I. Two Sources of Tension

Analysis of the Holocaust does not begin with Adolph Hitler. The undeniable fact is that Judaism has been a source of friction with regard to Christianity from the very inception of Christianity over two thousand years ago. The reason for the friction is that the Jews present Christianity with some very serious threats to the validity of its dogma. Two of these threats will be noted here. The first derives from the fact that the purported Jewish messiah failed to save the Jews in any form or fashion. Jesus, a Jew, was the purported Jewish messiah, the coming of whom was purportedly prophesied in Jewish scripture. The problem is that even those Jews who held the prophecy did not think that Jesus was the guy. Had they thought Jesus was the messiah, they would not have united behind Simon bar Kochba in 132 CE in a revolt against Rome. The failure of Jesus to save the Jews in whatever form or fashion would seem to be fatal to any claim that he was the Jewish messiah. By definition, to be the Jewish messiah (or even a Jewish messiah), one must save the Jews in some manner.

The Apostle Paul attempted to resolve the paradox in the New Testament book of Romans. There, Paul explains that God has not rejected his chosen people due to their rejection of the messiah he purportedly sent. He goes on to explain:

25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved ….2

This is not Paul’s only passage relevant to the paradox. He also quotes Isaiah:

“Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. 28 For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality.” (Emphasis added.)3

The phrase regarding the Lord “carry[ing] out his sentence on earth” seems to require the conclusion that Paul was not talking about saving souls, but instead was talking about earthly Jewish lives. Assuming this conclusion is correct, we see the first Christian attempt at conversion by threat of annihilation. The passage also raises the question of exactly what constitutes a remnant. If Jews become more numerous than whatever a remnant is, the consequence is that Paul was wrong, those who selected Romans for inclusion in the New Testament were wrong, and Christian dogma as it has existed for almost two thousand years is wrong. If the Jews ever “become extinct,” or if they all convert en mass to Christianity, the same consequence follows, unless no other Gentiles ever become Christians. Obviously, the question of what constitutes a remnant is not exactly trivial. 4

A second serious source of friction between Christian dogma and Judaism concerns the precise nature of Jesus’ purported messianic mission. In Acts 1:6-7, Jesus, after having purportedly risen from the dead, is met by his disciples:

6Then they gathered around him and asked him, "LORD, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" 7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.

Note that Jesus did not say that restoring the kingdom to Israel was not part of his job. Instead, he said that when it was going to happen was not something the apostles needed to know. He thus tacitly admitted that restoring the kingdom to Israel was at least one aspect of his messianic mission. The meaning of the phrase “restore the kingdom to Israel” thus arises.

Best case scenario for Christianity is that it means a Jewish sovereign theocracy in Palestine. Since Israel is not a theocracy, it follows that the kingdom has not been restored to Israel, and Jesus is still eligible for the title of messiah. Worst case scenario for Christianity is that it means simply a Jewish sovereignty, located wherever, including Palestine, and not necessarily a theocracy. Be advised that the First New English Version of the Bible translated the passage in exactly this manner. The reason it is the worst case scenario is because Israel has already been established as an independent sovereign, and Jesus was not the one who established it. From this it would logically follow that he cannot have been the Jewish messiah.

So, taking stock, there are two sources of serious friction between Christian dogma and Judaism – the fact that Jesus, the purported Jewish messiah failed to save the Jews, and the fact that Jesus must be the one to restore the kingdom to Israel. It must be understood from the outset that Christian forces, including both church and governments who deploy Christianity as a tool with which to control the masses, cannot acknowledge the threats to its dogma presented by Judaism. To do so would be to admit that the Christian religion is flawed. Accordingly, pretexts for preventing the threat to dogma were required. As J.P. Morgan said, “A man has two reasons for everything he does – a good one and the real one.” Some of the most frequently deployed pretexts for the numerous expulsions and pogroms include the deicide rationale (the allegation that the Jews killed Jesus), 4blood libel (the allegation that the Jews sacrificed Christian chi ldren in rituals), profaning the Eucharistic host, and smelling badly. It was not until the middle of the nineteenth century that the racial theme known as anti-Semitism even appeared. The important point is that the pretexts have varied, but the two basic sources of friction have always been present and do logically explain the numerous persecutions of the Jews throughout the history of Christianity.

