Codoh Founder's Page

BOOKS & PLAYS

Shadow

Chapter Twenty Two

Break His Bones:

The Private Life of A Holocaust Revisionist

Chapter Twenty Two

 

Before I submit a new ad to student papers at colleges and universities I run the text past a few individuals for review. When I passed the current ad around for peer review, as it might be called, I found that my challenge to debate the authenticity of the Anne Frank “diary” was considered a bad idea. They wanted the diary removed from the challenge.

The argument was that the diary has nothing to do with gassing chambers or an extermination program, so it was off subject. Furthermore, any remarks I make about Anne’s writings would give the reader the disquieting feeling that I am attacking a young Jewish girl who was a victim of Nazi brutality, which she was. I would be adding insult to injury.

I understood that it is not politic to challenge the authenticity of the “diary” in the ad, but then the ad itself was not politic. Nothing I do or could do as a revisionist is, or can be, politic to those who want to see revisionist theory suppressed, so I decided there would be no benefit in ducking the issue. The ad ran in some eighty student newspapers at colleges and universities around the country, including the challenge to debate the authenticity of the Anne Frank diary.

The so-called Diary of a Young Girl, even if it is in fact a literary work only based on a diary, does symbolize what really happened to European Jews during the Hitlerian regime. Of course, that’s exactly why the Holocaust Industry does not want the Anne Frank diary manuscripts “debated” on national television. There are no Jews shoved into gas chambers in what Anne wrote. No Jews murdered in gas vans. No human skin lampshades made from the hides of flayed Jews. No Jewish internees using melted Jewish fat to burn the corpses of their families and friends. No German SS lashing Jewish girls with horse whips. No hand soap rendered from vats filled with the body parts of murdered Jews. No Jewish babies thrown alive into burning ditches or having their brains bashed out against walls by “ordinary” Germans. That’s exactly why the government of the Netherlands, which “controls” the Anne Frank manuscripts, has made it illegal to question them from a revisionist perspective.

In short, Anne’s writings do not give us a picture of ordinary Germans acting out in uniquely monstrous ways. She addresses her experience of the Jewish holocaust story in a very different way than how the story is forwarded so unrelentingly, and so profitably, by the Holocaust Industry. What she does write about is the tragic story of an ordinary Jewish family, including two young girls, innocent of all wrongdoing, forcibly removed from its home and in the end transported to a German internment camp where the girls sicken and are left to die. Which does represent, after all, roughly what the Jewish catastrophe really amounted to. In my view, that’s enough catastrophe for anyone. It should be enough as well for those who are stirred by even the deepest urges toward Germanophobia. It should be enough for even the greediest. It should be enough for the Holocaust Industry, but it isn’t.

Germans did not murder Anne and her sister. The girls were collateral damage, as the term has it. The German State, under the administration of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazis), decided to remove by force all Jews from all the lands under its administration and ship them to other lands. There would be detours in the plan, stops and starts, forced labor and so on, but in the end, once the Nazi regime was victorious, its Jews would be removed to foreign lands governed by administrations less enlightened than the Nazi one. Things just didn’t work out for the Nazi administration. When the regime began to implode, it was unable to take care of its own, much less its Jews and all the other prisoners and many of them became collateral damage of failed political and military policies.

To understand the difference between collateral damage and intentional killing you have only to ask yourself—

how many German girls became collateral damage of the Bi-partisan policies of the Roosevelt administration? Does it matter? In a hundred towns and cities across Germany, tens of thousands of German girls and German babies, innocent of all wrongdoing, were massacred during the implementation of Bi-partisan Democratic and Republican policies in collaboration with their allies. It didn’t really matter about the German girls. Never has.

Not one American bombardier wanted to intentionally kill any specific German girl. The German girls killed and maimed by American high explosive, who were burned alive by American airmen in deliberately set fire storms, or crushed in collapsing buildings, were “collateral damage” of US policies, innocent of all wrongdoing, just as Anne was. See how it works? US policy to deliberately kill the girls followed logically from the policies of the Bi-partisan Democratic and Republican administration as it went about its perceived duty to deliberately destroy every city in Germany and intentionally kill their inhabitants.

From the perspective of the Roosevelt and Truman administrations the German girls died for the “greater good” of Western civilization. Of course, that was the reason the Frank girls died—from the perspective of the Hitlerian administration. When we reflect on the slaughter of young girls en masse, it’s always a good idea to reflect on it from the perspective of the administration under which you are living at the time. It doesn’t matter that a Hitler or a Roosevelt runs the administration, by National Socialists or Democrats and Republicans. They are all going to tell you that they are wasting the girls in the name of the highest ideals of the State.

