I’ll be back to publishing original work here, my other Substack (National Socialism Made Simple) and commenting on X from 11th July in order to give myself a bit of a run up.

In the meantime, if any of you have specific issues/questions/subjects within the jewish question (or in regard to National Socialism) that you want me to look into please do so in the comments below.

Subscribe now

We read how:

‘Jewish participants were forced to leave a rally in Milan, Italy, on Saturday marking the defeat of Nazi Germany after facing antisemitic abuse, including chants of “Long live Hitler” and Holocaust taunts.

Demonstrators blocked marchers affiliated with the Jewish Brigade, along with members of the local Jewish community and other Jewish organizations, preventing them from advancing for nearly an hour. Police later escorted the group away for their safety.

A young Jewish participant was told, “You’re lucky you’re not a soap bar,” a reference to Nazi atrocities. Witnesses also reported chants of “All Zionists out of the rally,” along with other abuse directed at those marching.

Emanuele Fiano, a former MP for the center-left Democratic Party and the son of an Auschwitz survivor, has attended the annual April 25 rally for decades. “We were kicked out,” he said.

The Jewish Brigade, a unit of roughly 5,000 Jewish soldiers, fought with Allied forces against Nazi Germany, including in Italy. Its members helped liberate parts of the country and have long taken part in Liberation Day commemorations. In recent years, however, those marching with the Jewish Brigade have faced repeated targeting.’ (1)

In addition to this Shira Li Bartov also wrote for JTA on 27^th April 2026 how:

‘Pro-Palestinian activists, some reportedly shouting antisemitic invective, forced Jewish groups out of a procession celebrating Italy’s Liberation Day from Nazism and fascism in Milan over the weekend.

About 100 protesters on Saturday blocked a group commemorating the Jewish Brigade, a unit of 5,000 Jews from British Mandate Palestine who volunteered to fight against the Germans in Italy during World War II.

The protests led to a two-hour stalemate before police escorted the Jewish Brigade out of the march, according to the Italian newspaper la Repubblica. The event marked the 81st anniversary of the end of Italy’s Nazi occupation and fascist collaborationist regime led by Benito Mussolini.

The Jewish Brigade was marching together with left-wing Jewish groups and Iranian and Ukrainian dissidents. The demonstrators who intercepted their path chanted “Zionists out of Milan,” and said in a megaphone that Jewish Brigade members were “the ones bombing the people of Gaza” and had “no right to be at the procession.”

The Jewish groups carried the banner of the Jewish Brigade, which shows a yellow Star of David over vertical blue and white stripes. Italian outlets reported that some Iranian dissidents also carried Israeli flags.

Multiple Jewish participants said they heard shouts about “soap bars,” an allusion to the unproven rumor that the Nazis produced soap from the human remains of concentration camp victims.

Daniela Ovadia, a Jewish participant, said on Facebook that she joined the parade “behind the banner of scouts of the Jewish left, grandchildren of the camps and partisans.” She said that a protester called her daughter one of the “missing bars of soap.”

Emanuele Fiano, the son of a Holocaust survivor who leads the pro-peace organization Left for Israel, said he also heard shouts about “soap bars.” He said that he marched with groups carrying a banner that said “Left for Israel, Two Peoples, Two States.”

“Since Left for Israel has a banner with the Star of David, they felt, in the name of their own version of freedom, that these people couldn’t march,” Fiano told la Repubblica.

“Jews were an active part of the liberation of Italy, and today they were taken hostage by people who prohibited them from participating in a peaceful demonstration,” said Walker Meghnagi, the president of Milan’s Jewish community.

The National Association Partisans of Italy, founded by members of the Italian resistance against the fascist regime, claimed that Jewish attendees provoked the blockade by allowing Israeli flags.

ANPI president Gianfranco Pagliarulo said that Israeli flags were “inappropriate” at the celebration. “There was a commitment, I was told, from the Jewish community not to carry Israeli flags for obvious reasons, given the situation,” said Pagliarulo. “This didn’t happen, and this very unfortunate situation has arisen.”’ (2)

Now it is first worth mentioning that despite the claims that the ‘Jewish Brigade’ were some kind of heroes: they were hardly anything of the kind. The unit saw very little action and was only involved in two actions before the end of the war: both in Italy and in March-April 1945. Since many members of the unit were directly involved and/or participated in the extra-judicial torture and murder of German civilians and POWs as part of a secret jewish organization run within the brigade called ‘Gmul’ (lit. ‘Recompense’) with the minimum modern estimate being 1,500 victims. (3)

The second thing to note here is that the evidence for the so-called ‘anti-Semitic chants’ and ‘anti-Semitic comments’ is almost entirely hearsay with the ‘You’re lucky you’re not a soap bar’ comment and the ‘Long live Hitler’ chant falling into this category.

This means that without additional evidence – for example video documentation as has become the evidentiary standard for these kinds of claims because of the proclivity of people and groups to… well… simply make stuff up to push their political agenda/point of view, which is especially true of jews and their groups given they have a long track record of doing so – then we have to reject such claims as unevidenced claims rather than proven facts.

Jews might insist that we should ‘believe all jews’ but that is both a farcical claim as well as simply stupid as if you ‘believed all jews’. Then you’d have believed there wasn’t a deliberate and deadly famine in Gaza that had been created by the Israelis as a weapon of war against Hamas and to better enable the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from the Gaza Strip; simply because the Israeli government and its supporters in the jewish Diaspora loudly claimed this was a ‘myth’ and that the Palestinians had plenty of food ‘provided by their liberators the IDF’ contrary to a mountain of evidence showing quite the opposite to be true.

The point is that evidence is required and jews – as I am sure my readers are aware – often make these kinds of claims on next to no evidence and many of these claims then turn out to be bogus and/or actually done by jews themselves.

Thus, unless actual evidence can be supplied then the jewish members of the memorial march in honour of the Jewish Brigade were not subjected to ‘anti-Semitism’ at all, but rather simply got publicly criticised (and probably loudly booed) for trying to use the Jewish Brigade march as an opportunity to push pro-Israel propaganda and talking points.

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://combatantisemitism.org/cam-news/jews-marchers-forced-to-leave-milan-wwii-liberation-rally-amid-long-live-hitler-chants/

(2) https://www.jta.org/2026/04/27/global/pro-palestinian-activists-force-milan-jewish-group-out-of-parade-marking-end-of-wwii-in-italy

(3) For example, see: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/jewish-brigade-shot-nazi-prisoners-in-revenge-1191139.html; https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/jewish-vengeance-wwii

Roth stated that:

‘It is noteworthy that, like Montaigne and L’Hopital, Bodin had one Jewish parent.’ (2)

The problem with Roth’s claim however is simple enough.

There’s no actual evidence for that I can find – I presume it was originally just a speculative history theory that Roth has dishonestly presented as a ‘proven fact’ the same way that Bodin’s alleged jewishness seems to have been – since - as the University of St. Andrew’s explains - we know quite a lot about L’Hopital ancestry which was decidedly aristocratic.

They write that:

‘To give Guillaume de l’Hôpital’s full name would take a whole paragraph so we give just a much shortened version: Guillaume-François-Antoine Marquis de l’Hôpital, Marquis de Sainte-Mesme, Comte d’Entremont and Seigneur d’Ouques-la-Chaise.

The family had been a prominent one in France over many generations going back to around the 12th century. There are various spellings of the name Hôpital, the earlier versions being l’Hopital or Lhopital with l’Hôpital being a relatively modern form of the name. His father was Anne-Alexandre de l’Hôpital, a Lieutenant-general in the King’s Army; he was Comte de Sainte-Mesme and Duc d’Orléans. Guillaume’s mother was Elisabeth Gobelin, the daughter of Claude Gobelin who was an Intendant in the King’s Army and a Councillor of State. Sturdy writes:

The prominent association which Anne-Alexandre de l’Hôpital had with the house of Orléans and the trust which Gaston d’Orléans placed in him conferred a brilliant lustre on the reputation of the l’Hôpitals; it also afforded them a protection second only to that of the king himself.’ (3)

Rice University’s ‘Galileo Project’ entry for L’Hopital agrees stating that his ancestry was as follows:

‘Anne de l’Hopital, lieutenant general of the armies of the king and squire of Gaston, Duke of Orleans. Guillaume’s mother, Elisabeth, was the daughter of Claude Gobelin, administrator (intendant) of the armies of the king and a counsellor of state. The l’Hopitals were an old aristocratic family with distinguished service to the king since 1488.’ (4)

Simply put despite Roth’s claim there is no evidence that I can find to suggest that L’Hopital had any jewish ancestry whatsoever.

Subscribe now

References

(1) On this please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/was-jean-bodin-jewish

(2) Leon Roth, 1928, ‘Jewish Thought in the Modern World’, p. 444 in Edwyn Bevan, Charles Singer (Eds.),1928, ‘The Legacy of Israel’, 1^st Edition, Clarendon Press: Oxford

(3) https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/De_LHopital/

(4) https://galileo.library.rice.edu/Catalog/NewFiles/lhopital.html

For context Ereda was a satellite camp of the main Vaivara labour camp operated by the Third Reich and Ereda was primarily involved with gold mining and the construction of military defences in and around Estonia and the encirclement of Leningrad. The bulk of its inmates were jews from Latvia, Lithuanian as well as from former Czechoslovakia. (1)

It is worth noting as an aside that this is a somewhat of an incongruity for orthodox ‘Holocaust’ scholarship because this fact perfectly fits German policy as outlined by Wannsee Protocol in January 1942, but it doesn’t fit the orthodox ‘Holocaust’ thesis well at all. Since the Vaivara labour camp system was established in the autumn of 1942 (2) and thus shows that large numbers of jews were being transported away from the ‘death camps’ of Operation Reinhard and into labour camps in the east just as Heydrich outlined they were to be.

No gas chambers required.

Anyway, back to the so-called ‘anti-Semitic hate crime’ at the Ereda labour camp memorial.

Estonian Public Broadcasting relates the details as follows:

‘A criminal investigation has been opened over the vandalism of a Holocaust memorial site in Ida-Viru County.

Estonia’s Jewish community alerted the authorities Friday, after a headstone at the Ereda Holocaust memorial near Jõhvi, which was installed there in 2005, was found smashed, along with damage to two nearby pillars.

“Today, vandalism was discovered at the memorial to the victims of the Holocaust in Ereda, Ida-Virumaa. Unknown individuals have damaged the memorial, which is dedicated to preserving the memory of Holocaust victims,” the Estonian Jewish Community (EJC) wrote on its social media account.

The EJC called the acts “deeply concerning,” adding they “offend both the memory of the victims and society as a whole.”

The PPA told ERR they were notified shortly before 1 p.m. Friday about the vandalism. Officers went to document the scene and to gather evidence.

Criminal proceedings have been launched to determine the exact circumstances of the incident.

The EJC noted it “thanks the police for their prompt response and hopes for a swift clarification of the circumstances and the restoration of the memorial.”

The memorial is situated at the site of the Ereda prison camp, one of the first camps to be established in the Vaivara concentration camp network, set up during the Nazi occupation of Estonia. A memorial was unveiled at the site in 1967, while the damaged memorial stone was installed in 2005.’ (3)

Naturally jews began shrieking about this alleged ‘anti-Semitic hate crime’ with the ‘Jerusalem Post’ (4) and the ‘European Jewish Congress’ (5) publishing typically credulous (as well as histrionic) claims that this was an ‘anti-Semitic hate crime’ based on… well… no evidence whatsoever.

