Re: [ot] Elie Wiesel: Nut Job portrayed as Holy Victim.
Dennis M Reed "Califa"
it true!
-----------------
Israel, the ancient home of the Jews as determined by archeological evidence
found in Israel and from Babylonian and Egyptian sources.
Babylonian evidence:
Egyptian and Assyrian evidence:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=96946886859
Israel History
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/israel-history.htm
Israel History - No archaeological discovery has ever refuted a Biblical
reference to ancient Israel. The Old Testament is being validated by the
evidence. ... king of Babylon, as recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. ...
"�" <�@set.null> wrote in message
news:MhXJm.150233$uO.1...@en-nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com...
> He's a con-man through and through.
> The wikipedia article on this freaktoid is here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elie_Wiesel
> It presents a glowing account of this pschyopathic hater and liar.
>
>
> �
>
> Birobidjan Awaits.
>
> Birobidjan. The Jewish Homeland.
> http://www.tellingfilms.netne.net/birobidjan.htm
> ------------------------------
> http://www.codoh.com/butz/dnews/onebookonechicago.html
>
> An Atrocity Against History, and the People
>
> The Chicago Public Library's program "One Book, One Chicago" has chosen,
> for 2002, Elie Wiesel's Night, a little book that purports to be an
> account of this Jew's experiences at Auschwitz, Buchenwald and other camps
> after deportation in 1944 at age 15. The general idea is that we here in
> the Chicago area should be reading and talking about this book during
> April. This program is one year old; the selection for 2001 was Harper
> Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird. Bookstores have been stocking up.1
>
> As first published in Yiddish in Buenos Aires in 1956 the book was 245
> pages in length. It was edited considerably for the 1958 French version,
> La Nuit, which runs to 158 pages. The English translation, published in
> 1960, is close to the French and runs to about 125 pages. The Yiddish
> differs from the French most strikingly in that a lust for revenge,
> strongly expressed in the former, was removed for publication of the
> latter, which was expedited by the French Catholic writer Fran�ois
> Mauriac. Wiesel later explained that "survivors had forced themselves to
> sublimate their mandate for revenge." On this Naomi Seidman commented
> "There is something disingenuous, it seems to me, about Wiesel's
> description of the Jews as having 'sublimate[d] their mandate for
> revenge.' This sublimation, after all, was Wiesel's ticket into the
> literature of non-Jewish Europe."2
>
> I recommend reading Robert Faurisson's leaflet about Elie Wiesel. It is
> atrocious that Wiesel, and his book, are taken seriously, but it is
> inevitable that some truth come through even there. For example, Wiesel
> relates in Ch. 5 of Night that, when his foot became swollen he went to
> the camp hospital which "was not bad at all" for an operation on it.
> Shortly after the operation, while he was still in the hospital, the
> approach of the Soviets made the evacuation of the camp imminent. He had
> the option of staying in the hospital, with his father entered as a
> patient or nurse, but he chose rather that both join the evacuation, on a
> predictably difficult journey to another German concentration camp in
> Germany. He says he heard rumors that those who stayed behind would be
> killed by the Germans, so he calculated that he and his father had better
> chances if they remained with the Germans, even through an arduous journey
> on a healing foot, rather than stay to await the Soviet takeover of the
> camp. None of that borscht for him.
>
> The noteworthy points of that story are (1) there was a hospital at
> Auschwitz where ill Jews could go for treatment and (2) Wiesel feared that
> he would be killed if he did not go with the Germans. That data only make
> sense on the assumption that the Germans were not exterminating Jews.
>
> His story also passes along the claim, common among the "eye witnesses",
> that the crematoria at Auschwitz belched flames from the chimneys (Ch. 3).
> Crematoria do not operate that way, and such flames are not seen on any of
> the aerial photos3 of the camp that the Allies were taking at the time.
