info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Review of “Unmasking Anne Frank, Her Famous diary Exposed as a Literary Fraud” by Ikuo Suzuki
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Peeler
Oct 31, 2022, 4:48:01 PM10/31/22
to
I am going to assume that most readers of The Occidental Observer are
familiar with the official story of Anne Frank, the young Jewish girl
(aged 13–15) who kept a diary while hiding in a house from Jew-hunting
“Nazis” in the Netherlands during World War II. In searching the TOO
site for “Anne Frank,” I found no hits, but the Anne Frank story is
almost as prevalent and persistent as the holocaust story itself, and
surely TOO readers know the basics.
Publisher Clemens & Blair has just released a new book focused on the
fraudulence of The Diary of Anne Frank. A number of other works
examining the fraudulent Anne Frank diary have been published over the
course of many years, most famously “Is the diary of Anne Frank
Genuine?,” an article in English in 1982 by Robert Faurisson. But this
new book surpasses the old ones in many ways.
Author of the current work, Ikuo Suzuki, a Japanese researcher,
reviews a number of these earlier analyses of the diary in his new
book, as does editor Thomas Dalton in his Foreword. As assistant
editor, I do the same in my Introduction. (Disclaimer: I have a
partial financial interest in this book.)
From there, Mr. Suzuki explores new analyses of the diary, including
an illuminating graphic depiction of the many changes among the many
various publications of the diary over the span of decades. So
numerous and detailed are the diary’s entries over 26 months that
logical inconsistencies and physical and logistical impossibilities
inevitably occur; Suzuki identifies many new ones. He calls some of
this “Anne magic,” and indeed only a magical explanation can reconcile
some of the diary’s many internal flaws and self-contradictions.
Suzuki’s book is arranged into five main chapters, each having four to
nine sections. As an example of inconsistency among various published
versions of the diary, Chapter 1 is titled “Absurdity on the Surface,”
and one section is titled “The Translation of ‘Cat’ Into ‘Tarantula’.”
This Chapter displays pictures and drawings of the “Annex” in which
Anne Frank supposedly hid out with seven other Jews, along with
examinations of physical and architectural impossibilities.
Suzuki goes on to explore “Absurdities Lurking in the Depths” in
Chapter 2, closing with the section “Was Everything a Figment?.” Here
we see pictures of diary pages themselves, and careful comparisons
among the bewildering number of different versions of the diary
published at different times in different languages. Here we find
Suzuki’s unique graphic display of the many changes among the
versions. For example, Anne Frank is said to have edited her own
diaries at a later point in her time in the “hideout.” Edited is not
the proper term when we see that one early entry in her Diary as
presented in the English publish version is actually a combination of
two entries more than a month apart from the original diaries.
Chapter 3, “Annie Ample: A Soft-Core Porn Romantic Life?,” examines
the core drama at the heart of the diary: the love (or lust) affair
Anne supposedly had with a Jewish boy from another family also
confined in the “hideout.” One of the great revelations that Suzuki
presents is just how grotesque and sexually perverse the diary truly
is, raising doubts on its own whether a young girl could even think
such thoughts, much less write them down.
I’ll say here that, in my Postscript, I present the content of five
missing pages of the diary that supposedly were found in 1998, and
then two more “uncovered” in 2018. The five pages contain a scathing
denunciation of Anne’s mother Edith and an oblique critique of her
father Otto, but the two “uncovered” pages contain “perhaps the
filthiest pornographic smut of the entire diary.” (I will spare
readers the details here, though the book will not.)
Chapter 4 explores Anne’s writing career (or lack of it), the
“infamous bookshelf door,” and the story of the beginning and end of
the “hideout” (which is the chapter title). More pictures of documents
and infrastructure assist the inquiry. This chapter engages in a
staple of Diary doubters—handwriting analysis, and clarifies some
former confusion. A letter Anne Frank supposedly sent in 1940—before
the “hideout”—to a pen pal in the US was found, and when its
handwriting is compared to the handwriting of the Diary, even an
amateur analyst can see the two are different. It also debunks the
absurd story—or stories—of how the diaries were finally found after
the “hideout” inhabitants were hauled away by the Gestapo.