The problem is that when we look at the photos of the alleged incident and the memorial: (6)

As well as this one:

And this one:

And this:

We can see that the memorial is frankly in a poor state of repair with significant wear and tear damage to the original 1967 Soviet memorial (7) that looks like it has absolutely nothing to do with the so-called ‘anti-Semitic vandals’, while the damage to the newer 2005 memorial - funded by jewish groups inside and outside Estonia - (8) is also not overtly ‘anti-Semitic’ in any way, shape or form and has no ‘anti-Semitic graffiti’ or any other indicators of an ‘anti-Semitic’ motive.

Instead given that the Ereda labour camp memorial is in an isolated location, which we can see below if we look at where it is on Google Maps:

We can reasonably point out that it is likely something like alcohol/drug-related criminality taking place in an isolated but accessible location off a main road into Johvi and not an ‘anti-Semitic hate crime’.

It is being spun as an ‘anti-Semitic hate crime’ by jewish groups/organizations in order to promote the idea that there is an anti-Semite under every bed when in fact, while the recognition of the reality of the jewish question is growing rapidly; there aren’t lots of random ‘anti-Semites’ going around destroying ‘Holocaust’ memorials but rather ordinary vandalism of ‘Holocaust’ memorials (as well as other jewish buildings/monuments) is being presented as ‘anti-Semitism’ in order to push for the states of the world – especially of Europe and North America – to formally outlaw criticism of the jews and/or Israel.

So, no; the damage to the Ereda labour camp in Estonia was almost certainly not an ‘anti-Semitic hate crime’.

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://cja.huji.ac.il/browser.php?mode=alone&id=373566

(2) Idem.

(3) https://news.err.ee/1609999873/police-investigating-vandalism-to-ida-viru-county-holocaust-memorial

(4) https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-893818

(5) https://eurojewcong.org/news/communities-news/estonia/holocaust-memorial-damaged-by-vandalism-in-ida-viru-county/

(6) https://news.err.ee/1609999873/police-investigating-vandalism-to-ida-viru-county-holocaust-memorial

(7) https://cja.huji.ac.il/browser.php?mode=alone&id=373566

(8) Idem.

Outside of the limelight ‘Kars4Kids’ however has long been regarded as one of the most deliberately deceptive and outright fraudulent charities that there is. This is especially so because despite a quite systematic attempt to imply otherwise ‘Kars4Kids’ is actually a jewish religious charity.

This has been thrust into the spotlight in recent weeks after a judge in California ruled that ‘Kars4Kids’ was engaging in false and misleading advertising in the state and so immediately outlawed all further advertising by the charity.

The reason for this is summarised rather well by ‘The Guardian’ as follows:

‘The infamously catchy tune – “1-877-Kars4Kids/K-A-R-S Kars for Kids/1-877-Kars4Kids/Donate your car today” – has been on airwaves for nearly two decades. During that time, Kars4Kids has faced litigation and state government investigations for its misleading fundraising practices.

Bruce Puterbaugh brought suit against the charity in 2021, after he parted ways with a nonfunctional 2001 Volvo XC valued at $250.

He donated to the charity, believing it worked in service of “underprivileged kids from all over the US”, according to documents from the Orange county superior court.

Puterbaugh would later learn Kars4Kids is used to fund Oorah, a Jewish non-profit. That organization runs summer camps in the tri-state area and organizes gap year trips to Israel for 17- and 18-year-olds. Oorah also used $16.5m funnelled from Kars4Kids to buy a building in Israel as it expands its presence there.’ (1)

We can see that what ‘Kars4Kids’ has been doing is to sell and promote itself as a generic charity turning cars into funds which were then used to help underprivileged across the United States – this is directly implied in the advert with a children used being non-jewish and a mix of races – when in fact the money is entirely used to fund orthodox jewish children in and around New Jersey as well as to funnel money to a completely different religious orthodox jewish charity named ‘Oorah’ which then runs (free/heavily subsidized) religious jewish summer camps in the US and Israel.

No where in ‘Kars4Kids’’ advertising does it reference any such connection for obvious reasons, which is why a similar case occurred in Minnesota in 2017 where the attorney general investigated and found that less than one percent of donations to ‘Kars4Kids’ in Minnesota went to help children in Minnesota. (2)

The charity scam targeting non-jews that ‘Kars4Kids’ is engaged in is well explained by ‘Charity Watch’ as follows (and which I quote at length):

‘Nowhere in the Kars4Kids ads (in most states) does the charity inform potential donors of how their car donations will help kids. A visit to the “kars4kids.org/howtohelp” website displayed at the end of the TV commercial is similarly vague as to how kids will benefit, simply encouraging people to “take action” for the “1.2 million kids [that] leave school without a diploma each year” by volunteering to “mentor, fundraise, advocate or run an awareness campaign.” (This “take action” message likely is a strategic one designed for Kars4Kids to take advantage of an accounting rule that allows charities to report a portion of advertising costs as program instead of fundraising expenses.) When going to the website address shown in the TV commercial, only by scrolling all the way down to the fine print that includes Kars4Kids’ copyright notation at the bottom of the page will donors eventually learn what activities their donated cars support: “Your donation will benefit Kars4Kids, a national organization dedicated to addressing the educational, material, emotional and spiritual needs of Jewish children and their families [emphasis added].”

In CharityWatch’s view, the Kars4Kids ads deceive potential donors by failing to inform them that donated cars will benefit a Jewish organization and kids of Jewish faith. Furthermore, the youth programs Kars4Kids supports promote an Orthodox Jewish lifestyle, which CharityWatch believes compounds the deception perpetrated by the Kars4Kids ads. Oorah, Kars4Kids’ “sister charity,” is the organization that actually runs the “educational, developmental, and recreational programs for Jewish youth and their families” described in Kars4Kids’ mission statement. Kars4Kids and Oorah share a principal officer, Eliyohu Mintz, the son of their founder, Rabbi Chaim Mintz, and both organizations are located at the same address in the heavily-Orthodox Jewish town of Lakewood, New Jersey. Oorah, which means “awaken” in Hebrew, “specializes in outreach to non-observant Jews, operating summer camps and other programs that seek to make non-Orthodox Jews more observant,” according to an October 2016 article in the Forward, which covers news for a Jewish-American audience.

While supporting Orthodox Jewish organizations is a worthy endeavor for those donors who are intending to do so, many donors of other faiths may not be pleased to learn that the car they donated to Kars4Kids may have funded religious teachings that are in conflict with their own faith or personal beliefs. Orthodox Jews, who follow the traditional interpretations of Jewish law with strict observance of Jewish ritual, make up only about 10% of Jewish adults in the U.S., according to a 2013 survey published by the Pew Research Center in August 2015. Moreover, many secular Jews are not enthusiastic about funding Orthodox organizations, as suggested by an official of The Jewish Agency for Israel, a nonprofit that inspires Jews throughout the world to connect with their People, heritage, and homeland. The official said: “The Jewish mainstream, certainly in North America but in other places as well, is not Orthodox and isn’t interested in organizations that proselytize to non-religious Jews,” according to an August 2016 article in Haaretz, Israel’s daily newspaper.

If the truth about Kars4Kids’ mission as a Jewish organization and its funding of Oorah’s Orthodox Jewish outreach is an unwelcome surprise to some donors, perhaps they will be comforted to learn that since 2010, Kars4Kids also has conducted various charity events and giveaways for the benefit of needy children, regardless of their religious affiliation. These events have included several backpack giveaways and coat distributions in parts of New Jersey and New York. Kars4Kids also released a free smartphone app in mid-2014 designed as a safety alert for parents to remind them not to leave young children in the backseat of hot cars. Nonetheless, Kars4Kids’ grants to Oorah still represented more than 91% of its program spending over the two-year period from 2014-2015, thereby making Jewish children the primary “kids” that benefit from its car donation proceeds – a fact that many Kars4Kids donors likely never end up knowing.

Donors should also be aware that even though the Kars4Kids ads are broadcast across the country, the vast majority of the children that benefit from the cars donated to Kars4Kids live in the Northeast, particularly in New York and New Jersey. According to a 2017 compliance review conducted by the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Minnesota (OAG), over 99.9% of the $90 million raised by Kars4Kids from 2012-2014 was spent on charitable programs under the direction or control of Kars4Kids’ “sister charity,” Oorah. Oorah’s two largest programs are its summer camps and tuition assistance programs for Jewish children, according to the OAG, with the camps being operated at two New York locations. The OAG reports that of the total number of children that benefitted from Oorah’s summer camps and tuition assistance programs from 2012-2014, 67% and 65%, respectively, were from either New York or New Jersey. The OAG compliance review also provides a broader geographical breakdown by region (Northeast, South, Midwest and West) showing that 79% of the children that benefitted from Oorah’s summer camps and tuition assistance programs lived in the Northeast; less than 10% lived in the Midwest and West combined. Furthermore, CharityWatch noted that even the backpack giveaway and coat distribution events run by Kars4Kids for the benefit of needy children, regardless of their religion, seem to be highly concentrated in the Northeast, based on the information available on the Kars4Kids website.

CharityWatch thinks it is highly unlikely that Kars4Kids would be enjoying the same level of success as it has, averaging over $30 million a year in donated car proceeds from 2010-2015, if its ads disclosed that donated cars are used to fund Orthodox outreach programs for children of Jewish faith. Kars4Kids reportedly has insisted that it is not trying to mislead anyone with its ads, claiming that a 60-second spot does not allow for time to inform people of its mission and that Kars4Kids does not hide that it is a Jewish organization if donors visit its website.’ (3)

The last paragraph is – in my opinion – the core of the scam in that ‘Kars4Kids’ is deliberately presenting itself as a non-jewish charity that helps and supports needy children in general not as a religious jewish charity that only supports orthodox jewish kids as a way to attract the maximum amount of donations since – as ‘Charity Watch’ pithily points out – far less people – and remember there are vastly more non-jews than jews in the United States – who will give a car as a charitable donation to a charity if they think the proceeds from its sale will just go to benefit a bunch of jewish kids in the north-east United States and Israel.

‘Charity Watch’ continues by outlining how ‘Kars4Kids’ is in effect a form of Ponzi scheme:

‘The religious affiliation of the kids that benefit from the cars donated to Kars4Kids may not matter to some donors, but what should concern all donors is what portion of the car donation proceeds get spent on bona fide charitable programs versus fundraising and other overhead costs. Unlike many car donation charities, Kars4Kids claims to do all of the car donation processing “in house” rather than through middlemen. Processing the donated cars in-house theoretically cuts down on the related overhead costs, leaving a larger portion of the car proceeds to be used on programs. Kars4Kids’ total fundraising costs, however, are still relatively high. For example, about one-half of the average resale value of each donated car in 2015 went to pay for Kars4Kids’ fundraising and advertising expenses that year. Therefore, although Kars4Kids may have cheaper processing costs than many other car donation charities, it still spent more on overhead than it did on programs in 2015, when just 47% of its cash budget went to programs – an unsatisfactory level by CharityWatch’s standards. Moreover, at almost 51%, the amount that Kars4Kids spent on fundraising and advertising relative to its donated car proceeds in 2015 has increased considerably since 2010 when less than 33% of donated car proceeds were used for fundraising and advertising.

Kars4Kids’ low rate of program spending is also particularly concerning given that the vast majority of Kars4Kids’ program expenses consist of grants to its “sister charity,” Oorah, which runs the “educational, developmental, and recreational programs for Jewish youth and their families” funded by Kars4Kids, per its mission. About 93% of Kars4Kids’ cash-based program spending in 2015 was in the form of a grant to Oorah in the amount of approximately $16.9 million. By comparison, Kars4Kids reported spending about $17.1 million on advertising and promotion in 2015 – about $150,000 more than its cash grant to Oorah. Furthermore, as a percentage of the funds Kars4Kids generated from donated vehicles (including boats & planes) in 2015, its grant to Oorah represented only about 46% of those total funds raised.