II. The Holocaust Happened

Despite some assertions to the contrary, it is clear that the Holocaust did happen. Moreover, it was clear to many that it was going to happen long before it did. In 1920 Mussolini wrote, “[I]t is easy to foresee that the collapse of Bolshevism in Europe will be followed by a pogrom of unprecedented proportions." 5 It is important to realize that this statement was not uttered privately in some meeting and is only now appearing due to some super-duper, top secret, classified document “leaked” for the sake of political expedience by somebody who does not get prosecuted for “leaking” it. It appeared in print, in a newspaper which, as the organ of the Italian Fascist Party, enjoyed a fairly wide circulation and was read well before the fact by many people. There is simply no way that this is a post hoc fabrication invented for political expedience. The statement is, in fact, extremely inexpedient. Furthermore, the statement w as apparently not all that bombastic. According to one author, the article in which it appeared was “a rehash of all anti-Semitic fables current in 1919.” 6 The undeniable fact is that many thought the Holocaust was going to happen at some point in the future twenty plus years before it did happen.

The assertion that Zionism was the motive is demonstrated by two events that occurred in Europe and the absolutely impeccably timed Zionistic responses by the European Jew. The first (and this is the stone thrown into the pond resulting in the ripple effect which foreseeably caused the Holocaust) is the permanent removal by the authorities of Edgardo Mortara from the home of his Jewish biological parents and biological family in Bologna (at that time under the sovereignty of the Papal States) in June of 1858. At the time, Edgardo was 6 years old. The reason for the forcible removal was that Edgardo had allegedly been secretly baptized by a Catholic domestic servant employed by the Mortaras when he was an infant and ill, thus converting him to Christianity. Under the law of the Papal States, it was illegal for a Christian to be raised by Jews, even if they were the biological parents. The removal became a cause célèbre. In 1860, the international Jewish human rights organization Alliance israelite unive rselle was founded in Paris. Then in 1862 God said "Let there be a Jew named Moses Hess," and lo, Moses Hess wrote Rome and Jerusalem: The Last National Question. The overriding theme of Rome and Jerusalem is a Jewish return to Palestine, which, of course, is the essence of Zionism. Interestingly, Hess envisioned the establishment of a socialistic Jewish state there. By all accounts, whatever anti-Semitism that existed prior to Hess’s book became a lot more vicious. The second event digested is the wrongful conviction of a Jew by the name of Alfred Dreyfus for treason by the French government in 1894. In 1899 Dreyfus was pardoned but not exonerated. In 1906 he was officially exonerated. After he was convicted, God said "Let there be a Jew named Theodor Herzl," and lo, in 1895 he wrote Der Judenstaat. (The book was published in 1896.) The German title translates to The Jewish State. Herzl subsequently became the leader of the Zionist movement. In most basic terms, the Jewish response to the Dreyfus affair and the Mortara incident established that the Jews knew how to hit back, and they did so by threatening Socialistic Zionism. Thus, Jews cannot be said to be unaware of the motive. This is especially true of academic Jews, four of whom are Stephen Wise, Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter and Deborah Lipstadt. Note that the capitalistic world had not only to prevent Socialistic Jews from forming a Palestinian theocracy. It also had to keep the Jews so inclined from blabbing about why they were prevented.

The progress of Hitler’s aggression also demonstrated the reality of the Holocaust. Of course, there were Jews throughout Europe, but the Jewish population was concentrated in three areas. One area was the city of Vienna, Austria, the residence of Theodor Herzl, leader of the Zionistic movement. A second area was eastern Galicia, now Poland. The third was Ukraine. Hitler prosecuted the war by first annexing Austria, then invading Poland, and finally surprise attacking the Soviet Union through Ukraine. It thus is clear that the Jews were indeed targeted. The fact that they were targeted does not necessarily imply that they were mass murdered, but it does make it more likely.