> His claim to have seen piles of children being burned by the Germans at
> Auschwitz (also not to be found in the aerial photos) is lifted from the
> Talmud, with the Romans replaced by the Germans.4
>
> One should wonder if Wiesel understands the distinction between fiction
> and non-fiction. A famous claim of his, first published in 1968, was in
> the context of his story of a massacre of Jews at the Babi Yar site in
> Ukraine: "Eye-witnesses say that for months after the killings the ground
> continued to spurt geysers of blood."5 John Silber, Chancellor of Boston
> University (where Wiesel is a professor), attempted to defend Wiesel by
> insisting "Nowhere did Elie Wiesel claim to see geysers of blood, only
> that he heard these reported."6 That doesn't work because the context
> clearly would have us believe the "geysers of blood" claim. Also, Wiesel
> repeated this years later, with some embellishment, again leaving no doubt
> that he intended it to be believed: "Later, I learn from a witness that,
> for month after month, the ground never stopped trembling; and that, from
> time to time, geysers of blood spurted from it."7
>
> Wiesel's wild yarns are not confined to his "Holocaust" writings. In a
> 1997 interview he claimed that in 1956 he was hit by a taxi in Times
> Square in Manhattan: "I flew an entire block . . . . I was hit at 45th
> Street and Broadway, and the ambulance picked me up at 44th. It sounds
> crazy. But I was totally messed up."8
>
> When somebody says "I have coffee coming out my ears," it is understood
> that this is hyperbole. With Wiesel, his contexts give no support to such
> an interpretation. Thus I can imagine only one defense for Wiesel: he does
> not understand the distinction between fiction and fact. He has another,
> but related, defense, which he says he gave in Tel Aviv to a Rebbe (a
> Hasidic leader), who wondered if he was "writing lies". He says he
> answered the Rebbe with "Some events do take place but are not true;
> others are - although they never occurred."9 With this he wished, for
> motivations that seem obvious, to place his accounts beyond historical
> critical scrutiny.
>
> Though Wiesel was indeed an inmate at Auschwitz, his Night is so obviously
> fiction that Daniel R. Schwarz, in his 1999 book Imagining the Holocaust,
> designated it "Holocaust fiction" whose pages "blur the line between
> fiction and fact". It is disturbing, but instructive, that Schwarz
> nevertheless believes Night a worthy book. He declares it "an eloquent
> testimony depending on human agency and ethical commitment . . . .
> Holocaust fiction - like Night - . . . . believes at least hypothetically
> in essential truths".10
>
> Schwarz is not alone in classifying Night as a novel. All of the Chicago
> Tribune stories I cited above, though admiring of the book, describe it as
> a "novel" or "autobiographical novel". Prof. Gary K. Wolfe of Roosevelt
> University describes it as a "memoir/novella (which) is not merely a
> historical document that seeks to teach us; it's also a passionate work of
> art that seeks to make us more human."11 Bear in mind that there is no
> stipulation, in the book itself, that it is a novel, or that some of the
> events depicted did not happen.
>
> All of this reminds me of the "Binjamin Wilkomirski" case, which I have
> written about elsewhere.12 This person is a Swiss gentile, Bruno
> D�ssekker, who never came near a German concentration camp in wartime, but
> published an acclaimed purported memoir of the ordeals of a certain Jew
> Binjamin Wilkomirski, at Majdanek, Auschwitz, and other camps. When he was
> exposed as a fraud, many important supporters remained loyal to him, on
> the grounds, roughly speaking, that his account sounded powerful. I am
> thinking of Yisrael Gutman and Lea Balint of Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, the
> American Orthopsychiatric Association, and Dori Lamb of Yale's
> Holocaust-testimony video archive.
>
> Superficially it will appear that Wiesel's case is not comparable, since
> he is a Jew who was interned at Auschwitz. However Schwarz and the others
> who concede Night is a novel force us see great similarity, since they
> defend Wiesel's book the way Wilkomirski was defended even by supposed
> experts on "survivors", and even after Wilkomirski was exposed as a
> complete phony. They note what any reasonable person will see, namely, a
> considerable part of Wiesel's story is fiction, but they believe the art
> of Wiesel's presentation is worthy. The obstinate defenders of Wilkomirski
> will find their view resonated here. Others will condemn fantasy when it
> attempts to disguise itself, or is accepted, as history or biography. To
> put it another way, an account that is offered or accepted as truthful
> must be judged on that basis before purely artistic merits are considered.
> We must condemn works that "blur the line between fiction and fact"; let
> them be one or the other.