Additionally, as the car donation proceeds get passed along from Kars4Kids to Oorah, Oorah itself has fundraising and general administrative costs to pay for, which it does primarily with the grant money it receives from Kars4Kids. Therefore, the proceeds Kars4Kids generates from car donations get another “hair cut” when they make their way to Oorah. Fortunately, Oorah’s cash-based program spending percentage was 74% in 2015, which is above CharityWatch’s reasonableness benchmark of 60%. Even with Oorah’s very reasonable rate of program spending, though, once Oorah’s and Kars4Kids’ overhead expenses are considered in aggregate, only about 38% of Kars4Kids’ donated car proceeds were spent on bona fide programs in 2015. In other words, based on the average resale value of about $365 for a car donated to Kars4Kids in 2015, less than $139 actually went towards benefitting “kids,” who, as a reminder, are mostly Jewish youth that participate in Oorah’s Orthodox Jewish outreach programs.’ (4)

The point that ‘Charity Watch’ are making here is that less than half of the proceeds go to the actual charitable cause and instead around half of the proceeds are spent on further sales and marketing (aka advertising) to get yet more cars to sell as well as that nebulous balance sheet entry of ‘administrative costs’ (aka the easiest way to siphon off large amounts of cash from any organization). Hence my point about the resemblance to a Ponzi scheme where-in the scheme is in constant search for fresh investment – in this case cars but usually it is cash – in order to support the oversized weight of its own financial outflows – normally to pay back earlier investors and as a pay out to the fraudster – and stay solvent, because if it fails to meet those obligations it will simply collapse.

In this instance we have a charity being operated by jews who are trying to pretend said charity isn’t being run by jews to get as many new donations as possible, but then if they fail to do so then… oh well… ‘Kars4Kids’ will simply collapse and the real charity it is funding – ‘Oorah’ – will just switch to a new source of funds, which will in turn likely be a new scam.

Ergo ‘Kars4Kids’ is basically a charitable Ponzi scheme run by jews for the benefit of jews to the detriment of non-jews.

It is also worth highlighting ‘Charity Watch’s’ next point about how the jews at ‘Kars4Kids’ engage in some… shall we say… ‘creative accounting’ in order to report the minimum possible income to the IRS.

To wit:

‘The findings reported in a 2017 compliance review regarding Kars4Kids conducted by the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Minnesota (OAG) show that Kars4Kids has been misreporting its car donation proceeds and understating its fundraising costs on its annual IRS Form 990 tax filings. The IRS Form 990 instructions state that car donation receipts should be reported at the fair market value at the time of donation, without deducting for any costs or expenses. Kars4Kids, however, has been reporting its car donation receipts net of the associated vehicle processing expenses (i.e., the costs to tow, scrap and auction the donated vehicles). Furthermore, Kars4Kids does not otherwise disclose the amount of these related processing costs. By incorrectly reporting its car donation proceeds on a net instead of a gross basis, which Kars4Kids also does on its audited financial statements, Kars4Kids is giving the false impression that it is more financially efficient than it truly is. “The effect of this misreporting is significant,” according to the OAG compliance review, “[i]t makes it appear that Kars4Kids spends more of its revenue on charitable programming and less on fundraising expenses than is actually the case.”

The OAG found that Kars4Kids failed to include approximately $9.7 million of vehicle processing expenses in total from 2012-2014 on its IRS Form 990 filings. If Kars4Kids had reported this $9.7 million as part of its gross receipts, the overall share of revenue it reportedly spent on charitable programs in 2012-2014 would have decreased from 63% to 56%, according to the OAG. Additionally, since the vehicle processing expenses should be considered fundraising costs for Kars4Kids, if Kars4Kids had included the approximately $9.7 million in vehicle processing expenses in its reported fundraising costs for 2012-2014, the OAG notes that Kars4Kids’ overall fundraising and other overhead costs would have increased by more than 30%. As summarized by the OAG: “Kars4Kids’s Form 990 thus makes its vehicle donation program appear more efficient than it is in reality, presenting the donating public with a misleading financial picture of its operations.”’ (5)

Put another way: ‘Kars4Kids’ are fiddling their books in order to minimize what they report to the IRS. Presumably so as to draw less scrutiny about just how much money they are extracting from ‘Kars4Kids’ for both themselves as well as for ‘Oorah’.

Thus, it is hardly surprising that ‘Kars4Kids’ is now facing a new class action lawsuit against it (as of November 2025), which:

‘Alleges that Kars4Kids’ widely recognized advertising campaign deceives donors into believing their contributions support local children’s programs, when in reality, nearly all proceeds are funnelled to Oorah’s Orthodox Jewish outreach programs primarily serving families in New York and New Jersey. The proposed class seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, and nationwide accountability for what it describes as a long-running pattern of donor misrepresentation.’ (6)

Naturally ‘Kars4Kids’ has tried to respond to the increasing torrent of non-jewish legal and governmental scrutiny by the usual jewish tactics of splitting hairs and while this might work in a Yeshiva. It really doesn’t work in the world of PR.

Since for example we read in ‘The Guardian’ how:

‘The charity also defended its identity as a Jewish organization.

“It’s well known that we are a Jewish organization and our website makes it abundantly clear,” the statement said.

The organization further characterized the lawsuit as a financially motivated legal effort aimed at draining charitable resources.

Kars4Kids has long maintained that donors have access to information about its mission online and that its programs legitimately support children and families through religious education and mentorship efforts.’ (7)

Put another way: ‘Kars4Kids’ claims that because it is ‘mentioned on their website’ (not prominently mind you [I checked]) and it is ‘well-known to be a jewish organization’ that therefore this criticism of their methods is basically ‘anti-Semitism’.

And jews still wonder why pogroms started historically?

‘Charity Watch’ has helpfully provided this run-down of the key events in the ‘Kars4Kids’ situation as follows: (8)

So in summary then – aside from the fact that in 2018 ‘Kars4Kids’ managed to leak their entire donor database (including donor names, addresses and contact numbers) to criminals on the dark web due to their appallingly bad (aka cheap) cybersecurity – (9) ‘Kars4Kids’ funnels about $45 million per year to an exclusively charity ‘Oorah’ (10) and effectively operates a charitable Ponzi scheme run by jews for the benefit of jews to the detriment of non-jews.

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/14/kars4kids-jingle-california-false-advertising

(2) https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-attorney-general-finds-that-less-than-1-percent-of-donations-to-kars4kids-charity-goes-to/421323363

(3) https://blog.charitywatch.org/costly-and-continuous-kars4kids-ads-disguise-charity39s-real-purpose/

(4) Idem.

(5) Idem.

(6) https://blog.charitywatch.org/kars4kids-and-oorah-face-new-class-action-lawsuit-alleging-donor-deception/

(7) https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/lakewoods-kars4kids-banned-in-california-because-it-only-benefits-jewish-children/

(8) https://blog.charitywatch.org/kars4kids-and-oorah-face-new-class-action-lawsuit-alleging-donor-deception/

(9) https://securitydiscovery.com/kars4kids-data-leak/

(10) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/14/kars4kids-jingle-california-false-advertising

This is absolute cobblers as while Bloch is one of the people who contributed to the concept of nuclear magnetic resonance - for which he got his 1952 Nobel Prize for Physics along with Edward Mills Purcell and Purcell’s work was done alongside Robert Pound and Henry Torrey (who went largely uncredited) more than Bloch – (2) Bloch did not ‘invent’ MRI as a concept. Since nuclear magnetic resonance is not the same thing as an MRI but rather is the concept that allowed MRI to be created.

In truth however Bloch wasn’t the one to discover this it was another jewish physicist named Israel (‘Isidore’) Rabi in 1938 for which Rabi won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1944. (3) Bloch was awarded his Nobel Prize along with Purcell for the further development of Rabi’s concept of nuclear magnetic resonance (4) not for ‘inventing MRI’ as Winston-Macauley wrongly claims.

The generally credited inventor of MRI was the American chemist Paul Lauterbur – whose ancestors came from Luxembourg – in 1972, but it has become apparent in recent years that Lauterbur took the idea from French physicist Robert Gabillard’s 1952 doctoral thesis as well as that the Armenian-American doctor Raymond Damadian had actually worked out how to create an MRI in 1971 in a published journal article in ‘Science’ (5) as well as that the American physicist Herman Carr had reported the first successful MRI as early as the 1950s. (6)

So no jews did not invent MRI: a mix of non-jewish Americans and Europeans did!

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://aish.com/91795029/

(2) https://physicstoday.aip.org/obituaries/robert-vivian-pound

(3) https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1944/rabi/facts/

(4) https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1952/summary/

(5) Paul Dreizen, 2004, ‘The Nobel prize for MRI: a wonderful discovery and a sad controversy’, The Lancet, Vol. 363, No. 9402, p. 78 (Available here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(03)15182-3/fulltext)

(6) https://web.archive.org/web/20060630152505/http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p83a.html

So, I thought I’d briefly answer that claim here in that I started ‘Semitic Controversies’ as a blog on Blogger all the way back in 2007/2008 as a place to explain things – and controversial issues - about the jewish question without having to write up fresh explanations and post evidence continuously. I also published it online in the hope that others would – in time - start to use my work for much the same purpose that I had envisioned it: as a reference point as well as a kind of friendly fact check.

When ‘Semitic Controversies’ transferred over to Substack in 2023 after being unilaterally hard deleted with no notice with a one word reason ‘Hate’ by Blogger in 2017 – thus there was a hiatus of circa six years – I quickly began to encounter (to my surprise) that - due to Substack’s mandatory ‘offer a subscription’ policy (it is after all their funding model) – people wanted to sign up as paid subscribers even though I never asked them to do so.

After dithering about it for roughly four to five months I decided that I’d actually set up the backend to allow the money that had been paid by these early paid subscribers to process and then moved it into a separate account that I set up for the purpose. That account is what I use to anonymously donate to nationalist ‘GoFundMe’ appeals to help people out who actually need it and also pay for my ‘Premium+’ status on Twitter/X, which then allows me to spread awareness of my work.

I do not - and will never - use paid subscriptions for anything else nor am I going to start pay walling things as many other Substackers do; I do however plan to release a translated chapter of a suitable book every week to paid subscribers, which then goes to free for everyone a week after then the chapters will be agglomerated together back into their original book form and put up for free on archive.

I am not interested in using – nor will I ever – use ‘Semitic Controversies’ for money and indeed I have spent thousands – if not tens of thousands – of dollars of my own money building up a large personal library of primary and secondary source material to help me to research and write my articles here.

Anyhow I hope you enjoy ‘Semitic Controversies’ as always and suggestions for articles are always welcome.

Subscribe now

To wit:

‘General Information No. 2 (Part 2). February 16th, 1942. A TASS report from Geneva, dated February 13th (published in the Moscow papers for February 14), says that a Swede, who arrived in Geneva from Berlin late in January, related that there is much talk in Berlin about the fact that severely wounded German soldiers are being killed by gas in special gas chambers, which are provided in almost every German field-ambulance. German doctors and officers, friends of the Swede, have confirmed this fact.’ (1)

This is a classic case of black propaganda unintentionally laying the foundation for – and then creating – later ‘history’ since clearly this simply isn’t true and the fact that we know it was originally a ‘sib’ – a fake news item – planted by PWE (2) shows how rumour and myth often subsequently become accepted ‘historical fact’.