Chapter 5, “The Diary Unmasked,” explores the core issue of The Diary
of Anne Frank, one that all revisionists have addressed: who really
wrote the diary? Many speculate that Anne’s father Otto Frank was the
actual author all along, but Suzuki excludes Otto as lacking the
character, ability and motivation to forge the diary. He says: “there
was at least one person in Otto’s vicinity who definitely possessed
those qualities.” Suzuki’s in-depth profile and examination of this
one person—Jewish playwright and journalist Meyer Levin—I found
compelling. For instance, Levin’s relationship with Otto Frank
included Frank appointing Levin his copyright agent in 1952. Levin’s
history involved him working in the “Office of War Information” in the
US, producing propaganda movies. Thus Levin had the presence and
ability to invent the Diary as on-going war propaganda.
Mr. Suzuki closes with a touching Afterword he calls “Annelies Next to
You,” in which the focus of our outrage is inverted from the evil
“Nazis” to those who would fabricate lies in Anne’s name. This is a
virtue of this book; Suzuki never blames Anne for the fraud, but
rather points the finger at other Jews. “Not a single word in (the
diary) contains her truth. It is merely a prison for Annelies’ soul,
covered by a thick wall of falsehood in the name of a legend.” Our
compassion should be for the real Annelies (her full name) Frank who
has been so brutally used and misrepresented to promote a Jewish
victim/”Nazi” perpetrator agenda.
The book closes with my Postscript, where, as stated, the five
“missing” and two “uncovered” pages bring us up to date on diary
developments. Unfortunately, Revisionists can also generate myths to
their discredit, and one of these is the “ball-point pen” story.
Hopefully I put to rest the claim that the diary is a fraud merely
because it was written in ball-point pen, which was not invented until
1950. (Only two attached notes were written in pen, but nothing in the
diary text itself.) The Postscript is framed as “Re-Rebutting the Anne
Frank House,” which is the lavishly funded and well-organized
foundation administering the “hideout” building itself as a museum,
curating the diaries themselves (though not all are displayed), and
issuing the on-going education about the iconic Jewish victim of
“Nazi” tyranny, Anne Frank. I believe that just about the only point
on which the Anne Frank House is correct regarding the diary is its
position on the ball point pen issue. Everything else is tendentious
and misleading propaganda, or outright deception.
In the words of main author Suzuki: “All other textual information,
even the testimonies of friends and relations, is too biased and too
fraudulent to be believed.” As he carefully demonstrates, there is so
little truth to the diary itself that one can hardly accept any of it
as valid.
This is one of those books that in parts of a couple sections presents
such exhaustive detail as to make reading tedious, while at the same
time my fascination with the revelations drew me onward. Suzuki could
not completely resist the temptation to depart from a strict scholarly
tone and lapse into humor—but neither could Dalton or I. I suppose
this has to be accepted in such revisionist material, as we see all
over certain “free speech” social media platforms. The lapses are rare
and brief however, and the depth and scope of scholarship prevail. If
I have any final critique of Unmasking Anne Frank, it is that it
treated the perpetrators of the hoax too lightly, failing to express
the appropriate loathing and contempt and even criminal accusations
they deserve. Suzuki’s compassion is for Annelies, who was so cruelly
used by these criminal fraudsters, but he expresses not enough outrage
at those who exploited her posterity. We are all victims of the fraud
as well.
Unmasking Anne Frank by Ikuo Suzuki, including the excellent Foreword
by editor Thomas Dalton and Introduction and Postscript by myself,
achieves the difficult task of summarizing and updating previous diary
revision, while presenting new crucial insights. The end effect is to
drive a dagger of certainty into the bleeding heart of Diary pathos.
Suzuki’s detailed biographical analysis of the person he concludes
actually wrote the diary—Meyer Levin—is the climax of a book filled
with stunning insights. This book has much to consider for those new
to Diary doubt, and much more to ponder for those already familiar
with Anne Frank revisionism. Unmasking Anne Frank is, without doubt,
the best such revisionist text ever produced; it is not only a great
contribution to diary revision, it may be a culmination.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2022/08/27/review-of-unmasking-anne-frank-her-famous-diary-exposed-as-a-literary-fraud-by-ikuo-suzuki/
familiar with the official story of Anne Frank, the young Jewish girl
(aged 13–15) who kept a diary while hiding in a house from Jew-hunting
“Nazis” in the Netherlands during World War II. In searching the TOO
site for “Anne Frank,” I found no hits, but the Anne Frank story is
almost as prevalent and persistent as the holocaust story itself, and
surely TOO readers know the basics.
