research and read his journal as he participates in the workshop, visit the special report at: http://special.newsroom.msu.edu/holocaust.” This is a link to the website that no longer exists, as you will see if you click it. Now he seems to be pretending it was never there.

Elie Wiesel Condemns Günter Grass for “going too far”

Saturday, April 14th, 2012

By Carolyn Yeager

Wiesel rushes to the defense of Israel once again, proving he is always a political person ahead of being an artistic person.

Zionism has always come first for Elie Wiesel. You might even say all his writing has been in the service of Zionism, one way or another. Now a poem made public by one of Germany’s most famous novelists is causing an uproar in the Jewish/Israeli world, of which Wiesel is an integral part. The poet is Günter Grass; the poem’s title is “What Must Be Said.” It is a criticism of Israel’s nuclear capability and it’s willingness to use it against Iran.

In an article in the New York Daily News, Wiesel for the second time in the past month, speaks out on a controversy affecting Jews and Israel. While Wiesel is often portrayed as a kind of suffering saint who stays above the fray in his capacity as “teacher” and one who represents “victims of the Jewish holocaust” for the sake of greater humanity, this has never been the case in reality. He is a scrapper and a partisan in every circumstance involving Israel. Everything he does is done to advance the interests of World Jewry. This latest article makes it clear enough.

It is titled “Guenter Grass’ buried hatred comes to light.” The subtitle brings out that “He once served in the Nazi Waffen SS; today, he is attacking Israel.”

Well, that pretty much covers the Jew’s reasons why we should hate Grass. He was a Nazi! He’s been a secret Nazi, therefore a Jew-hater, all along! He is not an honest man. Therefore, ignore what he has to say … a version of “attack the messenger,” a tried and true tactic which Wiesel is not above using.

This particular spat can be seen as another chapter in the historic German-Jewish conflict between two nations that are at eternal odds with each other. The idea that these two “races” will ever overcome their inherent “unlikeness” and be able to live together is a pipe-dream. It never will be, as they are opposites. The problem with Grass’ reasoning is that he believes a reconciliation is possible, and has even been made. As long as he holds this belief he will never get it right.

* * *

The following are some highlights from what Wiesel wrote, with commentary by me. You can read the entire article by following the link above.

Wiesel: […] the German Nobel Prize-winning novelist Guenter Grass has obviously chosen to set himself up as judge over the state and people of Israel.

As we know, Elie Wiesel has since even before 1945 set himself up as judge over the nation and people of Germany. But, of course, in Wiesel’s very biased mind he has every right, while Grass has not. Grass, in the eyes of the Jews.  is a German perpetrator without any rights at all.

Wiesel: [Grass’ poem] makes the argument that Iran is not, in fact, pursuing nuclear weapons — and that Israel is bent on killing Iranians by the millions. […] How dare he? What does he know about the nuclear sciences? What moral credentials could he claim to possess in order to act as accuser of the democratic Jewish state?

Is Iran pursuing nuclear weapons? There is no evidence that it is. Further, Iran has been a peaceful nation for hundreds of years. If it did make a decision, several years down the road, to produce a nuclear weapon as a defensive measure, it has every right. Iran is a legitimate nation with an immensely long history, that joins with and follows the rules of  international legal organizations, while Israel is a rogue state that ignores and disobeys every international law.

So Wiesel’s “how dare he?” is a totally arrogant outburst of someone who’s had way too much privilege in his life … someone who has gotten away with too much. How dare Wiesel question Grass’ moral credentials. In my opinion, they are about on the same level of morality—they are both comfortable with lying—although Grass has bought into the guilt-trip leveled at Germans, while Wiesel rides the high-horse of Jewish-invented victimhood at German hands. Therefore, Grass has no permission to criticize anything Jewish and needs to be put back in his place.

Wiesel: Clearly, had the Swedish Academy known of his secret [Waffen SS membership], it would have had some difficulty awarding him the Nobel Prize.

Ha! Similarly, if the Nobel Peace Prize committee had known that Wiesel lied about being in the famous Buchenwald liberation photo (not to mention all the lies in his book Night) they would certainly have had difficulty awarding him that prize! Wiesel is skating on thin ice here, but then that is typical of him and his ingrained chutzpah.