Subscribe now

References

(1) Quoted in Carlo Mattogno, 2021, ‘The Making of the Auschwitz Myth: Auschwitz in British Intercepts, Polish Underground Reports and Postwar Testimonies (1941-1947)’, 2^nd Edition, Castle Hill: Uckfield, pp. 18-19

(2) Ibid., pp. 17-19

He writes that:

‘The attack on the Orthodox Jew happened on Clapton Road, Hackney, at about midnight on Friday (May 8) following the Sabbath.

A video shared by local Jewish security group, Shomrim, shows the white car whizzing down the road, and one of the two Jews hitting the floor, having been hit, clutching what appears to be the back of his head. He then brushes himself off and puts his hat back on.

It comes as The Met has launched a major community policing operation, following the attacks on Hatzola ambulances in Golders Green in March.

A Campaign Against Antisemitism spokesperson said: “This is starting to have a 1930s feel to it. Pranking and casually attacking Jews has become somewhere between cool and a way to release fury that has nothing to do with Jews.

“Despite the murders, stabbings, arson and constant drip-drip of low-level attacks that injure and traumatise people and communicate to them that they are despised, still no national emergency has been called.

“Instead, the Government just offers up mild, reheated proposals and re-announces the same funding. When will this country start to take this epidemic seriously?”

A Met Police spokesperson said: ““Police received a report at 9.49pm on Sunday, May 10, of an assault on Upper Clapton Road, Clapton. A man in his 40s reported that an egg was thrown at him from a moving car.

“The Met takes incidents of this nature extremely seriously. The incident is being treated as an antisemitic hate crime.’ (1)

The problem with this claim is pretty obvious: we have no idea why the jew concerned was ‘targeted’ other than that he was egged on the street by the occupants of a passing car. It might well have been that the jew concerned was just an easy target and the egging had no relation whatsoever to him being a jew.

In order to make that claim we need actual evidence and we cannot accept such lazy equivocations as ‘a jew was egged therefore the motivation was anti-Semitism’ but rather we require proof – or at least some kind of indicator – that the motivation was ‘anti-Semitism’.

Since to accept the above equivocation is to accept the absurd claim that any attack on any jew at any time that occurs anywhere is ipso facto ‘anti-Semitic’, which is obviously absurd as it would render – for example – jew-on-jew crime in Israel and elsewhere as ‘anti-Semitism’.

That is why any claim of this kind of ‘anti-Semitic hate crime’ should be automatically rejected if it has no additional evidence attached to other than the jewishness of the victim.

It is simply idiotic and a way to promote the idea that ‘anti-Semitism is prevalent’ on the streets when in truth it is not particularly but by behaving the way jews are currently. They are actually creating an anti-Semitic hellstorm the like of which has been seen for hundreds of years that is building over their heads.

The question is: when is the storm going to break?

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://www.mylondon.news/news/east-london-news/jewish-man-egged-moving-car-33945339

The lady who posted this infographic who goes by the name Sarah on Twitter/X accompanied it with the following commentary:

‘And yet here is Hitler likening Christianity to Bolshevism. He also says that we shouldn’t assume that the Bible is true word for word because the Jews had written it. The Christian larpers on this platform are some of the most disingenuous people I’ve ever met in my life.’ (2)

The first problem with this is that the quotation in the infographic is misattributed to ‘BArch NS 26/53 p. 23’ (Bundesarchiv National Socialist Box/Collection 26 File 53 p. 23 to translate into plain English) but is actually from BArch NS 26/53 p. 11. This isn’t a huge problem per se although it does speak to poor referencing behaviour.

For proof of this incorrect reference this is the relevant page from BARch NS 26/53 as you can see below:

The real (and the second) problem is that the quotation doesn’t support Hitler ‘hating Christianity’ or even being remotely negative about it really nor does the passage include any reference to Bolshevism whatsoever. Although the speech does make reference to Bolshevism elsewhere, but it is not part of the immediate context of the quote nor does it have anything to do with the point Hitler is making.

The passage concerned plus the preceding paragraph and the two paragraphs afterwards is the following in simple German (my transcription) from Hitler’s speech in Munich on Friday 13^th August 1920:

‘Wir konnen diese Schicksal des Judentims verfolgen von der grauesten Urzeit heraus.

Es ist nicht notig, dass alles wahr ist Wort fur Wort, was die Bible schreibt, aber im grossen und ganzen gibt sie doch einen Extrakt zum mindesten der Auffassung der Geschichte des Judentums, wie sie sich die Juden selber machten und da sehen wir, dass der Jude ganz harmlos dieses Werk schreibt. Es erscheint ihm nicht ungehuerlich, dass er schildert, wie er durch List und Trug Rasse um Rasse durchsetzt und verseucht hat, immer hinausgeworfen wurde, aber ohne beleidigt zu sein, eine andere sich aussuchte. Wie er kupplete und schacherte, wenn es sich um seine Ideale handelte, bereit auch seine Familie zu opfern. Wir wissen, dass vor Kurzem ein Herr sich hier aufielt, Sigmund Fraenkel der Mann schrieb in den Neuesten, dass es ganz ungerecht waere, den Juden materialististischen Geist vorzuwerfen, man besehe sich nur das sonnige innige Familienleben des Juden. Dieses innige Familienleben hat ihren eigenen Erzvater Abraham nicht einen Moment gehindiert, seine eigene Frau sofort zu verkuppeln an den Pharao von Aegypten, nur damit er Geschaefte machen konnte.’ (3)

This translates into English - with my supplementary words/notes given in [ ] as is my custom – as follows:

‘We can trace jewry’s [strategy and] fate back to the most ancient times.

It is not necessary that everything the Bible says is true word for word, but on the whole, it does provide an example, at least, of the understanding of jewish history as the Jews themselves conceive it, and there we see that the jew writes this work quite innocently. It does not seem outrageous to him to describe how - through cunning and deceit - he has infiltrated and contaminated race after race, was always expelled, but without taking offense, [he then] chooses another. How he has sacrificed and slaughtered, when it came to his ideals, [and he is even] ready even to sacrifice his family. We know that recently a gentleman, [named] Sigmund Fraenkel, wrote in the newspaper ‘Die Neuesten’ [= the ‘Munchner Neuesten Nachrichten’; a conservative pro-monarchist newspaper paper in Munich at the time], made a point of stating that it would be quite unfair to accuse the jew of [having] a materialistic spirit; one only needs to look at the sunny, intimate family life of the Jew. This close family life did not prevent their own patriarch Abraham for a moment from immediately marrying off his own wife to the Pharaoh of Egypt, just so that he could do business.’

We can thus see that what Hitler is actually saying is that the Bible – he means the Old Testament in this instance and more specifically the Pentateuch/Written Torah – gives us a potted history of jewish behaviour and immorality that can inform our understanding that jews are thoroughly dishonest and immoral as a people.

Hitler cites the behaviour of the Patriarch Abraham in bigamously presenting his wife Sarah as his sister when coming before Pharaoh (Gen. 12:10-20) so that he could ‘do business [in Egypt]’ so that Pharoah would take her as his wife in return for said trading rights.

Another similar example of this found in the story of Esther and Mordechai in the eponymous book of Esther in the Old Testament/Tanakh, but the point that Hitler is making here is that – contrary to the claims of one Sigmund Fraenkel (4) in the ‘Munchner Neuesten Nachrichten’ – jews are extremely materialistic (and essentially classically psychopathic) and this is powerfully illustrated by stories from the Bible.

Hitler is not – per Sarah’s claim – ‘likening Christianity to Bolshevism’ or ‘claiming that the Bible isn’t true word for word because jews wrote it’ (he is actually stating something quite different to this; i.e. the Bible isn’t necessarily true word for word but it does give us an accurate record of jewish behaviour recorded by them from their own traditions [notice the lack of the value judgement that Sarah has inserted contrary to what Hitler said in order to twist it to make a claim and attribute her claim to Hitler]) at all as is patently just by reading Hitler’s words translated into English.

Further Hitler uses the Bible the same way in the dialogue called ‘Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin’ that his political mentor Dietrich Eckart published posthumously in 1924 where we read Eckart quoting Hitler as stating that:

‘In Egypt the scoundrels’ scheme succeeded only about halfway,” he finished. “The Egyptians became masters of the situation at the last moment and sent the ‘mixed multitude’ to the devil, together with the Jews. There must have been a desperate struggle. The slaughter of the firstborn reveals that clearly enough. Just as they have done with us, the Jews had won the great lower stratum of the population for themselves -- ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!’ – until one night they sent out the order, ‘Down with the bourgeois! Kill them, the dogs!’ but things didn’t turn out so well as they had expected. That portion of the Egyptian nation that had remained patriotic turned the tables and booted Moses, Cohn, and Levi out of the country, followed by the inhabitants whom they had incited. During this exodus they carried along as much stolen booty as they could manage, the Bible reports with satisfaction. It also reports, in no uncertain terms, that the Egyptians were glad to be rid of them (Exodus 12:35-36; Psalms 105:38). The best, though, was the reward the Jews gave their stupid accomplices. Suddenly they began calling them ‘rabble,’ whereas formerly they had called them ‘comrade’ and pretended to love them. Imagine the faces these deluded ones must have made in the desert when they heard this.’ (5)

We can thus see that Hitler is using the Bible – especially again the Pentateuch/Written Torah - precisely the same way: as an illustrative history of the perfidy and evil of the jews from their own lips, but what is not doing is calling the Bible or Christianity ‘jewish’ (he is how inferring that the Old Testament is a jewish document but he casts no aspersions on the New Testament ergo he isn’t referring to the entire Bible or Christianity as ‘jewish’). What he is doing is using the well-known stories of the Bible to make a rhetorical but intellectually correct point that would have been known to his uneducated or semi-educated audience among the German working-class using stories that they would have been familiar with from their Catechism classes, Sunday sermons and attendance at Sunday school rather than primarily making an intellectual about the Bible or Christianity themselves.

Ergo this quote doesn’t mean what Sarah is claim it means.

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://x .com/sarahwillcry/status/2059337886026080379

(2) Idem.

(3) BArch NS 26/53 p. 11

(4) Possibly the prominent jewish chemist in Austria of the same name (see: https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6298-frankel-sigmund), but I judge this unlikely and it likely just another jew (likely also from Poland) with the same name who has been lost to history.

(5) Dietrich Eckart, William Pierce (Trans.), 1966, [1924], ‘Bolshevism between Moses and Lenin: A Dialogue between Adolf Hitler and Me’, 1^st Edition, National Vanguard Books: Mill Point, pp. 7-8

‘Garfinkel also represented a member of Chicago’s Orthodox community, Avi Levin, who was accused by Weldler of sexually abusing him years ago. Levin was charged criminally with the abuse, but he denied misconduct and the case was dismissed by prosecutors before it went to trial.

A lawsuit filed by Weldler against Levin, and the school that employed him, is pending in Cook County.

Yet even with some or all of this known in the community, Levin appears to have remained part of the Jewish community’s volunteer security service — giving him an air of respectability, and free movement in a community teeming with children, according to victim advocates.’ (1)

Now the ‘Weldler’ that Herguth is referring to here is the jew named Michael Weldler who claims to have been raped by Levin and whose case against Levin was strong enough to get him charged by Chicago’s police and prosecutors until it was suddenly dropped ‘before it went to trial’.

