Hoax Happens

The Holocaust: Lessons & Perspectives

Each of the following links leads to further reports on the related issue

For additional information see also the section "C.I.A." in the Main Navigation

Political Assassinations


The Moon Landing

The Holocaust

The Holocaust, Palestine and Israel: Revision, Denial and Myth

The Holocaust Is Undeniable - Why Question The Holocaust?


Europe & Zionism before WWII


Nazi Germany & Zionism During WWII


After The War...


From Genocide To THE HOLOCAUST


Reparations & Compensations


Questions & Doubts

Lessons & Perspectives

The Open Society And Its Enemies - The Story Of Auschwitz

VIDEO The Wave

The Last Taboo

Re-Arranging the 20th Century: Allegro, non Troppo

Mandating Indigenous Holocaust Education

see also

Israel & The Middle East Conflict

Related Links

Documents Of The Holocaust

Jewish History

Google: Holocaust History

MarWen Media.com


Bringing Democracy To The World

Related Links

The Organization of American Historians - OAH

The World Factbook

Very Pissed Off Combat Veterans -- And Blueprints For Change By John McCarthy

Reality Or Hoax? History In Controversy - The Holocaust: Lessons & Perspectives -

Home | John McCarthy | CIA | Treason in Wartime | 1941-2001 | Science vs Religion | Reality Or Hoax? | Israel & ME | 9/11 - 3/11 - 7/7 -- Cui Bono? | New World Order | Lies vs Facts | War on Terror - Terrorism of War | Patriotism vs Humanity | War Crimes - Committed 'In All Our Names' | Enviroment & Lobbyism | FOIA & Whistleblowers vs Cover-Ups | Recruiting Lies vs Military Reality | From Democracy to Dictatorship | Empire Agenda | Media Coverage | International (War)Crimes Tribunals | Take Action! - Take Back America! | Summaries & Previews | Index Part 1 | Index Part 2 | Multimedia Index
Important note: Images and videos posted on this website are very graphic. Viewers discretion is strongly advised!

The Open Society and its Enemies -
The Story of Auschwitz

by Gilad Atzmon

Sixty years after its liberation, Auschwitz has become an international political event. It is not a matter of coincidence, and I feel that we should spare a moment asking ourselves: why now, why Auschwitz?

Living in a scientific technological environment, it is natural for most commentators to judge any given narrative reflecting on its positive contents, i.e. the story it tells, the facts it picks up on and the message it conveys. When it comes to Auschwitz, it is always the terrifying numbers, Mengele and the selection, the clinical mass murder, the Gas Chambers, the trains, the famous Arbeit Macht Frei above the front gate, the death march just before liberation, etc. And yet, I would argue that it is at least as enlightening to expose that which the Auschwitz narrative is there to conceal. Every historical tale can operate as a smoke screen; narratives are very effective in encouraging collective blindness. Auschwitz and the Holocaust narrative, in this sense, are no different.

As it seems, without engaging ourselves with the many questions concerning the validity of the widely accepted Holocaust narrative, we can safely ask what the Auschwitz Narrative is there to serve. Who benefits from the Auschwitz account? We are entitled to ask why the official Holocaust narrative is so widely promoted by different and opposing political institutions. Is it a result of highly sophisticated and orchestrated Jewish propaganda? I am not so sure anymore.

On the surface, the answer to these questions seems simple, the devastating image of the Auschwitz and the Nazi Judeocide is a self-sufficient argument against nationalism, racism and totalitarianism. Within the state of acceptance of the Holocaust tale, any of these three is regarded as an enemy of humanity. But then, one must admit that it is neither nationalism, racism nor totalitarianism that killed so many innocent human beings in Auschwitz. Ideologies do not kill, it is always people who kill, regardless of their ideologies.

But it goes a bit further, with the image of Auschwitz in the back of our minds, our Western liberal thinkers and politicians are enthusiastically depicting a naive vision of our social reality, presenting us with a simplistic binary division. On the one hand, we find the open society, on the other, we find its many enemies. Following this world view, there is only one open society, but many different enemies; and yet, it is important to mention that the open society is an empty signifier, in practice it means very little, if not to say nothing. As it seems, in order to become a member of the exclusive open club, one simply must join the right wars. President Bush, a man who is far from being eloquent when verbal capabilities are concerned, was unexpectedly articulate in presenting that very post-Auschwitz Western axiom: you are either with us or you are against us.

Being with us, namely being amongst the open, means that one believes that it was us who liberated Europe, it was us who liberated Auschwitz, it was us who saved the Jews, and it is us who still are bringing the notion of democracy to the most remote corners of this boiling planet. Being with us means that you accept the fact that we are the voice of the free world. It means as well that you know that you are unconditionally free. It is basically a new form of tautology: you are free even if you aren’t. Being with us means that you believe that the world is rapidly progressing towards a greater divide, namely a cultural clash, in which you are a good, innocent Judeo-Christian enlightened being, and the rest are dark fundamental evils or at least potentially evil. Being with us means that you are not supposed to ask too many questions about our own immoral conduct. For instance, you don’t ask why Bomber Harris & Co. murdered 850,000 German civilians, targeting German cities rather than Nazi industrial infrastructures.