At least at one point, there were many witnesses to the Holocaust from among those Jews who survived it. Relatively few have testified in some type of legal proceeding to what they saw. Their reluctance to testify is easily explained - any attorney representing somebody accused of war crimes would have a duty to ask how they survived. Even so, there remain accounts of the Holocaust from survivors, but most are now dead and their accounts would properly be regarded as hearsay in a court of law. German documents that indicate the reality of the Holocaust would be admissible as an exception to the rule against hearsay. Most probative, the admissions against penal interest of those German soldiers who asserted the defense that they were following orders continues to insulate their confessions against a hearsay objection. These guys were looking at the gallows. It is very difficult to seriously consider the possibility that they falsely confessed.

III. Jews Were Complicit

By now it will have occurred to the reader to ask that if Zionism was indeed the motive for the Holocaust, why are the Jews not screaming. Three reasons. First, and probably foremost, and also at the bottom line of reasons two and three, is that they were justifiably afraid. History is replete with atrocities perpetrated against the Jews by forces of Christianity. Reading Mussolini’s prediction against the background of historical persecutions, it is easy to see why many Jews would be afraid. Furthermore, a subsequent statement by Mussolini is impossible not to construe as a threat: “Let us hope that Italian Jews will have the sense not to stir up anti-Semitism in the only country where it has never existed.” 7Remember, too, from the previous section, the issue of exactly what constitutes a “remnant.” The sum of history, plus Christian dogma, plus Mussolini’s prediction and threat certainly provides a basis for fear. The basis for fear founded in history, Christian dogma, and Mussolini’s threat also provides an excuse, since Jewish actions motivated by nationalism or even greed can be explained by the Jewish actor as taken out of fear.

Couldn't load picture

Fear, or the ready availability of fear as an excuse, or both, explain the reason for Jewish complicity in the Holocaust. The fact that some were complicit is beyond dispute. It is easily established even if my version of the World Wars is not accepted, and still easier if it is. One Jew who was complicit in the Holocaust was Guiseppe Bottai. Guiseppe Bottai was a Jew on his mother’s side. 8 He met Mussolini in 1919, and helped him found the Fascist Party. He was editor of Il Popolo d'Italia's Roman edition at least very close to the time when Mussolini made his prediction regarding the pogrom of unprecedented proportion, and maybe when Mussolini made the prediction. It is at least highly likely that he knew of it, especially since it was apparently just a “rehash of all the anti-Semitic fables current in 1919.” In 1938, he was Minister of Education, and thus sat on the Council of Ministers. 9 In September of that year, the Council of Ministers approved a decree that kicked all foreigners of the Jewish race out of Italy and its territories. 10 Bottai approved the definition of Jew. 11 All of this is a matter of public record. He must be charged with knowledge of the impending pogrom of unprecedented proportion as was urged immediately above. Therefore he knew he was effectively consigning those Jews who were expelled to their death. His anti-Nazi activities which began in 1943 should thus be viewed as either an attempt to cover his motives for expelling the foreign born Jews in 1938 or a change of heart prompted by guilt. Note that all of the above holds regardless of what motivated the Holocaust.

Couldn't load picture

The die for the Jewish element of the establishment in the United States was cast by Jacob Schiff. Schiff was the preeminent Jewish American financier of his day. He was a German Jewish immigrant who became a broker and then a banker of some note, and ultimately became the autocratic head of the firm Kuhn, Loeb & Co. His resume was very impressive. He had a considerable amount of financial clout, so much clout that in 1914 his firm was named by the Pujo Committee as one of the six firms in which the control of credit and money was concentrated. 12 Tracing the history of his attitude toward Russia is illuminating. Having opined that the czarist government of Russia was the “enemy of mankind,” he financed the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 – 1905. 13 He did so notwithstanding the fact that many Jews fought for Russia in the war. 14 He completely supported America’s 1911 abrogation of the 1832 Treaty of Commerce with Russia due to Russia’s refusal to accept American passports issued to Russian-born Jews who had become naturalized US citizens. He changed his position, however, after the Menshevik Revolution of February, 1917 when the provisional government declared Jews to be equal citizens, at which time he floated large loans to Russia. Then, after the Bolshevik Revolution in October of the same year, he reversed his position yet again, stopped loaning money to Russia, demanded repayment of his previous loans to the Mensheviks by the Bolsheviks, and began to fund anti-Bolshevik groups. 15 The politically correct explanation for his reversals is that he was trying to keep Russia in the war on the side of the allies. 16