Publisher Clemens & Blair has just released a new book focused on the
fraudulence of The Diary of Anne Frank. A number of other works
examining the fraudulent Anne Frank diary have been published over the
course of many years, most famously “Is the diary of Anne Frank
Genuine?,” an article in English in 1982 by Robert Faurisson. But this
new book surpasses the old ones in many ways.
Author of the current work, Ikuo Suzuki, a Japanese researcher,
reviews a number of these earlier analyses of the diary in his new
book, as does editor Thomas Dalton in his Foreword. As assistant
editor, I do the same in my Introduction. (Disclaimer: I have a
partial financial interest in this book.)
From there, Mr. Suzuki explores new analyses of the diary, including
an illuminating graphic depiction of the many changes among the many
various publications of the diary over the span of decades. So
numerous and detailed are the diary’s entries over 26 months that
logical inconsistencies and physical and logistical impossibilities
inevitably occur; Suzuki identifies many new ones. He calls some of
this “Anne magic,” and indeed only a magical explanation can reconcile
some of the diary’s many internal flaws and self-contradictions.
Suzuki’s book is arranged into five main chapters, each having four to
nine sections. As an example of inconsistency among various published
versions of the diary, Chapter 1 is titled “Absurdity on the Surface,”
and one section is titled “The Translation of ‘Cat’ Into ‘Tarantula’.”
This Chapter displays pictures and drawings of the “Annex” in which
Anne Frank supposedly hid out with seven other Jews, along with
examinations of physical and architectural impossibilities.
Suzuki goes on to explore “Absurdities Lurking in the Depths” in
Chapter 2, closing with the section “Was Everything a Figment?.” Here
we see pictures of diary pages themselves, and careful comparisons
among the bewildering number of different versions of the diary
published at different times in different languages. Here we find
Suzuki’s unique graphic display of the many changes among the
versions. For example, Anne Frank is said to have edited her own
diaries at a later point in her time in the “hideout.” Edited is not
the proper term when we see that one early entry in her Diary as
presented in the English publish version is actually a combination of
two entries more than a month apart from the original diaries.
Chapter 3, “Annie Ample: A Soft-Core Porn Romantic Life?,” examines
the core drama at the heart of the diary: the love (or lust) affair
Anne supposedly had with a Jewish boy from another family also
confined in the “hideout.” One of the great revelations that Suzuki
presents is just how grotesque and sexually perverse the diary truly
is, raising doubts on its own whether a young girl could even think
such thoughts, much less write them down.
I’ll say here that, in my Postscript, I present the content of five
missing pages of the diary that supposedly were found in 1998, and
then two more “uncovered” in 2018. The five pages contain a scathing
denunciation of Anne’s mother Edith and an oblique critique of her
father Otto, but the two “uncovered” pages contain “perhaps the
filthiest pornographic smut of the entire diary.” (I will spare
readers the details here, though the book will not.)
Chapter 4 explores Anne’s writing career (or lack of it), the
“infamous bookshelf door,” and the story of the beginning and end of
the “hideout” (which is the chapter title). More pictures of documents
and infrastructure assist the inquiry. This chapter engages in a
staple of Diary doubters—handwriting analysis, and clarifies some
former confusion. A letter Anne Frank supposedly sent in 1940—before
the “hideout”—to a pen pal in the US was found, and when its
handwriting is compared to the handwriting of the Diary, even an
amateur analyst can see the two are different. It also debunks the
absurd story—or stories—of how the diaries were finally found after
the “hideout” inhabitants were hauled away by the Gestapo.
Chapter 5, “The Diary Unmasked,” explores the core issue of The Diary
of Anne Frank, one that all revisionists have addressed: who really
wrote the diary? Many speculate that Anne’s father Otto Frank was the
actual author all along, but Suzuki excludes Otto as lacking the
character, ability and motivation to forge the diary. He says: “there
was at least one person in Otto’s vicinity who definitely possessed
those qualities.” Suzuki’s in-depth profile and examination of this
one person—Jewish playwright and journalist Meyer Levin—I found
compelling. For instance, Levin’s relationship with Otto Frank
included Frank appointing Levin his copyright agent in 1952. Levin’s
history involved him working in the “Office of War Information” in the
US, producing propaganda movies. Thus Levin had the presence and
ability to invent the Diary as on-going war propaganda.