This could naturally be an innocent fact of life – the evidentiary bar in rape/child molestation trials is often difficult to surmount due to the ‘he said, she said’ nature of the evidence which is especially difficult in historic cases such as this – but given the proclivity of the jewish community – especially the religious jewish community – to use their financial and political clout to influence these kind of prosecutions and to get charges quietly dropped. (2)

The truth is that one suspects it is probably a mix of both situations: Levin was being protected by the rabbinate in Chicago but also that his case was borderline enough to make dismissing it excusable on other grounds.

Nevertheless, it is pretty clear that Levin is almost certainly yet another jewish homosexual child molester.

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://chicago.suntimes.com/the-watchdogs/2026/05/04/orthodox-jewish-community-child-sexual-abuse-north-side-rabbi

(2) For example, see: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/29/brooklyn-da-orthodox-jews-cover-up; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/29/brooklyn-orthodox-jews-child-abuse-cover-up-feature; https://www.npr.org/2009/02/02/99913807/abuse-scandal-plagues-hasidic-jews-in-brooklyn

It is often styled by jews as being the design and creation of its chief engineer, who was a jew named Joseph Strauss. (1) Jews aren’t alone in echoing this false claim since PBS have also been known to do so. (2)

The official ‘Golden Gate Bridge’ website however documents that this narrative is complete and utter nonsense when they explain how:

‘In 1921, Joseph B. Strauss hired Charles A. Ellis to head up his staff and soon advanced him to Vice President, Strauss Engineering Corporation, in charge of bridge design and construction supervision. In 1925, Strauss had Ellis arrange for Prof. George F. Swain of Harvard University and Leon Moisseiff who designed New York’s Manhattan Bridge to serve on a Board of Consultants for the project.

Both men reviewed Strauss’s original plans for a symmetrical cantilever-suspension hybrid bridge and found them to be practical from an engineering standpoint and capable of being built. In November 1925, Moisseiff expressed concern about the hybrid design and submitted to Strauss his Report on Comparative Design of a Stiffened Suspension Bridge over the Golden Gate Strait at San Francisco, CA, which describes a design contrasting from the cantilever-suspension hybrid bridge design—a suspension span design.

The suspension span concept did not immediately become the leading design for the bridge as Strauss continued to campaign for a bridge using his original symmetrical cantilever-suspension hybrid design as late as 1929.

On August 15, 1929, the Board appointed prominent engineers Moisseiff, O.H. Ammann, and University of California, Engineering School, Berkeley, CA, Professor Charles Derleth, Jr., to serve as the Advisory Board of Engineers, alongside Chief Engineer Strauss. Strauss also appointed Ellis to work with the Advisory Board of Engineers, serving as its Secretary.

The timing of the change from the original Strauss proposal to a suspension bridge design is not precisely known, but it was accomplished sometime between the release of Moisseiff’s November 1925 report and the first meeting of the Advisory Board of Engineers on August 27, 1929. Further, The Golden Gate Bridge, Report of the Chief Engineer, September 1937, by Strauss, provides no details on the transition from his originally proposed symmetrical cantilever-suspension hybrid bridge to the Moisseiff-inspired suspension span design that was eventually built, and simply states, “... In the interval which had elapsed any advantages possessed by the cantilever-suspension type bridge had practically disappeared and on recommendation of the Chief Engineer, the cantilever-suspension type was abandoned in favor of the simple suspension type.”

On March 1, 1930, with final design underway and after overseeing test borings at the construction site, Ellis returned to Chicago to work on refining the design and estimates, while continuing to consult with Advisory Board of Engineers members Moisseiff and Ammann.

Ellis was responsible for directing the thousands of calculations required, for the computation of stresses, the preparation of stress sheets, as well as the development of the specifications, contracts and proposal forms. He worked tirelessly until December 5, 1931, when Strauss insisted he take a vacation. Three days before his vacation was over, Ellis received a letter from Strauss instructing him to turn all his work over to his assistant Clarahan, and to take an indefinite unpaid vacation.

For reasons still not clear today, Strauss fired Ellis. Ellis had lost his place in the history receiving no credit for his critical role in the design of the landmark Bridge. He went on to join the engineering faculty at Purdue University in 1934, from where he retired as Professor Emeritus of the Division of Structural Engineering in 1947. He passed away on August 29, 1949.’ (3)

So, in summary: Strauss hired a non-jewish engineer named Charles Ellis to do all the actual engineering work and then promptly fired Ellis for no discernible reason in December 1931. Then as the official ‘Golden Gate Bridge’ website goes on to explain Strauss – aided by his widow – promptly stole Ellis’ work and presented it as Strauss’ work instead:

‘Strauss alienated many people in his quest to build the structure -- his first suspension bridge. Obsessed with claiming credit as the span’s creator, he minimized the acknowledgement given to Charles Ellis and Leon Moissieff, the two visionaries who actually worked out the significant engineering challenges of building the bridge. Strauss’ detractors blocked a statue of the chief engineer proposed for the bridge plaza; his widow would eventually fund its creation in 1941, inscribing it, “Joseph B. Strauss, 1870-1938, ‘The Man Who Built the Bridge.’”’ (4)

Indeed, we further learn that Strauss actually abandoned the Bridge’s construction part way through since we read that:

‘During the bridge’s construction, Strauss started to feel unwell, both mentally and physically. He disappeared for more than six months -- causing rumors to spread that he had suffered a nervous breakdown. During this time, Strauss divorced his longtime wife and married a young singer, many years his junior.’ (5)

Even the architecture and the Golden Gate bridge’s famous colour is not the work of Strauss, but rather this was the work of the non-jewish chief architect of the project: Irving Morrow. (6)

The only place where jews did truly contribute to the design and construction of the Golden Gate bridge is in the form of the aforementioned jewish engineer Leon Moisseiff who acted as a part-time advisor to Ellis around the wind impact on the bridge (7) and while Moisseiff certainly contributed; it is difficult to give him primary credit for the Golden Gate bridge – which rightly belongs solely with Ellis – (8) but his contribution was such that gives him the right to secondary credit for assisting Ellis with key parts of the design that allowed the Golden Gate bridge to be a success and still stand to this day.

Thus, we can see that like many other superficially plausible ‘jewish invention’ myths; the claim itself doesn’t actually stand up to even the simplest critical scrutiny.

Subscribe now

References

(1) For example: https://aish.com/91795029/%60

(2) https://web.archive.org/web/20071117114217/https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/goldengate/peopleevents/p_strauss.html

(3) https://web.archive.org/web/20171210054905/https://goldengatebridge.org/research/Design.php

(4) Idem.

(5) Idem.

(6) https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/goldengate-morrow/

(7) https://web.archive.org/web/20071117104634/https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/goldengate/peopleevents/p_moisseiff.html

(8) https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/goldengate-ellis/

That’s a number that has become a meme especially in political circles. The concept came out of statements by individuals and groups tied to the Israeli government that so-called ‘social media influencers’ could be paid $7,000 a post to promote Israel and/or pro-jewish talking points as part of the so-called ‘Esther Project’ (or ‘Project Esther’). (1)

In many ways it was a move of absolute genius by the Israeli government and the jewish Diaspora in that they directly tapped into the one thing that motivates most content creators (aka ‘influencers’) on the internet: money.

And not only money… the chance to make real money to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars… really fast.

Most commentators on this subject – particularly from my side of the political fence among the ardent anti-Zionists and radical anti-Semites – immediately jumped on the obvious implications of this – basically that Israel was creating a paid army of ‘social media influencers’ who were prepared to sacrifice their personal and political integrity in exchange for regular payments and essentially outsource their Hasbara away from trite civil servants and classic media talking heads towards the modern flexible and less obviously tarnished ‘social media influencer’ community.

They didn’t stop to the consider that this strategy had a much more potent side effect that was probably intentional on the part of international jewry. That is that it made wannabe and/or actual ‘social media influencers’ with a small or a bit of a following actively promote Israel and pro-jewish talking points for free in the hope of attracting funding for their future Hasbara work on the basis of their present Hasbara work (for example Patrick Casey openly complained about this lack of jewish funding for his pro-jewish propaganda on X).

In other words: Israel and the jewish Diaspora had just created an army of unswervingly pro-Israel and pro-jewish commentators and content creators by virtue of dangling the possibility of paying them $7,000 a post.

This was pure genius as a marketing strategy as it basically created an army of new pro-Israel/pro-jewish commentators and content creators overnight. Had Israel actually paid them then they would have been happy as pigs in shit to burn down all their credibility and more in exchange for those sweet, sweet dollar bills.

Nick Cleveland-Stout missed this angle in his article on the $7,000 per post offer in his lengthy October 2025 article on it for the ‘Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft’ (2) since this element of Israel’s influence peddling wouldn’t be covered under a FARA declaration, but it remains the most potent element of the entire ‘pay-for-posts’ Israeli PR strategy represented by the $7,000 meme.

The problem with all this however was that jews… are… well… jews and they tried to not pay the ‘social media influencers’ what they had agreed – and promised – to pay.

In essence it acted like a new form of the good old fashioned Ponzi scheme in that it was based on the confidence of future payment and people buying into the scheme (by promoting Israeli and pro-jewish talking points) but was risky as hell if it all fell apart which it did and it was all the fault of the jews themselves.

As ‘The Cradle’ explained in early March 2026:

‘Israel’s global propaganda machine is facing increasing legal pressure after influencers, consultants, and media companies filed lawsuits worth millions of shekels against the government, accusing it of failing to pay for work done in support of its international messaging campaign during Israel’s genocide in Gaza, the Calcalist reported on 5 March.

According to Calcalist, many of the individuals involved say they were urgently recruited at the height of the war to promote Israeli narratives abroad, only to later discover that the government had not secured proper payment arrangements.

Investigations have since uncovered serious irregularities inside the Prime Minister’s Office, which took over Israel’s international messaging apparatus after the collapse of the Ministry of Information following Operation Al-Aqsa Flood in October 2023.

Officials reportedly bypassed formal tender procedures and instead expanded existing contracts with private production firms, which then served as conduits to funnel payments to pro-Israel commentators and consultants operating overseas.

Several of those companies now say the state has refused to settle its debts.

One firm, Intellect Production and Publishing Group, filed a lawsuit seeking roughly 1.7 million shekels (around $552,000) after covering travel costs and media operations aimed at countering pro-Palestine demonstrations during hearings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Former Israeli government spokesperson Eylon Levy is among the figures who say the government still owes them money for work carried out in Israel’s international messaging campaign.

According to the Calcalist report, Levy’s monthly pay of 41,125 shekels (just over $13,000) was routed through the production company Intellect Production and Publishing Group, rather than paid directly by the state

Another company, Speedy Call, established a 24-hour interview studio inside the Kirya military headquarters used by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other senior officials.

The company says Israel now refuses to pay more than 600,000 shekels (around $200,000) for nine months of work.

The payment disputes unfolding inside Israel’s propaganda apparatus are emerging alongside broader revelations about the scale of Tel Aviv’s global messaging campaign during the war on Gaza.

Investigations and public filings have shown that Israeli-linked public relations firms paid US social media influencers thousands of dollars per post to promote pro-Israel narratives online.

Documents submitted under the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) revealed payments averaging up to $7,000 per post as part of the so-called “Esther Project,” a propaganda campaign aimed at shaping public opinion on platforms such as TikTok and Instagram in favor of Israel, and demonizing its opposition.

Israel has previously organized carefully managed influencer tours inside Gaza, inviting social media figures to visit aid distribution sites run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a deadly US-Israeli aid scheme, in an effort to counter international reporting on famine in the enclave.

The visits were presented as proof that Israel was facilitating humanitarian assistance, despite extensive documentation by numerous organizations, including the UN, showing that the famine in Gaza was a direct result of Israel’s systematic restrictions on humanitarian aid and its obstruction of relief deliveries.