Being a free being in an open society means that you should never raise questions about Hiroshima. In case you are stupid enough to raise that issue, you had better be clever enough to accept the official lie: it was the best way to bring such a horrible war to an end. Being a free being you won’t raise questions regarding the morality behind leaving 2,000,000 fatalities in Vietnam. Being with us means that you don’t have to ask all those silly annoying questions because Auschwitz is the ultimate in evil. Auschwitz is the bedrock of human wickedness and don’t you ever forget that it was us who put it to an end.

Let us put the truth in place, Auschwitz was beyond any doubt a horrible place, but unfortunately it isn’t the ultimate evil, for the reason that evil has neither limit nor scale. But, to be historically accurate, it wasn’t even us who liberated Auschwitz. As it appears, it was Stalin, the other evil. It was Stalin who gave so many Jewish, POWs, political prisoners, gypsies and inmates the chance to see daylight. But again, being a free being in an open society you really aren't required to pay attention to minor historical details.

It would seem that Auschwitz is essential within our righteous Western self image. When Iraqi oil is in demand, the American president will equate Saddam with Hitler. Next we will learn that the Iraqi people should be liberated from their ‘Auschwitz’. We already know the inevitable consequences.

Since Auschwitz is so crucial for the American policy makers, it isn’t surprising that not too far from the residency of the American president, there is a big Holocaust museum dedicated to the memory of the Jewish people and their heroic liberators. This museum is not about people or even about crimes against humanity, it is about the maintenance of the illusion of the open society. It is about the maintenance of a very specific narrative. It is all about how we are right, and they, whoever they are, are categorically wrong.

This museum is not really about Jewish suffering. I assume that there will be some basic facts that the museum won’t share with its visitors: for instance, it will not tell the passing crowd that the American government adopted a highly restrictive immigration policy that was never modified between 1933-1944, in order to block Jewish immigration. It will avoid the fact that the American government refused or obstructed German offers of negotiation to remove Jews from Nazi controlled territories. Mostly importantly, it will hide the clear fact that the US Air Force was not instructed to interrupt the Nazi killing machine. Neither railways to Auschwitz nor Auschwitz itself was ever bombed by the RAF or by the American Air Force. It seems as if a real murderous negligence was involved in American decision-making on the issue alongside the war. For instance, on 20 August 1944, one hundred twenty-seven Flying Fortresses escorted by one hundred Mustang fighters successfully dropped their bombs on a factory less than five miles from Auschwitz. Not a single plane was diverted to attack the death camp.

These stories won’t appear in the American Holocaust museum. They simply don’t fit into the heroic and righteous American self image. The history of Auschwitz is in fact a story of brutal Anglo American negligence. The acceptable Auschwitz narrative is basically a myth that is in place to support the American expansionist practice. Auschwitz is the moral pillar of the American ideology.

The Holocaust museum is there to tell Americans what may happen when everything goes wrong. As sad as it may sound, in contemporary America everything is going wrong, despite the museum. The reason is simple, when the image of evil is brewed within your cultural heritage as the discourse of the other, you may as well become blind to the fact that you yourself are already evil. Like their Israeli brothers, the Americans forgot how to look at themselves.

In the case of America, the Holocaust narrative serves the right wing expansionist philosophy. In order to prevent another Auschwitz, the Americans will send their armies to Vietnam, Korea, Iraq. They are always the liberators. Until the end of the Cold War, there were Communists to fight with, a real concrete evil; but now the evil is becoming more and more abstract. In fact, the only way to materialise the vague enemy is to equate it with Hitler.

Europe’s case is slightly different. As strange as it may sound, in Europe it is the parliamentary left that is capitalising on Auschwitz. As long as Auschwitz is there, deeply entrenched within the daily discourse, the right wing can never raise its head. The European mainstream left is totally dependent on the Holocaust narrative and the Auschwitz tale. As it seems, Auschwitz is the last barricade of the left against the possibility of right wing revival. In Europe, any sense of national aspiration, or even just a demographic concern that may sound like xenophobia is immediately addressed as an awakening of Nazism. Within this oppressive world view, people are not allowed to express any affection towards their land. Furthermore, being politically dependent on the image of the Jewish innocent victim, the European mainstream left can never fully support the Palestinian cause.