What does matter considerably is that those who convince you that they have good reasons to off the girls do, in fact, win the war. Because if those who are killing the girls in your name lose the war it’s going to be a real bother for you. And for your children and your children’s children, because today it is once again as it was in the days of old. The son is responsible for the deeds of the father, and each is held to be the keeper of his brother. There is no escape, because nowadays when you lose a war, you lose it forever. One German girl (for Anne was a German) who died will be remembered forever, for remembering her is immensely profitable to the Industry that has dedicated itself to remembering. The tens of thousands of other German girls who died will remain anonymous forever because remembering them won’t bring in the bucks. Fortunes of war, of propaganda, and heartlessness.

Journalists and professors have allowed themselves to be convinced that there are good reasons to kill the girls just as there are bad reasons to kill them. Motive is everything. And now that we have the Holocaust Industry people metastasizing throughout our culture, we have professional guides to inform us who it is who have good motives to intentionally kill little girls and who it is who have bad ones kill them. Those who are judged, by those among us who are above judgment, to have had good motives for killing the girls are judged innocent of all wrongdoing. Those who are judged (by those who hold themselves above judgment) to have killed the girls out of bad motives, are condemned to be condemned generation following generation.

Because the Germans were to be judged at Nuremberg as having exhibited a unique monstrosity during the war, of a completely different order and magnitude than what the US and its allies had exhibited, it was necessary to show that someone had suffered a unique victimization. Without the unique suffering of the Jews, how would the unique monstrosity of the Germans be demonstrated? Oddly, the one document which does not forward a theory of unique German monstrosity has become the one most favored by the Holocaust Industry people, the one they exploit most often as they forward their demands for more money, which buys more influence, which means more money which means more influence which, and so on.

The Bi-partisan Truman administration, with its allies, institutionalized the Jewish holocaust story at Nuremberg. The professorial class did not oppose this corrupt (if not criminal) behavior, but joined with the State in forwarding it, just as it had not opposed the wartime propaganda of the administration—if it’s working don’t fix it and to hell with the ideals of your profession. So the Jewish holocaust story was just lying around, waiting to be picked up. Some twenty years after the end of the war the fledgling Holocaust Industry came to understand that there was no movement in the academic community to “revise” what it had helped create. So the Industry people picked up the ball and began to run with it with an energy, a passion, and a genius that overwhelmed the professorial class. The professors did what they always do as a class when the chips are down. They became silent, and they went along.

The question of when intellectual freedom should be allowed on a university campus and when it should not is handled by the professors much like they handle the question of when it is right and when it isn’t to intentionally kill young girls. Under the Nazi administration the professors as a class agreed to agree that Jews were a subversive racial minority which should not be allowed to argue openly against the racial policies of the State. That is, the professors serving the Nazi regime argued that intellectual freedom is an ideal meant for some but not for all, depending on the administration under which you labor.

That’s the way it works under American “democratic” administrations. When revisionists attempt to get access to a free press on university campuses to argue that, in fact, the Holocaust Industry line on the Jewish holocaust story is wrong about the “gas chambers,” and the “six million” (for starters), and that we want to debate the issue, the American professoriat agrees to agree that revisionists represent a “racialist” minority which is unjustly attacking Jews as a people and attempting to subvert the ideals of a “multicultural” society. The ideal of intellectual freedom in America, then, is an ideal for some, but hardly for all.

In short, the professorial class is what it is. It doesn’t matter that they lecture under a Nazi administration or a Democratic one. Students must be warned about this. Because when the chips are down this class of men and women will always follow the State and betray the student. It’s not something to complain about, that’s just what they do. They’re like junkyard dogs. Once you get to know one personally, it can be lovable. But they are trained to do what they do and if you want to jump the fence in your intellectual life you need to have sense enough to know what to expect from the professorial class.

The two most widely read authors associated with World War Two and the Jewish holocaust controversy are Adolf Hitler and Anne Frank—Adolf with My Struggle (Mein Kampf) and Anne with her “diary.” Both manuscripts were written while their authors were under attack by the German State, Adolf in prison and later Anne sequestered in a “safe house” in Amsterdam. Both authors were ambitious and self-centered. While Anne was still a very young girl, Adolf, with an immense energy and they say will, whatever that is, took control of the State that had once imprisoned him for having said what he thought. Adolf, building a state apparat on the ideals that are universal among tyrants, began to imprison an entire people, and before he was finished he had imprisoned Anne along with her family.

Anne didn’t know what hit her. How could she have? She had gone along with her life as best she could, being shunted about here and there, observing the behavior of her family and neighbors, thinking about boys and maybe girls, working on her manuscripts, until finally the Germans took her away from her family and interned her in a prison camp where they allowed her to sicken and die.