>
> If those who concede Night is a novel, but praise it, are to be classed
> with Gutman et. al., then should the generality of other commentators on
> Wiesel be put in the class of Daniel Ganzfried and others who exposed and
> condemned the impostor Wilkomirski? Not at all. Wiesel enjoys great
> adulation and the only nay sayers are we revisionists. There are many who
> use the fig leaf of a fact, that Wiesel is not a complete fraud, to evade
> acknowledging that he is a fraud for practical purposes. For example Alan
> Rosen of Bar-Ilan University is very upset with Schwarz for saying Night
> is a novel because "Wiesel characterizes Night as a memoir; his readers
> know Night as a memoir".13
>
> Anybody with the responsibility and training to read critically easily
> sees, if he is willing, that Wiesel's account is is not a memoir but
> fiction, as ought to be presumed in any case from Wiesel's explicit denial
> of the usual correspondence between "occurred" and "true". However Rosen
> is right that "readers know Night as a memoir". That is, in the popular
> culture Wiesel is peddled as truth, and apparently accepted as such by
> many. Thus as a result of the Chicago Public Library's selection of Night,
> thousands of ordinary people in the Chicago area will infer that the
> account given there is true, although serious critics who work on both
> sides of the "Holocaust" question easily see that it is not. That is the
> atrocity against history, and the people, that the Chicago Public Library
> has committed by promoting Wiesel's Night.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Postscript of 8 June 2002: For a different point of view on Elie Wiesel,
> consider that of Kenneth Bialkin, President of the American Jewish
> Historical Society. At a 9 May 2002 dinner of the Society, honoring
> Wiesel, he said "Elie is the diamond in the tiara of the Jewish
> community."14
>
> References
>
> 1. Chicago Tribune, 8,9,11 February, 5 April, 2002.
> 2. Naomi Seidman, "Elie Wiesel and the Scandal of Jewish Rage," Jewish
> Social Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, Fall 1996, pp. 1-5,15.
> 3. The link is provided as a source of photos only. I do not
> necessarily endorse the analysis or conclusions given there.
> 4. I discussed the Talmudic features of the Holocaust yarns in The Hoax
> of the Twentieth Century, pp. 246f. Wiesel has been immersed in Talmud, as
> discussed in the NY Times, 10 Nov. 1989, in a review of a PBS - TV
> interview of Wiesel, and as discussed in the Chicago Tribune, 31 December
> 1995, book review section, pp. 1f. The Talmud stuff about the 64 million
> Jewish children holocausted by the Romans is reproduced by Yigael Yadin,
> Bar-Kokhba, Random House, NY, 1971, p. 257.
> 5. Elie Wiesel, The Jews of Silence, Vallentine, Mitchell, London,
> 1968, p. 37.
> 6. Silber's comments are laughable when he tries to defend Wiesel's
> statement that Jews "should set apart a zone of hate -- healthy, virile
> hate -- for what the German personifies and for what persists in the
> German." Silber would have us believe that the verbs are not in the
> present tense. The statement is in Wiesel's book Legends of Our Time,
> Holt, Rinehart and Winston, NY, 1968, at the conclusion of the essay
> "Appointment With Hate". The gist of the essay is that Jews do not hate
> Germans but should.
> 7. Elie Wiesel, Paroles d'�tranger, Editions du Seuil, Paris, 1982, p.
> 86.
> 8. NY Times, 5 March 1997, sec. C, p. 1.
> 9. Introduction to Legends of Our Time, p. viii.
> 10. Daniel R. Schwarz, Imagining the Holocaust, St. Martin's, NY, 1999,
> pp. 53-56.
> 11. Chicago Tribune, 17 Feb. 2002, sec. 2, pp. 1,3.
> 12. Journal of Historical Review, vol. 19, no. 6, Nov./Dec. 2000, pp.
> 12-25.
> 13. Rosen's review of Schwarz (which he spells "Schwartz") is in
> Holocaust and Genocide Studies, vol. 15, no. 3, Winter 2001, pp. 520-523.
> 14. Forward, (Jewish weekly), 31 May 2002, p. 16.
>
> 6 April 2002. Postscript added 8 June 2002.
>
>
>
> Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, Bradley R. Smith, Director -
> Post Office Box 439016, San Ysidro, CA 92143