As it may seem, Auschwitz stands as a symbol of partnership between the European parliamentary left and the American expansionist right. For both, Auschwitz stands as an icon of threat against the image of open society. Within the prospect of this fatal bond, any genuine European left is destined to be pushed to the margin. Any form of genuine left inspired by red aspirations is doomed to be presented as a subversive and radical outlook. In March 1998, Robin Cook, the then British Foreign Secretary, paid a diplomatic visit to Israel. While there, Cook rightly refused to visit Yad Vashem, claiming that he was more concerned about the future rather than about the past. It wasn’t long before Cook lost his job. The refusal to bow to the Auschwitz tale cost Cook his job. It wasn’t the Jews who ousted him out of the Foreign Ministry. It was the Labour party that kicked him out, a parliamentary European left institute.

So, Auschwitz is there to maintain the myth of open society; it is there to present an illusion of liberated Western identity. As long as Auschwitz is there, in the core of our discourse, we are everything but liberated. There is life after Auschwitz and this life belongs to us. We had better do something with it. If there is something we should never do, then that is taking other people’s lives in the name of Auschwitz. And apparently, this is exactly what we are doing.


Who Needs Holocaust?

By Israel Shamir

Our good friend Gilad Atzmon proposed a new idea, that the Anglo-Americans are particularly vile, and that they need the Holocaust narrative to justify and persist with their nastiness. In Gilad’s own words, “I believe that it isn't the Jews who impose this Holocaust narrative. It is actually the Anglo-Americans who need Auschwitz, just because it allows them to kill in the name of freedom...” He stated it in his Re-Arranging the 20th Century: Allegro, non Troppo, and in his interview to Lasse Wilhelmson, Gilad says: “I am totally convinced that H isn't a Zio narrative. I put a major blame on the Anglo-Americans”. Lasse asked him: “So the post war imperialists created the H narrative to be able to use Zionism ideologically and the Jews as a scapegoat?” Gilad replied: “… Auschwitz allows the Anglo-American to kill in the name of democracy”.

Now, I beg to disagree. This narrative is Jewish, it belongs to Jews, and it has no meaning but as manifestation of Jewish supremacy, as we shall explain below, and it is not necessary to put it over on the much blamed Anglo-Saxon. By creating the “Second Villain” (the Anglo-Americans) Gilad sins against Ockham and multiplies entries beyond necessity. Though Gilad wrote his text as an exercise in dialectics, it can be utilised by less scrupulous men as a “guilt-shifting”.

Gilad: But in fact, it isn’t Jews alone who are capitalising on ‘Auschwitz the message’. It is in the shadow of that very message that Americans allow themselves to kill millions of innocent civilians in the name of democracy and freedom.

Objection! The Americans kill Iraqis and whoever else on behalf of their Jewish mind-benders and masters. Thus is it still Jewry that “capitalises on Auschwitz the message”. When the Americans killed Vietnamese and Cambodians, or the Brits killed Kikuyu and Malays, they did not ever mention the Polish village and its German-run camp. So they really do not need this message in order to kill whoever they wish.

In order to sustain his thesis, Gilad tries to prove that the Anglo-Americans did not care for Jews during the war. He says:

The British Empire was reluctant to help European Jews escape their doomed fate. It was Lord Bevin’s 1939 White Paper that stopped Jews from immigrating to Palestine when danger for their lives was immanent.

Here Gilad repeats verbatim some Zionist propaganda from Israeli high school. Not many people thought that the European Jews were “doomed” at that time. One may read the book by Shabtay Beit Zvi, http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres4/Beitzvi.pdf based on the archives of the Jewish Agency to find out that the Jewish leaders did not think so, nor in 1939, neither in 1942. In the same 1939, all Polish Jews could find refuge in the Soviet Union. Many did (like my father) and survived. Others, like Elie Wiesel, preferred to go with Germans to escape the Red Army.

Gilad reiterated: It was the RAF that repeatedly dismissed the necessity of bombing Auschwitz.

Another go of Zionist propaganda. The camp was an internment facility, attended by the Red Cross (as opposed to the US internment centre in Guantanamo). If it were bombed, the internees would die – or as a result of the bombing, or due to starvation for the supplies would not arrive. Indeed, would Gilad advise to bomb Guantanamo? This idea of “bombing Auschwitz” makes sense only if one accepts the vision of “industrial extermination factory”, and it was formed only well after the war.

Gilad: Roosevelt did very little to help European Jews during the war. The American administration didn’t change its immigration laws between 1933-45 in order to allow mass immigration of European Jews into the USA.

Another Zionist bite. Why should the US invite Jews, and not all other people who suffered under the German occupation? Again, no reason at all, for the “doomed” narrative of holocaust came into being much, much later.

Gilad exceeds himself by asserting that Jews are the victims of the Holocaust Industry.