These initiatives form part of what Israeli officials themselves have described as the “eighth front” of the war – a parallel battle over narrative and perception fought across social media platforms, advertising networks, and AI-driven digital campaigns designed to shape global opinion about the war in Gaza.’ (3)

Naturally this situation – which was widely reported on social media although not in the traditional mainstream media where jewish influence remains extremely strong – immediately became a huge PR disaster for Israel, because the very ‘social media influencers’ who Israel had sought to win over to their cause by dangling large fees per pro-Israel/pro-jewish post in front of them. Were then rudely disabused of the notion all of a sudden when it was revealed to these individuals that the Israeli government never had any serious intention to pay them the money that they claimed they would no matter whether it was a formal contract let alone a promise, which in turn meant that the hope of ‘getting rich quick’ off the back of Hasbara simply died. That in turn caused many formerly pro-Israel/pro-jewish ‘social media influencers’ and content creators in general to angrily turn on their would-be jewish paymasters to varying degrees with some just being upset about the situation but ploughing on, others giving up pro-Israel/pro-jewish activism in whole or part and others who have turned from would be friends to outright enemies of Israel and/or the jewish people.

Predictably enough this being publicly aired and becoming a trending item across social media as well as the alternative media in general caused the Israel government to absolutely panic with Nadav Rapaport writing for ‘Middle East Eye’ how:

‘The prime minister’s office said that while there were “irregularities in the contracting practices of the public diplomacy directorate”, it could not elaborate because legal procedures are underway.

Since October 2023, Israel’s hasbara efforts have also been conducted by the foreign ministry and the diaspora ministry, which have both dedicated huge sums of money to distribute Israeli propaganda denying allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide that have been directed at Israel.

Last September, the Israeli government approved an additional 150m shekels ($49m) budget for hasbara efforts in the foreign ministry, which was added to an already existing budget of 520 million shekels ($170m).

The additional funding was taken out of the budget for higher education. In the same month, the foreign ministry, headed by Gideon Saar, established a new public diplomacy directorate, which was expected to employ bloggers and social media influencers, as hasbara efforts were seen in Israel as failing.

In June 2024, it was revealed that Minister of Diaspora Affairs Amichai Chikli led a hasbara campaign that targeted US college campuses and sought to redefine antisemitism in US law.

A year later, in May 2025, Chikli’s ministry offered settlement municipalities up to a million shekels ($325,000) for conducting hasbara in Israel and abroad.’ (4)

The point that the Israeli government was desperately trying to get across was that it was all due to a ‘mix up with the third parties who were working as proxies of the Israeli government’ not because the Israeli government and the jewish Diaspora wouldn’t pay the ‘social media influencers’ concerned, but despite their public protestations: the damage was done and the bland technocratic excuse of blaming unnamed ‘contractors and third parties’ did almost nothing to stem the bleeding from the catastrophic body blow that the Israeli government had just delivered to its own Hasbara/propaganda efforts by being… well… cheap and/or corrupt.

Naturally some of the unswervingly pro-Israel/jewish ‘social media influencers’ tried to pooh-pooh the whole thing and claimed it was simply a PR stunt by the Israeli government until – ironically – black American singer Azealia Banks revealed she had indeed been paid significant sums of money by Israel to promote it on social media.

Ironically the most sensible jewish voice in this whole semitic debacle was Rabbi Shmuley Boteach – otherwise known as ‘The Wandering Dildo Salesman’ – who wrote a Substack article – paywalled of course – on 5^th October 2025 – long before the public revelation that Israel wasn’t paying its ‘social media influencers’ the promised fees - criticizing the ‘pay-to-post’ policy of the Israeli government on the grounds that it would simply breed people who just defended Israel for the money not out of belief in the Israeli/jewish cause or ‘for cash not out of conviction’ as he pithily put it. (6)

Boteach hit the nail on the head here in so far as he realised – possibly because he’s a bit more ‘among the goyim’ than most jews – that such a policy would just lead to paid lackeys who would turn against the jews if they went unpaid or were defunded for any reason rather than unpaid ‘true believers in the Israeli/jewish cause’.

The problem – which Boteach doesn’t mention – is that these days practically nobody but aging boomers want to fight and die for Israel and/or the jewish people for free.

Where-as there are millions upon millions of people in the Western world and probably hundreds of millions around the globe who will fight and die against Israel and the jewish people for free.

The Hellstorm that the jews created by industrially lying about Europeans in – and after - the Second World War and then using their power to seize Palestine and then create (as well as then expand and embolden) the state of Israel is swirling over their head while growing blacker and more violent by the minute and they are desperate to find a metaphorical sin offering to get out of the existential crisis they have created for themselves.

But no one is volunteering to be their sacrifice anymore… so they are beyond stuck.

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://responsiblestatecraft.org/israel-influencers/

(2) Idem.

(3) https://thecradle.co/articles/israels-online-propaganda-network-unravels-as-influencers-sue-tel-aviv-over-unpaid-contracts

(4) https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israels-hasbara-directorate-being-sued-unpaid-activists-claiming-millions

(5) https://x.com/iiwasinthee212/status/20292

(6) https://rabbishmuley.substack.com/p/conviction-not-cash-why-paying-influencers

‘Elizabeth Bleiman, 104, of Philadelphia, homemaker, wife, mother, grandmother, immigrant, volunteer, and one of the region’s oldest Holocaust survivors, died Monday, May 4, of age-associated decline at her home in the Northeast.

Born in Ófehértó, Hungary, Mrs. Bleiman came to the United States in 1949 after enduring separation, physical abuse, starvation, and other atrocities during the Holocaust in Hungary and Poland. In 1944 and 1945, at 23, she was separated from her father, stepmother, older brother, and younger sister, and brutalized in the Auschwitz, Stutthof, and Praust Nazi concentration camps in Poland.

She was forced on a two-month march to another location in Poland as liberators moved closer, and she battled black typhus for weeks after being freed by Russian soldiers in 1945. Her father and stepmother were killed at Auschwitz, and her brother and sister survived in Hungary and Poland.’ (1)

This is refreshingly honest as far as ‘Holocaust Survivor’ accounts go as we read nothing of ‘Schindler’s List’ style brutality nor of Josef Mengele nor of the so-called ‘gas chambers’ despite Bleiman’s having been in two camps that were a central part of the so-called ‘mass extermination of the jews’: Auschwitz and Stutthof.

We know Bleiman’s basic narrative is accurate, because she is the right age (her age both checks out and makes sense in the context of German forced labour policies), states she was deported in the right general time period (the mass deportation of jews from Hungary which began in late April 1944 and kicked into high gear in May 1944) and her transition through the German concentration camp system also jives with the historical record.

This is because – for example – we have the evidence of Helen Katz’s (better-known as Helen Lewis) testimony who was a jewess from Prague who was transferred from Auschwitz Birkenau’s Family Camp in August 1944 to the Kochstadt sub-camp of Stutthof (aka Praust after the nearby Prussian town which is how Bleiman refers to it) where there were already circa 500 – primarily jewish - women working to expand the nearby airfield for the Luftwaffe.

It is thus likely that Bleiman followed a similar path and was one of the original 500 women at the Kochstadt labour camp or alternatively came with Katz in the additional shipment of female forced labourers from Auschwitz Birkenau in August 1944. Bleiman also gets right the fact that the evacuation of Stutthof – whose primary purpose was as an aircraft production facility – was a rather haphazard and deadly affair with prisoners (jewish and non-jewish alike) being marched westwards (due to the lack of availability of trains and carriages at this point in the war) and then further evacuated – often by sea as well as rather bizarrely in one known instance in the evacuation from Stutthof to neutral Sweden (if the Germans were trying to ‘exterminate the jews’ then why did they evacuate them to Sweden on at least two occasions?) – to Neuengamme concentration camp outside of the western German city of Hamburg.

Clearly Bleiman was not one of those evacuated by sea to the West (this in turn may have in fact saved her life) and the clue as to why is provided by her reference to ‘battling black typhus for weeks’ around the time she was ‘liberated by the Red Army’ somewhere in Poland in 1945. Thus, suggesting that Bleiman was infected with typhus and so was abandoned by the retreating Germans in early 1945 since typhus was often fatal at this point in the war not to mention highly infectious (so it was a case of the ‘good of the majority overriding the plight of the minority’).

Thus, we can see that a lot of Bleiman’s story is actually very likely to be true and unusually makes good sense in terms of the revisionist understanding of ‘Holocaust’ history with Bleiman’s claim that her father and stepmother were ‘killed in Auschwitz’ being almost certainly overstatement and just a vapid equivolation of ‘died in Auschwitz’ (likely from the typhus that almost killed Bleiman herself or from accidents/natural causes) with ‘murdered in Auschwitz’. When there is no evidence – if there was such evidence then we would have heard about it and seen it widely reproduced decades ago – that they were ‘murdered in Auschwitz’ at all, but rather – as is usual in these cases – it is simply assumes via the false equation of ‘died in Auschwitz’ with ‘murdered in Auschwitz’ which then is used to imply ‘gas chambers’ were used.

All in all, Bleiman’s ‘Holocaust Survivor’ testimony is refreshingly honest and relatively accurate with known history.

Makes a change: doesn’t it?

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://www.inquirer.com/obituaries/elizabeth-bleiman-obituary-holocaust-philadelphia-hungary-20260514.html

Where according to the writer of the article Ben Kroll:

‘The Toronto Police Service said it was treating as a hate crime late last week an incident in which a gel blaster – a toy gun similar to airsoft guns – was fired at members of Toronto’s Jewish community, the latest in a series of attacks targeting synagogues and other Jewish institutions across the city.

The shooting occurred just before 10 P.M. Thursday near Bathurst Street, a northern suburb of Canada’s largest city, according to a police statement’s on Saturday. Police characterized the victims as “visibly identifiable members of the Jewish community,” adding they suffered minor wounds.

According to the statement, the suspect fired what police described as a “replica firearm” before fleeing the scene in a blue vehicle. Police released a short video of the vehicle and asked members of the public to come forward with any information.

In a statement posted on X, Idit Shamir, Israel’s consul general in Toronto, said that “Jewish Torontonians should be able to walk their streets without fear.” Three people were targeted during the shooting, she added.

“This is not a minor incident. This is a hate crime committed in broad view, in a Jewish neighbourhood, against visibly Jewish pedestrians,” the consul said. Shamir added she stood with the victims and the Jewish community, and urged “all levels of government and law enforcement to treat antisemitic violence with the urgency it demands.”

Canada’s leading Jewish organizations harshly condemned the shootings. The UJA Federation of Greater Toronto said the shooting represents “an escalation of antisemitic violence” across the Toronto area.’ (1)

This is part of a series of incidents where jews have been ‘shot’ with… well… orbeez, which are water-filled soft gel pellets and often used in pranks as well as for MilSim games. I have previously commented how – despite jews histrionically shrieking that they are ‘anti-Semitic violence’ – these incidents are almost certainly just teenagers/young adults playing pranks on people (2) and are also frequently lumped in – as Kroll does in the ‘Haaretz’ article – with people spraying jews with water from water pistols. (3)

The point is that despite shrieking loudly – and crying wolf as usual – this almost certainly wasn’t an ‘anti-Semitic hate crime’ at all, but rather simply a normal street prank by teenagers/young adults and we are only hearing about it because a jew was targeted rather than saying a White European or a black man going about their business.

That’s the essence of the Schmittian exception in that you can identify who rules you by how much the law is broken/suddenly enforced (usually draconically) for the benefit of a given group of people.