Wiesel: [Grass’] hatred of Israel, a land founded as the homeland of the Jewish people, is in his poem. In fact, it is the poem.

The whole world is coming more and more to hate Israel. In fact, it is impossible for decent people not to hate Israel. If Israel represents what the Jewish people are, what does that tell us? Wiesel should really wake up and stop beating a dead horse.

Wiesel: Well, he isn’t the first to claim that the Jewish people’s aim is planetary destruction.  Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels preceded him in that kind of propaganda.

Bring up the Hitler card, why not? It’s another tried and true tactic. But what is the Jewish people’s aim if not to own the whole world? Their rationale is sometimes given as ” to prevent their own persecution at the hands of the rest of the world.” But it is not a justification, though they think it is. Hitler and Goebbels had more justification for wanting the majority of Jews out of their country in the 1930’s, as do many Americans today, as do the Palestinians. How many nations today would just like the Jews to go away?

Wiesel: Sadly, these despicable accusations come from someone who ranked among the great intellectual minds of postwar Europe.

Grass was never a great intellectual mind. He is not a successor to Goethe and Schiller, who loved Germany and would have stood up and told the truth about her rectitude. The Jewish-controlled media portrayed Grass as great because he acted the role of the perfectly contrite post-war German. For that, he was celebrated and given every accolade. He sold out to the devil, just like Faust.

Wiesel: Iran’s ruler Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the world’s foremost Holocaust denier. Everyone who reads knows that. But not Grass.

Perhaps Grass is tired of being a holocaust believer. Maybe that will come next?  But I wouldn’t count on it because he is a leftist and their power is based on the holocaust.

Wiesel: [Grass] accuses the Israeli leader (Netanyahu), and consequently his nation, of planning mass murder against Iran—and furthermore, warns German Chancellor Angela Merkel of becoming an accomplice to this crime if she helps Israel.

This is so interesting! Wiesel has repeatedly accused (and still does) Adolf Hitler and “his nation” of planning mass murder against European Jews. The difference in his biased mind between his accusations and those of  Grass is that Germany was guilty but Israel is not. Yet there is more evidence by far of Israel’s guilt (and from 1945 onward) in wanting to murder the Germans, plus the British and the Palestinians, than of any plan by Germans to murder Jews. You don’t believe that? If so, it’s because you haven’t looked into it for yourself, but have believed Jewish-controlled media all this time.

The Israelis and Wiesel greatly fear losing German support. It is the United States that keeps German leaders like Angela Merkel in line.

Wiesel: There were times when I even felt close to [Grass]. Now I see in his hatred an abyss I shall not cross. He has gone too far.

It’s only normal practice that Wiesel “felt close” to the German writer as long as he spouted praise for Zionism and Israel, and emphasized German Guilt—characterizing it as never-ending. Then, he was a great German! Now the slightest divergence from that stance … the smallest challenge to Israel to stop its war-mongering and bullying … is enough to create an uncrossable “abyss” between them. Günter Grass will never be forgiven. Let’s hope he will forego asking for it, or seeking it in any way, because it will never be granted him. He has “gone too far.”

UPDATE April 15, 1 pm:  I’m sure Elie Wiesel now repeats Yemach shemo  (meaning “May his name be erased”) every time his says the name of Günter Grass. Orthodox Jews add this Hebrew phrase whenever they mention the name of a great enemy of the Jewish nation past or present. Also here the best answer at this site informs us that the phrase when applied to Jesus’ name means  to exterminate  the spirit of the Christ (the Logos) and to liquidate his followers like the Jewish “Bolsheviks” did to 66 million Orthodox Christian Russians. “

This recalls to my mind the insistence of the Holocaust-believing Jews to interpret the German word ausrotten which means  “to get rid of” or “to root out” or “to eradicate” as “to exterminate“,  giving it the sole meaning of  “to murder.” Do Wiesel and other  Orthodox Jews  take the Hebrew word Yemach shemo as literally as they do German words? Something to think about.