The fact that Russian Jews were willing to fight for Russia against the Japanese suggests the possibility that Nicholas’s treatment of Jews was not so bad as Schiff and the U.S. government led Americans to believe. In any event, it is impossible to reconcile Schiff’s purported concern with his alleged persecutory treatment with his willingness to finance the Japanese to kill Jewish combatants in the Russo-Japanese War. Furthermore, the big picture analysis of the preceding paragraph is that he: first, didn’t like Russia; second, objected to trading with czarist Russia due to its treatment of Jews even though Russia was nominally allied with the Allies up until Nicholas II abdicated the throne; third, then supported the provisional government because it remained in the war and treated the Jews as equals; and fourth, then withdrew his support even though the Bolsheviks recognized Jewish equality because they withdrew from the war. Note the contradiction that inheres in his second and fourth action s.

Rabbi Stephen Wise was very prominent American Jew who was complicit in the Holocaust both before and after the fact. The claim of prominence is not an exaggeration - if anything, it is an understatement. Among other things, Wise was a very influential leader of the Zionist movement. He helped found the New York Federation of Zionist Societies in 1897, which in turn helped found the Federation of American Zionists, a forerunner of the Zionist Organization of America. He worked in cooperation with Theodor Herzl until Herzl’s death in 1904. He, along with Louis D. Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter helped formulate the text of the Balfour Declaration of 1917. In 1936, he became the president of the Zionist Organization of America. Also in 1936 he co-founded the World Jewish Congress, the stated goal of which was to “assure the survival, and to foster the unity of the Jewish people.”

Couldn't load picture

Wise’s complicity in the Holocaust before the fact consists at a minimum of his purported confidence that the European Jews were in good hands due to Michael Cardinal Faulhaber. The World Jewish Congress praised the writings of Michael Cardinal Faulhaber. Wise called Faulhaber "a true Christian prelate", and said that he was trying to protect Jews when he “ lifted his fearless voice". 17 The problem was that Faulhaber did not vaguely resemble the person Wise said he was, and Wise knew it. The sermons given by Faulhaber were never intended to protect Jews, but primarily to refute Hitler’s attempt to divorce the Old Testament from Christianity. Even assuming Wise merely suffered from being under an obviously erroneous impression at the time he made the statement, it would necessarily have been corrected with his receipt of correspondence from Faulhaber’s secretary stating, “In his sermons given last year during Advent, the Cardinal defended the ancient biblical writings of Israel but did not pronounce on the Jewish question of today ". Furthermore, it is difficult to believe Wise ever genuinely labored under under the false impression that Faulhaber was a protector due to the following passage in Faulhaber’s book:

After the death of Christ Israel was dismissed from the service of the Revelation. She had not known the time of her visitation. She had repudiated and rejected the Lord's Anointed, had driven Him out of the city and nailed Him to the cross. Then the veil of the Temple was rent, and with it the covenant between the Lord and His people. The daughters of Sion received the bill of divorce, and from that time forth Assuerus wanders, forever restless, over the face of the earth. (Emphasis added.)18

This passage demonstrates that Faulhaber was very obviously hostile toward Zionism, and Wise, as a leader of the Zionist movement, must be charged with knowledge of it, as it appeared in a book published in 1933, three years before his glowing praise of Faulhaber. When the passage is considered in conjunction his letter to Wise, any assertion that Wise genuinely perceived Faulhaber as a protector strains credulity. In private correspondence subsequent to being labeled a “beacon of light” by Wise, Faulhaber would write that although what the Nazis were doing to the Jews was “so un-Christian that not only every priest but every Christian must protest,” “the Jews … are quite able to look after themselves…..” Faulhaber would also help write Mitt Brennender Sorge, paragraph eight of which equates race with a “fundamental value of the human community.” Obviously, Faulhaber was no beacon of light.

