The Ongoing Restructuring of the Greater Middle East

Likewise, thank you Wardropper for your reply and always interesting posts.

Are human beings good, or are they evil? Sometimes, when studying history, it is hard to find evidence of the former and quite easy to find evidence of the latter.
In virtually every area of the globe, human beings have been inflicting unspeakable pain and sorrow on one another. We need look no further than what the British Empire did to their ”subjects,’ And the Boers.
I agree with you, and we have to be mindful of the survivors of such ‘holocausts’ and common decency has to be preserved when talking about terrible tragedies like this. And the most sickening tragedy is that it is always children are always the innocent victims in any conflict. Look at the most recent atrocities in the Middle East. 1.5 million children wilfully starved to death in Iraq because of even more illegal sanctions which the evil Zionist Madeline Albright said was a price worth paying to get the oil.
The most dangerous thing about the ‘holocaust/hoax’ is that WE are not allowed to research it for ourselves and WE are not allowed to discuss it. WHY?
The TRUTH just has to be exposed for us to discuss and move forward, without having the yoke of guilt that has been forced upon us thanks to the holohoax.
We are INUNDATED with Holocaust Museum information, the majority of which has been proved to be fabricated… there is a lot at stake here for this multi billion dollar industry.
How many people even know that there were special camps for children, with a school, hospital and recreation facilities? Now I ask you to think…. if the Germans were intent on annihilating all the Jews, then why would so many children have survived????
>>In a previously little-known compound for children located in Lodz, Poland, a supervisor walked into a sleeping area, to check on (and remove if necessary) a boy who had developed a bacterial infection combined with an infestation of vermin so bad that part of his flesh was rotted away before he died.
Pulling up his blanket with a stick, much of his skin, both dried out and pus-ridden, came off on the blanket itself. <>
The monetary benefits of Holocaust dogmas are also substantial. Finkelstein’s case against Holo-cash extortion, the core of his book, is detailed and devastating. No one who has read ”The Holocaust Industry” could fail to find unintended humour in Abraham Foxman’s recent claim that Jewish organizations regard the collection of Holocaust reparations as a “sacred mission.”
Some highlights:
Holocaust profiteers wildly exaggerated the value of dormant accounts in Swiss banks, the subject of a massive Jewish campaign of national vilification directed against Switzerland, including the fraudulent claim that the banks robbed Jews of as much as $20 billion. Of the $1.25 billion eventually paid by the Swiss to the World Jewish Congress (WJC), at most only $200 million were genuinely owing, and contradicting the repeated claims of Jewish organizations, the independent Volcker Committee found no evidence that Swiss banks mishandled dormant Jewish accounts.
Holocaust profiteers, in this case the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, falsely charged, in order to assist the extortion racket, that the Swiss interned Jewish refugees in “slave labour camps” during the war. The historical record is clear: They didn’t.

Holocaust profiteers, the WJC and the World Jewish Restitution Organization, have formally agreed to exclude Israeli Banks from their extortion campaign, even though they also hold dormant Holocaust-era accounts. Finkelstein comments: “The writ of these Jewish organizations thus runs to Switzerland but not to the Jewish state.” Further: “The most sensational charge levelled against the Swiss banks was that they required death certificates from the heirs of Nazi holocaust victims…. Israeli banks have also demanded such documentation. One searches in vain, however, for denunciations of the ‘perfidious Israelis.’”
Holocaust profiteers launched their recent campaign for compensation in the name of “needy survivors,” will be seen by no-one individual because most of the money that they have thus far extorted is destined for the coffers of Jewish organizations and will be spent to fund more Holocaust education and Holocaust memorials and Holocaust studies, like much of the more than $61 billion in reparations ‘already paid by Germany’ prior to the current round of extortion. Tellingly, “survivors” themselves, familiar with the institutional greed of their self-appointed spokesmen, prefer to be paid directly by the German government.
Holocaust profiteer Edgar Bronfman, head of the WJC, “movingly testified before the House Banking Committee that the Swiss should not ‘be allowed to make a profit from the ashes of the Holocaust.’ On the other hand, Bronfman recently acknowledged that the WJC treasury has amassed no less than ‘roughly $7 billion’ in compensation monies.”
Holocaust profiteers have regularly inflated the number of Jewish “slave labourers” in order to extort additional money from European corporations. And since each increase in the number of Jewish “slave laborers” alive today logically requires a corresponding decrease in the number of Jews who died in German concentration camps, the Holocaust industry is practicing its own mercenary version of “Holocaust denial.” If Jewish claims for compensation are correct, then the Holy Six Million figure must be false. Finkelstein quotes his mother, who was herself interned at Majdanek: “If everyone who claims to be a survivor actually is one, who did Hitler kill?”
Holocaust profiteers falsely claimed that former “slave labourers” never received compensation from Germany, although they were “covered under the original agreements with Germany compensating concentration-camp inmates” and have received payments amounting to the equivalent of $1 billion in contemporary currency. “Still, 50 years later the Holocaust industry was demanding money for ‘needy Holocaust victims’ …who had been living in poverty because Germans allegedly never compensated them.”
Holocaust profiteer Elie Wiesel demands a minimum lecture fee of $25,000, as well as a chauffeured limousine.
Finkelstein concludes: “The current campaign of the Holocaust industry to extort money from Europe in the name of ‘needy Holocaust victims’ has shrunk the moral stature of their martyrdom, to that of a Monte Carlo casino.”
https://www.counter-currents.com/2011/07/remembering-the-holocaust-norman-finkelsteins-the-holocaust-industry/

Seriously Peter M or are you being ironic?
”A drawing of the building for Auschwitz’s ”main gate” was also found in the documents that Bild said were ”believed” to have been discovered when a Berlin flat was cleaned out.