“It isn’t only the Palestinians who happen to suffer from the politicisation and industrialisation of the Holocaust personal narrative. Once the Holocaust had become ‘the new Jewish religion’, it was the real, genuine victim who was robbed of his own intimate personal biography. The very private disastrous narrative has now become collective Jewish property. The real singular Holocaust survivor, the one who lived the horror, has been robbed of his very personal life experience".

Forgive me for laughing instead of crying: this “robbery” is the fate of a participant of every historical event, be it a war, a revolution, a battle, or even a bout of inflation. The public discourse displaces a personal narrative. Monsieur de La Palisse http://www.miscellanees.com/c/palisse.htm was alive until he died.

The Jewish discourse is integrated as a central part of Western consciousness. Furthermore, the West needs the Jewish neurosis.

The West needs the Jewish neurosis like a fish needs boots. The West managed fine without it, and it would manage fine but it was forced by the Jews to swallow this neurosis. We see there are non-Jewish elite forces that started to use the great argument of Michael Neumann: John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt for the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University said that the Jewish designs contradict the American Imperial Interests.

The two Gods, Holocaust and Democracy, are cleverly set in a complementary relationship. The message is clear: unless Democracy is in place, a Holocaust is inevitable.

This is a clear case of misunderstanding. Just recently Hamas was democratically elected to rule Palestine, and it was not approved by the US and Israel. Russia had a democratically elected Parliament in 1993, but it was not approved by the US and Israel. Belarus has a democratically elected President but he is not approved by the US and Israel. Thus, Democracy is not required: a regime should be approved by the Jews. And no regime will be approved by the Jews, unless it is controlled by the Jews. Thus we arrive to another truism: unless a country is controlled by the Jews, a Holocaust is inevitable. Or, even in simpler form: it is Yisrael, or Esau. If Yisrael can’t control Esau, Esau will kill him. This is a traditional Jewish point of view.

Though the baddies speak recently of Democracy, it does not naturally mesh with the H narrative. If you wish to decode the H message, it is rather an antidemocratic message of Strauss and Hobbes, that the majority should be ruled in and controlled by the wise and noble men. Democracy is permitted (rather than ordered) if the disobedient [to the Jews] parties are banned or marginalised, and the media and wealth are concentrated in the Jewish hands.

The H’s message is anti-native, for H is a crime the natives committed against the foreigners in their midst. As non-Jewish elites are native, they have no need for the H discourse. Indeed, similar crimes occurred in the colonial context: the Black Hole of Calcutta, the story of mistreatment of the Brits by the Indians in 1756, and the Haiti revolt of Toussaint L’Ouverture when “the Haitian slaves executed all Frenchmen they could find” http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/DIASPORA/HAITI.HTM. In both cases, they did not become central for the Western thought.

The last fault I find in Gilad’s texts is philosophical one. He writes:

“The positivist school insisted that we should become more scientific and far less philosophical. The Vienna Circle, a group of [Jewish] philosophers and scientists, aimed at eradicating any traces of metaphysics out of the body of scientific knowledge. Logical positivism wasn’t just an attack against emotional and spiritual expression, it was also a clear offensive on German philosophy. … these three outlaws: Irving, Zundel and Germar, the three rightwing historical revisionists who happen to be locked behind bars, question the validity of the personal narrative; foolishly they aim at establishing a rational, dynamic, lucid empirically grounded narrative based on forensic evidence. The three criminals are applying logical-positivistic methods. Pathetically, they follow the tradition of Carnap, Popper and the Vienna Circle. I wonder whether they realise that they happen to follow an academic tradition set by a Jewish secular Germanic school. Those ugly revisionists are aiming at truth-values, correspondence rules, empiricism.”

This is witty but all wrong. The Logical-Positivist school was a Judaic attack formation in the philosophical discourse aiming to emasculate the Christian spirit. Science was just a cover for their purely religious and metaphysical task: to de-spiritualise the West. Likewise, the revisionists have religious and metaphysical tasks, even if they use some scientific words and concepts. Jurgen Graf made it clear in his important book, but the same was stated by Mahler, Zundel and others. No, Gilad, they did not follow “an academic tradition set by a Jewish secular Germanic school” but denied it. Empiricism loaded their discourse with some least interesting footnotes, but at its best, revisionism is a purely metaphysical denial of Jew-worship.


Check for latest Site-Updates

Index of Posted Articles

or copy and paste the URL into Google Translate

Important note:

We neither promote nor condone hate speech in any way, shape or form. We have created this website to search for truthful facts that can shape unconventional conclusions and restore historical integrity. The work is therefore protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution as well as by Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this website are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or educational purposes only. This website has no affiliation whatsoever with the original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the original sources.

Copyright John McCarthy 2005 if not indicated otherwise

Ages ago, I taught my children "never to point with a naked finger towards dressed people" and I usually keep that for myself as well but for this website I have to quote:
"The Emporer Has NO Clothes On!"

Want to get in touch? You can send email at:


Disclaimer And Fair Use