Wise’s false praise of Faulhaber had a dual purpose. First, it reassured American Jews who, had they not been reassured, might have sought to intervene. It is likely that some would have at least tried to do so. 19 Second, it provided an excuse for Jews who would not have intervened in any event not to do so.

Wise’s after the fact complicity in the Holocaust consists of his deliberate attempt to obscure the motive for it. He did this by asserting that “[a]nti-Semitism stems from the madness of racism” 20 Moreover, by appearing to side with labor 21, he attempted to garner the favor of those most likely to resent the status quo the guys who had to work to survive and also had to fight to decrease their bargaining power. The mindset Wise aimed for was as follows: Steven Wise is a prominent Jew; He is on our side so we are on his; He says that anti-Semitism is rooted in racism; Therefore we say that anti-Semitism is rooted in racism. It says here that Wise had to have known that anti-Judaism had a long history even before it began to be ascribed to racism. Remember deicide, blood libel, profaning the Eucharist, and smelling badly? He had to have known about the kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara by the Vatican, the timing between that and Moses Hess’s book, and the timing be tween Hess’s book and the utilization of racial considerations to justify what he calls anti-Semitism. He had to have known about the framing of Alfred Dreyfuss, and the timing between it and the beginning of Herzl’s activity. And finally, he had to have known about the ramifications of Zionism as they pertained to Christian dogma. Reduced to essentials, he had to have known about a long history of pretexts for anti-Jewish hostility, a “real reason” for the history of anti-Jewish hostility, and the relatively recent historical reaction to Zionism. Why, then, did he choose to aggressively ignore the obvious?

The actions of two Jewish Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States bear directly on the Holocaust. First up is Justice Louis Brandeis. He became well acquainted with German culture as a youth as it was part of his family upbringing. After completing high school, he temporarily relocated to Germany with his family, and from 1872 to 1875 attended the Annenschule in Dresden, where Luther’s thesis attack was one of the educational themes. Remember, this was in the wake of Moses Hess’s Rome and Jerusalem. At that point, he and his family returned to America, and he attended Harvard Law School, where he achieved the highest grade point average in the school’s history. Next up is Felix Frankfurter, also a Harvard Law School grad. He was born in Vienna, Austria in 1882, the son of a long line of rabbis. He spent the first twelve years of his life there. At this point, Vienna was the center of the Judeo-Christian universe, and would soon be headed by Karl Lueger, perhaps the most prominent Christian Socialist. Theodor Herzl resided there, and he would soon write Der Judenstaat. It was also the home of Georg Ritter von Schönerer, the preeminent pan-German of his day. He, with his family, migrated to America, finished his public schooling, completed his undergraduate work, and was admitted into Harvard Law School, where he, like Brandeis, excelled. With backrounds like Brandeis’s and Frankfurter’s, it is inconceivable that they were unaware of sources of tension between Christianity and Judaism, that they were unaware of “the Jewish question,” that they were ignorant of persecutions suffered by the Jews throughout their history, or that they were unaware of Mussolini’s prediction.

Couldn't load picture

Brandeis’s interpretation of the freedom of assembly clause is clearly erroneous, and this clearly erroneous interpretation demonstrates one motive for Jewish complicity . 22 It is clear that the language of the First Amendment, the history of the constitutional era, analysis of analogous provisions in state constitutions, and analysis of the common law all indicate beyond peradventure that the word “assembly” was intended to encompass associations, societies (e.g., friendly societies), and combinations (labor unions, even). By ignoring the fact that the English practice of employees organizing and petitioning Parliament for redress of grievances, including deficient wages , Brandeis sought to deprive the worker of all but a fraction of their intended bargaining power. (ftnt concurring opinion in Whitney)(ftnt current tortured interpretation) Therein lies the motive for American Jewish complicity. Many consider the interpretation given above as tan tamount to socialism. Moses Hess envisioned a communistic Jewish state in Palestine. There is no reason to believe the victims of the Holocaust envisioned anything different. Along this line, there are two facts, the combination of which is intriguing. First is that although Hitler expected to kill three million Jews when he commenced Operation Barbarossa, he “only” got 1.25 million – the other 1.75 million were permitted by Russia to flee to the Russian interior. Second is that neither Israel nor American Jews did business with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. This combination of facts clearly illustrates that Jewish anti-Communism prevailed over sympathy for their fellow Jews.