Mr. Suzuki closes with a touching Afterword he calls “Annelies Next to
You,” in which the focus of our outrage is inverted from the evil
“Nazis” to those who would fabricate lies in Anne’s name. This is a
virtue of this book; Suzuki never blames Anne for the fraud, but
rather points the finger at other Jews. “Not a single word in (the
diary) contains her truth. It is merely a prison for Annelies’ soul,
covered by a thick wall of falsehood in the name of a legend.” Our
compassion should be for the real Annelies (her full name) Frank who
has been so brutally used and misrepresented to promote a Jewish
victim/”Nazi” perpetrator agenda.
The book closes with my Postscript, where, as stated, the five
“missing” and two “uncovered” pages bring us up to date on diary
developments. Unfortunately, Revisionists can also generate myths to
their discredit, and one of these is the “ball-point pen” story.
Hopefully I put to rest the claim that the diary is a fraud merely
because it was written in ball-point pen, which was not invented until
1950. (Only two attached notes were written in pen, but nothing in the
diary text itself.) The Postscript is framed as “Re-Rebutting the Anne
Frank House,” which is the lavishly funded and well-organized
foundation administering the “hideout” building itself as a museum,
curating the diaries themselves (though not all are displayed), and
issuing the on-going education about the iconic Jewish victim of
“Nazi” tyranny, Anne Frank. I believe that just about the only point
on which the Anne Frank House is correct regarding the diary is its
position on the ball point pen issue. Everything else is tendentious
and misleading propaganda, or outright deception.
In the words of main author Suzuki: “All other textual information,
even the testimonies of friends and relations, is too biased and too
fraudulent to be believed.” As he carefully demonstrates, there is so
little truth to the diary itself that one can hardly accept any of it
as valid.
This is one of those books that in parts of a couple sections presents
such exhaustive detail as to make reading tedious, while at the same
time my fascination with the revelations drew me onward. Suzuki could
not completely resist the temptation to depart from a strict scholarly
tone and lapse into humor—but neither could Dalton or I. I suppose
this has to be accepted in such revisionist material, as we see all
over certain “free speech” social media platforms. The lapses are rare
and brief however, and the depth and scope of scholarship prevail. If
I have any final critique of Unmasking Anne Frank, it is that it
treated the perpetrators of the hoax too lightly, failing to express
the appropriate loathing and contempt and even criminal accusations
they deserve. Suzuki’s compassion is for Annelies, who was so cruelly
used by these criminal fraudsters, but he expresses not enough outrage
at those who exploited her posterity. We are all victims of the fraud
as well.
Unmasking Anne Frank by Ikuo Suzuki, including the excellent Foreword
by editor Thomas Dalton and Introduction and Postscript by myself,
achieves the difficult task of summarizing and updating previous diary
revision, while presenting new crucial insights. The end effect is to
drive a dagger of certainty into the bleeding heart of Diary pathos.
Suzuki’s detailed biographical analysis of the person he concludes
actually wrote the diary—Meyer Levin—is the climax of a book filled
with stunning insights. This book has much to consider for those new
to Diary doubt, and much more to ponder for those already familiar
with Anne Frank revisionism. Unmasking Anne Frank is, without doubt,
the best such revisionist text ever produced; it is not only a great
contribution to diary revision, it may be a culmination.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2022/08/27/review-of-unmasking-anne-frank-her-famous-diary-exposed-as-a-literary-fraud-by-ikuo-suzuki/
Greg Carr
Nov 6, 2022, 9:58:59 AM11/6/22
to
https://www.jpost.com/special-content/jewish-inventions-that-have-impacted-the-world-574482
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_inventions_and_discoveries
Jonas Salk a Jew invented the polio vaccine and Einstein a Jew who fled nazi Germany did some interesting things in physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates
Nobel Prizes[note 1] have been awarded to over 900 individuals,[1] of whom at least 20% were Jews.[2] The number of Jewish people receiving Nobel prizes has been the subject of some attention.[3]
Which is more than Arabs and Germans and nazis combined.
0 new messages