In the West that group is the jews.

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2026-05-04/ty-article/.premium/toronto-police-probing-gel-blaster-incident-targeting-jews-as-hate-crime/0000019d-f32c-d22e-a9ff-fbfecce60000

(2) On this please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/hoax-alert-goyim-with-gel-blasters

(3) On this please see my articles: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/hoax-confirmed-water-pistols-in-miami and https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/hoax-confirmed-washing-jews-with

Recently Rabbi Jeffrey Salkin made just such a nonsense claim in his column ‘The Many Forms of Holocaust Distortion and Why J. D. Vance Remarks Matter’ at ‘Religion News’ (1) that I wanted to address separately from my length debunk of his nonsensical attempt to create a ‘system’ to ‘categorize Holocaust Distortion’, (2) because it is a common enough false claim in and of itself and thus needs to be addressed separately.

Salkin writes that:

‘To quote my friend Peter Himmelman in his Substack:

Hitler (may his name be erased) himself was explicit about what the war was for. In his speech to the Reichstag on January 30, 1939, he declared that if war came, its result would be “the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.” This was not metaphor. It was demonic prophecy, a warped but deeply held theology, the articulation of a destiny he believed necessary to redeem the world.’ (3)

The problem of course is that Himmelman and Salkin’s claim is just moronic rubbish that relies on reading Hitler’s speech of 30^th January 1939 completely out of historical context and to replace Hitler’s meaning with their own claim of ‘what Hitler meant’.

The German historian of the Third Reich Hans Mommsen – building on the work of other historians of the Third Reich like Yehuda Bauer and Ian Kershaw - commented on how nonsensical these sorts of claims are in a widely-cited journal article in ‘History and Memory’ in 1997.

He began by first explaining how:

‘The most widely known quotation from Hitler’s public orations is taken from his speech in the German Reichstag on 30 January 1939. Referring to the Jewish question, it contains the macabre prophecy: “Today I will be once more a prophet: if the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevizing of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!” This statement has been taken as evidence that in early 1939 Hitler already intended to exploit the conditions of a future war to annihilate the Jews, at least those under German rule.’ (4)

So far so good, but as Mommsen goes on to explain: Hitler obviously had no intention whatsoever of ‘exterminating the jews’ at this point in history even according to the orthodox ‘Holocaust’ interpretation and was in fact explicitly referring – and only referring – to the problems he had encountered with the mass voluntary deportation of the jews in Germany and Austria to other countries especially North and South America.

He writes how:

‘However, it seems to me that in order to analyse this statement - which was unprecedented in its harshness -it should be read within the immediate political context and the particular conditions that prevailed at that time. First of all, Hitler’s threat did not occupy a prominent place in his rather lengthy speech, which celebrated his seizure of power and was largely devoted to the “party saga” (Parteierzaehlung), a subject that usually comprised considerable parts of Hitler’s speeches and did not vary in content. It was only in the last part of the speech after he had spoken for over two hours, that Hitler raised the issue of Jewish emigration. The context was the still ongoing negotiations between Hermann Goring and George Rublee, the American chairman of the Intergovernmental Committee for Refugees, on a plan for the emigration of Jews from Germany. Thus, the threat against European Jewry was made in relation to the aim of accelerating the Jews’ departure from Germany. The process was being stymied by the increasingly strict stipulations on the part of the potential host countries, who insisted that immigrants arrive with an adequate amount of foreign currency for their subsistence; put differently, to avoid the likelihood of their becoming a public charge.’ (5)

As well as how:

‘It is in this context that Hitler’s remarks in the Reichstag should be understood. The Fuhrer referred indirectly to the pending Rublee-Wohlthat negotiations, complaining that “third countries suddenly refuse to receive Jews, using all possible excuses,” and asserting that there was “enough space for settlement” in the world to dispose of the Jews and that an understanding between the nations on this issue was long overdue because Europe could “not become pacified before the Jewish question has been settled.” At least, he declared, the German government was ultimately resolved to get rid of the Jews, who would have to learn to make their living like all other peoples through ordinary work. It was after these declarations, which were targeted at the Western governments and sought to gain their support for the emigration of German Jews, that Hitler made his much-quoted threat against “the Jewish race in Europe.” His formulations should be perceived in the context of the volkisch anti-Semitism that had been virulent in Germany since the Wilhelmine period. The notion of using the Jews as hostages in order to prevent the Western powers from inflicting damage on Germany was familiar to the fanatical anti-Semites of that era.’ (6)

With Mommsen then summarizing how:

‘The notion that Hitler’s speech of 30 January 1939 constitutes incontrovertible evidence of his intention to eventually solve the Jewish question by the use of violence has repeatedly been assessed in the literature. In the context in which it was made, however, it rather indicates that at that time Hitler did not perceive any other solution than the enforced emigration of the Jewish population, including resurrecting the idea of settling the Jews in Madagascar, a suggestion that had been raised again by the Polish side.’ (7)

Further Mommsen is at pains to point out that Hitler later uses exactly the same language – and refers back to this statement (which Hitler deliberately misdating to 30^th September 1939 rather than 30^th January 1939 for the purposes of good propaganda so as to seem prophetic for both his contemporary audience and for posterity) - at the beginning and the height of the so-called ‘Holocaust’ (i.e., ‘Operation Reinhard’) and even then he clearly still does not mean actual ‘extermination’ since he refers to solving the jewish question ‘at a future date’ not at the moment when – according to the orthodox ‘Holocaust’ narrative – the Third Reich was allegedly engaging in a mass extermination operation ‘to solve the jewish question’.

He writes that:

‘The episode of the Reichstag speech, however, seems to be put in quite another light by the fact that Hitler repeated his prediction on 30 January 1941, using exactly the same words and referring to his earlier speech which he erroneously dated 1 September 1939. He reiterated this passage on 30 January and 8 November 1942 and alluded to it again on 24 February and 30 September 1942 and on 24 February 1943. While the context differed to some extent, the main argument - that in the long run the European nations, whether they were opponents or friends of the Reich, would cooperate in the struggle against international Jewry - remained the same. In addition, he alluded to his former prophecy whenever he addressed the party on 30 January or 24 February (the latter date being the Partei Grundungstag, the anniversary of the founding of the party). Although some of the allusions were sharpened in conjunction with the ongoing genocide, Hitler preserved the masked language and avoided any direct mention of the mass murder. He continued to depict the solution of the Jewish question in Europe as a task that still lay in the future and, when speaking of the actual steps pursued by the German Reich toward this aim, he would refer exclusively to the anti-Jewish legislation and indoctrination, never to the killing operations as such.’ (8)

Mommsen’s interpretation jives with a literal reading of the Wannsee Protocol of January 1942 – rather than the unproven and almost entirely unevidenced interpretation that ‘deportation and evacuation’ at this top-secret meeting was meant as code for ‘deportation and extermination’ – (9) and that the jews of Europe were being deported/evacuated to concentration and labour camps in the East for the purpose of labour – on which point the Wannsee Protocol is remarkably clear despite ‘Holocaust’ scholars perpetually commenting on it without seeming to have read the document – (10) and to await the future final solution of the jewish question that was still under discussion till near the end of the Second World War.

The central point here is that Hitler’s comment in his 30^th January 1939 speech at the Reichstag where he stated:

‘Today I will be once more a prophet: if the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevizing of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!’ (11)

Never referred to the ‘mass extermination’ of the jews but rather the ‘mass deportation’ of the jews from Europe or put another way: the Third Reich intended to ensure that there were no jews left in Europe to act as a subversive fifth column against its people and their national governments and was seeking to achieve this not through ‘extermination’ but rather mass voluntary (and later during the war forced) deportation.

It is that simple.

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://religionnews.com/2026/02/03/the-many-forms-of-holocaust-distortion-and-why-jd-vances-remarks-matter/

(2) For this please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-holocaust-minimization

(3) https://religionnews.com/2026/02/03/the-many-forms-of-holocaust-distortion-and-why-jd-vances-remarks-matter/

(4) Hans Mommsen, 1997, ‘Hitler’s Reichstag Speech of 30 January 1939’, History and Memory, Vol. 9, Nos. 1 & 2, p. 147

(5) Ibid, pp. 147-148

(6) Ibid., p. 150

(7) Ibid., p. 152

(8) Ibid., p. 156

(9) For the interpretation of the Wannsee Protocol as a ‘code for genocide’ see Lucy Dawidowicz, 1977, ‘The War against the Jews 1933-45’, 1^st Edition, Pelican: London, pp. 176-180

(10) For example Eberhard Jackel, ‘Die Konferenz am Wannsee’, Die Zeit, 17th January 1992, p. 33

(11) Quoted by Mommsen, Op. Cit., p. 147

Mimran is interesting in large part of the scale of his fraudulent activity – defrauding French men, women and businesses out of over a billion dollars/euros – but also his links to the rabbinate in France as well as the Israeli political establishment.

For example, the ‘Times of Israel’ gave the following rundown of Mimran’s activities after his high-profile conviction for fraud in July 2016:

‘French Jewish businessman Arnaud Mimran on Thursday was convicted of fraud and sentenced to eight years in prison.

A French court ruled that Mimran — who has in the past given donations to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — and his associate Marco Mouly were guilty of stealing €283 million. It imposed a €1 million fine for immediate reimbursement, and ultimately required the two, along with a Polish broker, to pay back the state the €283 million.

[…]

Mimran was one of the main defendants in the trial in Paris over a scam amounting to €283 million involving the trade of carbon emissions permits and the taxes on them.

Mimran, who was convicted of tax offenses in France in the late 1990s, was convicted of using front companies to collect sales tax returns from France on carbon emissions permits that he bought from countries that did not collect the tax on them, like the Netherlands.

Known as the carbon emissions scam, it is believed to have caused billions in damages in 2009 by fraudulently exploiting the differences in how industrialized nations encouraged reducing the emission of greenhouse gases.

The fraud was called the biggest scam in the EU’s history, and also managed to embroil Netanyahu after Mimran testified to giving Netanyahu €1 million in 2009, when he was running for prime minister, to fund his election campaign.

Netanyahu denied that account, asserting that the contribution was made in 2001, amounted to the much smaller sum of $40,000 and funded public diplomacy efforts rather than a personal campaign.

Israeli law limits individual campaign contributions to NIS 11,480 (€2,670).

On Tuesday, Netanyahu dismissed as “nonsense” a Channel 2 report from a day earlier that police were investigating him over campaign contributions from abroad.

A Justice Ministry spokeswoman said in June that Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit had ordered an examination of Mimran’s testimony “immediately after he became aware of it.”

The statute of limitations for such crimes in Israel is 10 years, effectively ruling out criminal prosecution.

In a statement on June 5, the Prime Minister’s Office accused Mimran of committing further fraud by making a false claim about Netanyahu.

“Mr. Mimran, who is on trial for fraud in the range of several hundreds of millions of dollars, is trying to divert attention by means of another fraud,” the statement read.

Last month, Mimran revised his account of his donations to Netanyahu in the last decade, saying that the prime minister had the numbers right and he had been wrong.

“Everything that Bibi says is true,” Mimran told Channel 2, a day after he rejected Netanyahu’s claim that he had been given a far lower sum by the French businessman. “It’s possible that I got the numbers wrong because it’s been more than 10 years.”

“It was a long time ago, so it’s possible I made a mistake with the sum,” Mimran told Channel 2. “In any event, there was nothing illegal on Bibi’s part. I transferred a sum to him and invited him to vacations in Monaco and a ski resort in the French Alps.”