Couldn't load picture

Frankfurter clearly demonstrated the feigned ignorance of the elite American Jew with regard to the Holocaust. In May of 1943 he met with Jan Karski, a member of the Polish underground and posthumous recipient of the Medal of Freedom. At this meeting, Karski informed Frankfurter that the Jews were being impounded and then mass murdered, including women and children. Reports of Frankfurter’s response differ slightly. Frankfurter either said “I do not believe you” or “I cannot believe you,” depending upon which version is credited. Either way, the element of disbelief was part of his reaction. There is no way his disbelief could have been genuine! With his background as a descendant from a long line of rabbis, his education, his political astuteness, his friends (including both FDR and Stephen Wise), and his status as Supreme Court Justice, he was undoubtedly aware of the theological ramifications of Zionism, the relativity recent threats of Zionism by Hess and Herzl timed withtheir respective secular responses. Most importantly, he was also undoubtedly aware of Mussolini’s prediction. Moreover, it clear that the Allies knew of the concentration camps due to the facts that Karski had been in communication with the exiled Polish government since 1940 and that the exiled Polish government was obviously in communication with the Allies. We can thus charge Frankfurter with knowledge of historical persecution of Jews, knowledge additional of anti-Zionist hostility, the motive there for, Mussolini’s prediction, and the fact that the Jews had been interned in concentration camps. Where can the basis for disbelief be found here? Finally, all of those bodies stunk!

Thus, any assertion of ignorance by the informed members of American society is simply untenable. So why did Frankfurter feign disbelief? One reason is that he needed to excuse Wise’s purported faith in Faulhaber. Another is he needed to excuse that fact that nothing was done to prevent the Holocaust – if nobody knew it was happening, how could they be faulted for not intervening?

The aggressive Jewish American ignorance of the motive for the Holocaust continues to exist, and shines through in the libel case filed by David Irving against Deborah Lipstadt. Deborah Lipstadt is a professor at Emory University who once served on the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council to which she was appointed by Bill Clinton. She wrote a book entitled Denying the Holocaust, which was published in 1993. In this book, she identified David Irving as a Holocaust denier. More specifically, she accused Irving as follows:

that Irving is an apologist for and partisan of Hitler, who has resorted to the distortion of evidence; the manipulation and skewing of documents; the misrepresentation of data and the application of double standards to the evidence, in order to serve his own purpose of exonerating Hitler and portraying him as sympathetic towards the Jews;
that Irving is one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial, who has on numerous occasions denied that the Nazis embarked upon the deliberate planned extermination of Jews and has alleged that it is a Jewish deception that gas chambers were used by the Nazis at Auschwitz as a means of carrying out such extermination;
that Irving, in denying that the Holocaust happened, has misstated evidence; misquoted sources; falsified statistics; misconstrued information and bent historical evidence so that it conforms to his neo-fascist political agenda and ideological beliefs;
that Irving has allied himself with representatives of a variety of extremist and anti-semitic groups and individuals and on one occasion agreed to participate in a conference at which representatives of terrorist organisations were due to speak;
that Irving, in breach of an agreement which he had made and without permission, removed and transported abroad certain microfiches of Goebbels’s diaries, thereby exposing them to a real risk of damage.
that Irving is discredited as an historian.23

A prefatory remark. . If one were to be sued for falsely calling somebody a liar, one would defend such a suit by asserting the plaintiff really was a liar. Obviously, that is much easier to do if what was allegedly lied about was false. Here’s a very basic example to illustrate. A says he saw B rob a bank. B calls A a liar. A sues B for falsely calling him a liar. Is it better for B to defend by proving the bank was not robbed, and therefore A could not have seen him do so, or simply that A did not see him rob the bank, and not bother showing that the bank was not robbed? Obviously the former.