The same phenomena as the Anne Frank Diaries that suddenly appeared in 1946? Now were they found in Holland, or did Otto have them with him all the time? For his daughter would have been housed in a completely different place to him and I doubt the Germans guarding her would have been magnanimous enough to give them to Otto.?
Most news tending to cast doubt on Jewish stories about gas chambers and the like from the World War II era has either been blacked out altogether, or downplayed and given very unsympathetic treatment. Or like Amazon, ‘persuaded’ to ban the sale of all investigative information. I wonder why?
The present article, though accompanied by copious apologies and held back for six months after it became news, would not have been printed at all a year or two ago.
Beyond this, the exposure of the Anne Frank forgery is important because of the sheer magnitude of the fraud and the key role it has played in ”underpinning the entire Jewish scenario of the war”.
What is known as a fact is that one Otto Frank, a Jewish merchant, formerly of Frankfurt, who had been arrested in the Netherlands and interned in the Auschwitz concentration camp during the war (but was released???), began visiting publishers in 1946 with what he claimed was a diary ‘written by his young daughter during the time the Frank family was hiding from the German police in occupied Holland. The girl later perished at Auschwitz, Frank said.
The diary, filled with touching adolescent reveries and homely little anecdotes, was exactly what the Jewish “Holocaust” propagandists were looking for: a highly effective piece of ammunition to generate a maudlin, emotion-laden sympathy for the poor, persecuted Jews — as typified by Anne Frank — and generate hatred against the wicked Germans, who had killed her and six million other Jews.
Otto Frank cashed in on the diary in a big way. Not only did he find a publisher, but he found people hot to buy stage and film rights as well. Shortly after its appearance in book form, the diary had been translated into a score of languages and printed in millions of copies, from all of which Frank received royalties. The English version alone, under the title Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl, has sold more than 4,000,000 copies to date. A television dramatization based on the diary was aired in this country last month, accompanied by the usual ballyhoo.
Almost from the beginning there were charges that the diary was a hoax. Some of these charges were based on the gross inconsistencies between various translations and editions of the diary in book form; it was clear that the text had been heavily edited to help it sell well in different markets. Other charges were based on internal inconsistencies and credulity-straining elements in the diary itself.
And then there was the matter of the script for the film version of the diary: Otto Frank was sued by a New York scriptwriter, Meyer Levin, who claimed that Frank had taken large portions of a script he, Levin, had written and had not paid Levin for his work. The court ordered Frank to pay Levin $50,000. One can easily understand why some observers began to wonder how much, if any, of the content of the various Anne Frank books, films, and plays in circulation was actually written by a little Jewish girl named Anne Frank.

Otto Frank, father of Anne, displays what he says is his daughter’s diary, written in 1942–1944.. while hiding from the Gestapo. Recent scientific tests have proved the alleged diary could not have been written before 1951. Frank made MILLIONS from his forgery before his death .
In Germany, however, it was not wise to speculate about such matters publicly. The line laid down by the government and the media is that Anne Frank is gospel, and anyone who suggests otherwise leaves himself open to criminal charges (“defaming the victims of Nazi persecution”) as well as to civil suits. Otto Frank himself made a regular habit of hauling Anne Frank detractors into German courts, which invariably decided in his favour — until recently, that is.
When Hamburg pensioner Ernst Roemer, 76, began spreading the accusation that Otto Frank had himself written what he was passing off as his dead daughter’s diary, Frank sued him. As usual, the court upheld the authenticity of the diary. Handwriting experts testified that the entire diary, including loose notes and insertions, had been written by the same hand, and that hand was Anne Frank’s.
Roemer appealed the court’s decision against him, and more handwriting experts were called in. Their conclusion was the same: EVERYTHING IN THE DIARY WAS IN THE SAME HANDWRITING; there was no forgery.
Roemer appealed again, and this time the court asked for the technical services of the Federal Criminal Office (Bundeskriminalamt, similar to our FBI), which carried out a careful analysis of the original manuscript of the diary with microscope and ultraviolet illumination in order to confirm its authenticity — in particular, to determine when it was written.
The report of the technical experts was given to the court in April of this year, and it contained a bombshell: large portions of the alleged “diary” were written in BALLPOINT PEN INK — WHICH WAS NOT MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO 1951!
Were it not for the previous testimony of the handwriting experts that the entire diary, including the portions written with ballpoint pen, is in the same hand, the father might have claimed that he only “edited” his daughter’s work, “clarifying” passages here and there. But the evidence was quite unambiguous.
For example, the testimony of Hamburg graphologist Minna Bekker in an earlier trial was: “The handwriting of the diary in the three bound volumes — including all notes and additions on the glued-in pages as well as the 338 pages of loose material — including all corrections and insertions is identical . . .”
Otto should have been more careful in his choice of writing instruments. It is now quite clear that he finished hoking up the “original” of the diary after he had found a publisher for what, in 1946, was nothing more than some rough notes and an idea in his head which seemed to have prospects for making him a lot of money with little effort. First a typescript for the publisher, and then, as sales of the book began to mount, a completed handwritten “original” to show to doubters.
Just after the report of the Federal Criminal Office was given to the court, Otto Frank ”conveniently” died — before he could be asked a number of very interesting questions.
Meanwhile, the worldwide Jewish Propaganda Apparatus was able to continue its promotion of the Anne Frank myth as if nothing had happened
(And why not Why would they possibly give up this lucrative revenue).
https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/anne-frank-hoax-exposed/