Soon Adolf was overwhelmed by the same immense forces that had overwhelmed Anne, which he had helped set in motion but Anne had not, which is why we allow that he got at least a token of what he deserved while we are certain she did not. Of course Adolf didn’t know what hit him either, though he thought he did. He thought the Anne Franks of the world had finally gotten to him. If only he had been able to imprison them all, and all those who sympathized with them, and all who sympathized with those who sympathized with those who sympathized with them, things would have turned out differently.

As world-famous writers, Adolf Hitler and Anne Frank are joined at the hip in a grotesque expression of 20th-century Western culture. Though they each worked on writing their own life’s story, they were rather different kinds of writers, if I can mention the obvious. Adolf addressed his own subjective life as middle-class, middle Europeans did in his generation. He kept it under cover as a matter of principle. Those who live by principle in any age can seldom afford to have it get about how they really feel about things. Too often they are aware, though they will choose not to reflect on it, that during their daily round they experience thoughts and feelings that, if revealed, would undercut their public image of high principle. Today, those who still believe about Adolf what he believed about himself are not, typically, enthusiastic about revealing their own subjective lives. They are committed to instituting great programs for others, have grand principles to maintain, and are too serious to take seriously the web of feelings that spawn their ideals.

Anne on the other hand was to be a modern woman and a modern writer. She would reveal her subjective life openly, as directly as she could, to her father’s dismay, which I can understand. How many fathers want to know what their daughters really think of them, or of their father’s wives? Anne was willing to find out who she was. She had no great plans for others—of course she was very young and maybe she would have dreamed some up as she got older—

but one has the sense that she would have spent her life as a writer trying to find out who she was and thus helping others find out who they are. She was a natural as a writer for what has been described as our therapeutic culture, and I think she would have had a successful career.

Adolf became famous as a writer through his successful use of others for his own benefit. Anne became famous when others found a way, in turn, to use her successfully for their benefit. Anne was a better writer, as a writer, than Adolf was, and it’s not difficult to see that my interests as a writer resemble hers, not his. I can read Anne, while it’s been impossible for me to read Adolf. As I put the period to that sentence, thought recalls the lady Buddhist who lives in Sri Lanka—she has a Jewish name—who writes of “going nowhere, doing nothing.” It’s a concept for a way of life I find particularly intriguing, and troubling. I can only imagine the contempt, and the terror, Adolf would have had for it. When I ask thought how it made the connection between Adolf Hitler and the Buddhist lady in Sri Lanka, thought is unable to respond.

Thought never makes such connections clear to us. We can’t observe where thought comes from because we don’t know it’s there until it’s there. Thought cannot demonstrate that it travels alone, either. Does it ever make a move that is not in tandem with desire? When Adolf ordered the Jews to be rounded up and interned in camps, when, in effect, he ordered that Jewish culture in Eastern and Central Europe be destroyed, did his decision originate as pure thought without desire? Do we want to joke around about this? When Roosevelt ordered what was, in effect, the intentional mass killing of German civilians through aerial bombardment, did the order originate in his heart or his head—

or did it have one root in each place? Can we argue that a principled man can conclude that he must slaughter the innocent for the deeds of the guilty while being empty of feeling but full of thought?

Adolf’s book sold successfully as he became a widely known Nazi politico, and once the Nazis had won everything it became a best seller. My Struggle enhanced, or perhaps I should say decorated, the coffee tables of hundreds of thousands of German living rooms. There was no peer review of his writing in the German press or academy because that would have required a cultural context in which intellectual freedom was seen as a good rather than a danger. Anne’s book too was rather successful early on, but as the anti-Nazis won everything, including cultural dominion over all those they perceived as their enemies, it became a phenomenon.

Anne’s writing didn’t go through peer review either. Early on it would have been viewed as poor taste to criticize it. Now it has become an act of hatred toward Jews to write about it in any way not approved by the cultural elites, and particularly those who make up the Holocaust Industry. Any writer who does so has no thought for career or making a living. In some Western countries the writer faces jail if he writes critically about the “diary.” That’s how it is in Germany—of course. In Germany they didn’t understand the free press thing under Hitler, and they don’t understand it now. The Austrians and French followed the lead of the Germans, naturally. Now the Dutch have made it illegal—beyond the law—to dispute the authenticity of Anne’s “diary.” Why do they believe they really must?

Today, then, Anne’s book is used as a tool to suppress intellectual freedom, just as Adolf’s book was used as such a tool during the Third Reich. It’s not quite the same thing of course. While Adolf wanted his writing to be used that way, there is no evidence that Anne would have wanted the same for hers. But then, who cares what Anne would have wanted?

End

 

 

 

Would you like to own the hard copy edition of Break His Bones?

This is the moment.

I’ll send it to you FREE (FREE!).

Perfect binding.  320 pages.   Pay postage only — $4

Get it here: NineBandedBooks

Share
Shadow
Shadow