That being said, in court Lipstadt chose not to defend by proving the Holocaust had in fact happened and thus invite the inference that since it did in fact happen Irving’s approach must necessarily have been faulty. Instead, she merely attacked Irving’s biased methodology in arriving at the conclusion that the Holocaust never happened. The defense put on by Lipstadt looks like nothing so much as a duck. Obviously, it would have been much more advantageous to prove that the Holocaust did happen, and therefore Irving’s methodology in concluding that it did not happen was necessarily flawed. Furthermore, it would have been easy to prove that the Holocaust happened. Mussolini ‘s prediction is hearsay, but should have been admitted under either the present sense impression exception, or, barring that, as a statement in a learned periodical given through an expert. 24The anti-Zionism motive would have been even easier, and probably could have been established by judicially noticing the Bible, as well as numerous historical events that demonstrate anti-Zionism on the part of both the secular world and the church, for example, the original Diaspora, the brief occupation of Jerusalem by the Persians during the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628, the Crusades, the Christian world’s concern over Muhammad Ali Pasha al-Mas'ud ibn Agha. Particularly convincing evidence consisting of admissions against interest by Nazi defendants who were facing the gallows at the Nuremburg Tribunals would have been admissible as declarations against penal interest. There were numerous eyewitnesses who were then still alive who could have testified to everything they observed. Finally, there is the fact that if they weren’t killed they must be somewhere and they aren’t.

It is logical to infer from the Lipstadt duck that she herself thinks that the Holocaust did not happen. Wrong! She is sure the Holocaust did happen, but chose not to prove it in court because then she would have been faced with having to reveal the motive for it. The racial motive never made any sense. Indeed, it makes so little sense that it is easy to see why some have genuinely but wrongly concluded that the Holocaust never happened. The non-Aryan Aryan supremacist Hitler was allied with the non-Aryan Italians (ftnt Do Italians have Semitic blood?) and the non-Aryan Japanese because he hated Semitic people but only killed Jews from amongst the more than several Semitic peoples? Asserting this as the motive at trial would have helped Irving “prove” that the Holocaust never happened! After all, if the motive is hooey, might not the Holocaust be hooey? However, the alternative would necessarily have to have been the anti-Zionist motive. Not going to happen!

IV. Conclusion

Couldn't load picture

To reiterate and summarize, prior to World War II, there were two kinds of Jews: 1) those who were Zionists, who wanted not only a Jewish state in Palestine but a theocratic state, and who were sympathetic to Communism; and 2) those who either were not Zionists at all or were Zionists but wanted neither a king nor a rebuilt temple – i.e., they were not looking to establish a theocracy. The former group was pretty much eradicated. The latter group was not at all sympathetic to Communism. The “elite” Jews in America – like Jacob Schiff, Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, and Stephen Wise - predominantly belonged to this latter group. In a very real sense, many American Jews and many American Catholics were “dead ringers.” The silence of those Jews who would otherwise have dissented was procured by a combination of fear of punishment and the hope of reward. Make no mistake about it, part of the reward was Israel. Make no mistake about it, placing Jews who would not establish a theocracy in Palestine was an integral part of “the final solution to the Jewish question.” Make no mistake about it, America was the kingpin in achieving this solution.

Judaism is a patently unsound religion for a plethora of reasons. Dogmatically, it is based squarely on the notion that the omnipotent Jewish god does not know how to say what he means. 25 The story of the flood comes straight out of the Gilgamesh. 26I think they call that plagiarism these days. It is thus clear that the religion was not revealed by a god, but rather was invented by the Hebrews. It is clear from the actions of their (grand total of) three kings that the kings did not feel constrained by the religion they imposed upon their subjects, and thus that they regarded Judaism as merely a tool with which to control their subjects. 27 There are at least several Biblical stories which show that children were not exactly precious to the Hebrews. 28 The Hebrew god’s imposition of the death penalty would be deemed arbitrary and capricious by any standard today. 29 The account of the Tower of Babel makes communications majors and ESL teachers cringe. 30Two key components of the Hebrew religion are missing. The Ark of the covenant has been missing for slightly over two-and-a-half millenniums, and the ten lost tribes of Israel have been lost for still longer. A stroll down history lane reveals that the purported Jewish god has failed to look after his chosen. For example, the original Diaspora, a catalogue of persecutions including slaughters, pogroms, and expulsions, and what hopefully will remain known as “THE” Holocaust and not simply “A” Holocaust amply demonstrate the Hebrew god’s failure to care for the Jews. All aboard the Raging Queen for punishment! The assertion here is that the only reason the Jewish religion continues to exist is that if it ceased to exist then Christian doctrine would suffer irreparable harm.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FOOTNOTES

1. Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
2. Romans 11:25-26.
3. Romans 9:27
4. Consider the following in light of the preceding paragraph. Theodor Herzl purported to advocate total assimilation as the solution to the Jewish question - i.e., a mass conversion by all Jews except its leaders, who would be the final generation. Sergio I Minerbi, The Vatican and Zionism: Conflict in the Holy Land 1895-1925, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 94.. It is difficult to see how this was not every bit as much gamesmanship as was Zionism.
5. Meir Michaelis, Mussolini and the Jews (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1978), 13.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Id., p. 170.
9. Id., 169.
10. Ibid.
11. Id., 170.
12. Ron Chernow, House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance, Grove Press, 2001, p. 155-56.
13. Id., p. 195.
14. Sholem Aleichem vs. the czar - Haaretz Com - Haaretz.com : "It would seem that in the Russo-Japanese War, Jews were for the first time involved in a modern war as soldiers, at an unprecedented rate. Some 30,000 Jews fought at the front, including thousands of Jewish physicians. As the Japan scholar Ben-Ami Shiloni notes, this number was perhaps the greatest number of Jews to go to war since the Bar Kochba revolt."
15. Kenneth Ackerman, Trotsky in New York, 1917: A Radical on the Eve of Revolution, Counterpoint, 2016, p. 320–321.
16. Ibid.
17. Cyprian Blamires, World fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 1, ABC-CLIO, 2006, p. 231.
18. Michael Cardinal Faulhaber, Judaism, Christianity and Germany, The Macmillan Company, 1934, p. 5.
19. The following is an excerpt from a message from William Taft to Woodrow Wilson: “The Jews of the United States are greatly disturbed over reliable reports coming to them of abuses of their co-religionists in Poland, Romania, and in the new Slav States…” Stephen Wise, Challenging Years: An Autobiography of Stephen Wise, Putnam’s Sons, 1949, p. 179.
20. Stephen Wise, Challenging Years: An Autobiography of Stephen Wise, Putnam’s Sons, 1949, , 79
21. Id. at 56 – 81, 81, 115
22. http://odiousness.com/Articles/firsta.html should be required reading for any constitutional law student, and a lot of professors, too.
23. Dennise Mulvihill, Irving v. Penguin: Historians on Trial and the Determination of Truth Under English Libel Law, Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, Volume XI, Book 1, Article 6, p. 230 - 231.
24. That would be in America. Apparently, in Britain, the fact that evidence is hearsay goes to weight rather than admiisibility, and thus is even easier to get admitted into evidence than in America. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_English_law#cite_note-10
25. See http://odiousness.com/Articles/Torah.html , which should be enough to prove the point without more.
26. The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, Commentary to Gen 6:5-8, 22: The account of the flood "go[es] back to an ancient Mesopotamian story of a great flood, preserved in the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic. The latter account, in some respects remarkably similar to the biblical account, is in others very different from it.", at p. 10
27. See Saul's use of the witch at Endor to summon the ghost of Samuel from Sheol (1 Samuel 28:3-25), David's assignment of Uriah to a battle knowing that Uriah would be killed to prevent David's intercourse with Bathsheba from being discovered(2 Samuel 11), Solomon’s “knowledge” of 1000 women (1 Kings 11:3).
28. See Lot offering up his daughters to be gang raped (Genesis 19:1-11), Abe offering up Isaac as a sacrifice (Genesis 22:1-19), Job regarding his children as fungible (Job 1:19; Job 42:12-14, Solomon's non-punishment of woman who "overlaid" her baby, then tried to claim another womans' child as her own, and finally consented to that infant being cut in half (1 Kings 3:15-28)
29. See especially Genesis 38:9 and 1 Kings 18:40
30. See Genesis 11:1-9.