In 2000, Mimran was investigated on suspicion of insider trading in the United States and agreed, together with his partners, to pay a fine of $1.2 million, Haaretz reported.’ (2)

Mimran is the kind of serial jewish conman who – like his ethnic confreres Eliyahu Weinstein, (3) Joe Lewis (4) and Seth Levine (5) among hundreds upon hundreds of other examples - steals as much as he can from the goyim before doing a bunk with the cash for the relative safety and racially-based protection of the jewish state. This is reinforced by the fact that Mimran was a political donor to Benjamin Netanyahu – perhaps unsurprisingly given Netanyahu’s perennial problem with corruption for which he has been being investigated for over a decade at this point – and appears to have at least some contact with the Israeli state which would in turn make Israel unlikely to hand him over to non-jewish states to face justice.

Well… unless Mimran screwed the Israeli state over which doesn’t appear to have ever been the case. Indeed Mimran has openly worked primarily with other jews like Eric Robic and Fabrice Touil as well the chief prison rabbi of the Ile-de-France region (Paris and its environs for those who don’t know French geography) Avraham Chelly in order to perpetrate his cons as we learn from an update on fresh charges for Mimran - published by the ‘Times of Israel’ on 27^th March 2018 - where we read as follows:

‘Seven men, including a Jewish chaplain, two Jewish inmates, a director and a supervisor at one of France’s biggest prisons, were detained Monday on suspicion of corruption, sources close to the investigation told AFP.

The director and supervisor employed by the Fresnes jail, in the suburbs of Paris, are suspected of having received bribes from inmates in exchange for preferential treatment. Nearly 280,000 euros were allegedly found during searches of the prison and of their homes on Monday.

The inmates suspected as the bribe-givers were understood to be Arnaud Mimran and Eric Robic.

[…]

A third man, Fabrice Touil, a dual French-Israeli citizen also suspected of involvement in the carbon emissions scam, was arrested at his home in Paris on suspicion of having been the middleman who passed the money from the prisoners to the officials.

Investigators are reportedly trying to understand what role was played by Avraham Philippe Chelly, who serves as the Jewish chaplain for the Ile de France region.

In December 2016, two prison supervisors were questioned on suspicion of having provided cellphones, food and alcohol to prisoners in exchange for payment.’ (6)

Put another way: Mimran is a jewish conman who primarily works with other jews to defraud jews out of their money, has stolen billions of dollars/euros at this point and also views Israel – and not France for any other non-jewish country – as his true home.

And jews wonder why non-jews historically launched pogroms against them.

Subscribe now

References

(1) On Robic please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/eric-robic-jewish-serial-fraudster

(2) https://www.timesofisrael.com/french-fraudster-linked-to-netanyahu-jailed-for-8-years-over-scam/

(3) On Weinstein, please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/eliyahu-eli-weinstein-jewish-serial

(4) On Lewis, please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/joe-lewis-jewish-billionaire-and

(5) On Levine, please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/seth-levine-jewish-conman-and-fraudster

(6) https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-inmates-arrested-in-france-for-bribing-prison-officials/

What many people don’t know unless they’ve read potted biographies of Bodin or works on so-called ‘jewish achievement’ is that it is commonly claimed that Bodin was jewish.

For example, ‘Catholic Answers’ claims in their entry on Bodin that:

‘Bodin, JEAN, b. at Angers, 1520, probably of Jewish origin; d. at Laon, 1596.’ (1)

While ‘The Institute for New Economic Thinking’ declares that:

‘Born in Angers to a prosperous artisan family of Jewish origins, Jean Bodin studied and taught Roman law at the university in Toulouse (around the time when Navarrus was there), before becoming a lawyer in Paris around 1561.’ (2)

These absolute/strongly implied claims that Bodin was ‘of jewish origin’ are severely dated in academic terms. Since they are mentioned in article on Bodin by Frances Yates for the ‘New York Review of Books’ in October 1976, but Yates is far more circumspect (and accurate) concerning the claim as she notes that Bodin was ‘possibly of Jewish descent on his mother’s side’. (3)

What Yates is alluding to her is what both ‘Catholic Answers’ and ‘The Institute for New Economic Thinking’ – deliberately? – conceal in that it is a ‘possible’ not a ‘probable’ in that a historical theory was suggested whereby Bodin could have had jewish ancestry on his mother’s side, but that it was just that: a theory (aka a speculation).

That said jews have been quick to present the claim that Bodin was of partial jewish origin as ‘fact’ in their literature concerning ‘jewish achievement’ with Leon Roth writing in 1928 that:

‘It is noteworthy that, like Montaigne and L’Hopital, Bodin had one Jewish parent.’ (4)

Now Bodin - as with Montaigne and L’Hopital (referring to the seventeenth century French mathematician Guillaume de l’Hopital) – is presented as jewish, but - as I’ve debunked in detail with Montaigne (5) and will do separately with L’Hopital – this is complete nonsense and is a speculative theory from the turn of the twentieth century where there was a wave of claims that major figures in European history ‘were of jewish ancestry’. (6)

The truth is that the ‘Bodin was of jewish ancestry’ has long been considered disproven by biographers and researchers on Bodin himself as Harvard University’s ‘Bodin Project’ notes when it points out that:

‘Bodin was sixty-six years of age at the time of his death in 1596. He was therefore born in 1529 or 1530. His father was a successful businessman in the textile trade at Angers in western France. His mother came from a neighbouring village; the view once canvassed that she was a Jewess is now discredited. Jean Bodin had four sisters and two brothers, both older than he. One of them was also called Jean, an early instance of the nomenclatural duplication that would dog the philosopher throughout his life.’ (7)

The crux of the point here is that the thesis that Bodin had jewish ancestry seems to be nearly identical to that same thesis that was also applied to Christopher Columbus (8) and Miguel de Cervantes (9) at around the same time, which basically amounts to a somewhat unclear lineage of a historical figure combined with an occupation linked to textiles – this is a common trope in these accusations in so far as the claim is made that it was a ‘jewish trade’ (it was not) – allows some biographer/researcher somewhere to make a spurious and speculative claim of jewishness, which is then picked up by other – often directly partisan and not infrequently jewish – authors who then present it as ‘fact’ and this is spread around others. So, you in essence get a false ‘manufactured consensus’ that X person was jewish when the biographers say quite the opposite or at the very least merely state it as a possibility not a certainty.

So, no Jean Bodin was not jewish and exactly what he presented himself to be: a Catholic Frenchman.

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/jean-bodin

(2) https://www.hetwebsite.net/het/profiles/bodin.htm

(3) https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1976/10/14/the-mystery-of-jean-bodin/

(4) Leon Roth, 1928, ‘Jewish Thought in the Modern World’, p. 444 in Edwyn Bevan, Charles Singer (Eds.),1928, ‘The Legacy of Israel’, 1^st Edition, Clarendon Press: Oxford

(5) On the nonsensical claim that de Montaigne was of jewish ancestry please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/did-michel-de-montaigne-have-jewish

(6) For some of these and why they are stupid/wrong please see my articles: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/was-miguel-de-cervantes-jewish; https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/was-john-calvin-jewish; https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/was-martin-behaim-jewish; https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/was-saint-junipero-serra-jewish;

(7) https://bodinproject.hsites.harvard.edu/biography-bodin

(8) On this please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/was-christopher-columbus-jewish

(9) On this please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/was-miguel-de-cervantes-jewish

The kerfuffle started when the Yochananoff supermarket chain’s local kashruth inspector questioned whether the employee was in fact jewish, which is an important part of kashruth law in Judaism where-in the kosher status of many products – especially meat, milk and wine – are directly linked to no non-jew handling - or being unsupervised with - it at any time.

The reason being – and this is not usually explicitly stated by jews outside of specialist works – is because non-jews are believed in Judaism to be especially prone to the Yetzer hara (aka ‘the Evil Urge’) and as such take any and all opportunity to adulterate, abuse and adhere to their animal instincts to the detriment of jews (such as by offering kosher wine as a sacrifice to pagan gods [by which they also mean the Christian god]), (1) which includes the jewish belief that non-jews like to have sex with animals - such as cattle - at any given opportunity.

Dov writes how:

‘The National Labor Court rejected an employee’s lawsuit against the Yochananoff supermarket chain for compensation over alleged harassment, invasion of privacy, and wrongful dismissal, after an argument broke out between him and a kashrus supervisor at one of the branches regarding clarification of the employee’s Jewish status.

The employee worked for Yochananoff as a chef in the prepared-food departments of two company branches. Shortly after beginning work at the Rehovot branch, a dispute erupted between him and the kosher supervisor, after which the supervisor demanded that the employee present his ID card in order to verify whether he was Jewish. When the employee did not provide the ID, the kosher supervisor ordered him to stop cooking until the matter was clarified. The employee refused to comply, and the supervisor threatened to revoke the department’s kosher certification.

The following day, the employee reported to work while various company officials held discussions with representatives of the local religious council in an attempt to reach a practical solution. Eventually, it was decided that the employee would temporarily work only in the cold kitchen while his Jewish status remained in question. A few days later, a meeting was held between the company’s legal adviser and managers and representatives of the religious council. It was agreed that until the matter was clarified, the employee could return to working as head chef in the hot kitchen, but with certain restrictions, such as a prohibition on lighting fires.

Ultimately, relations between the parties deteriorated following an incident in which the employee allegedly performed actions in the kitchen that violated the imposed restrictions. Several weeks later, the company informed him that he was being dismissed.’ (2)

The point here is that the local kashruth inspector demanded to see the employee’s ID to prove that the employee was jewish and this was defined not by mere belief in Judaism, but his nationality aka his biology.

Put another simpler way: his race.

This is the essence of Judaism as a religion. It is not a confessional religion in any normal sense. It is a caste-based religion with a nod to the possibility of conversion but then doesn’t treat converts to Judaism as the same as a born jew regardless of their religious belief. (3)

As Anita Diamant observed:

‘The Orthodox rabbinate is not eager to work with converts, and many Orthodox rabbis discourage prospective candidates from even trying.’ (4)

The Orthodox rabbinical authority Rabbi Norman Lamm for example quotes one female convert to Judaism called Mary Lynn Kotz on this as follow:

‘How painful it is for us to hear the word “goy.” It implies an outsider, who can never become one of us. It refers to my brothers, whom I love. Many times I have heard it wrongly applied to me. (I wonder, when they call me “shiksa,” if they know the word “shiksa” means “abomination”?)’ (5)

Put another way: jews don’t accept converts to Judaism as actual jews but rather as weird goyim who pretend to be jewish but weren’t born jewish so they aren’t actually jewish.

This attitude is openly racially supremacist with Rabbi Lawrence Hoffman and Rabbi Morris Kertzer bluntly stating this attitude as follows:

‘Jews are nothing less than partners with God, in that they have been charged with the task of uprooting evil and perfecting the cosmos.’ (6)

The doyen of modern academic jewish studies Rabbi Jacob Neusner explains this in the context of Judaism as follows:

‘For while the Israelite is defined as the portion of humanity that rises for om the grave to eternal life, the gentile is defined solely in practical terms of how the Israelite intersects with the gentile on specified occasions or in particular transactions... But to the comparable issue – What is justice for the portion of humanity excluded from life eternal and left to rot in the grave? - the law speaks only implicitly... Then of what does justice consist? How shall we explain the distinction within the genus, humanity, into two species, Israelites and gentiles?... In addition, a practical issue of justice in Israelite-pagan relationships flows from the distinction between life and death, Israel and the nations, and should not be missed. How shall we find justice in the present status of Israel, subordinated as it is to the gentiles? For if God rules as a sovereign over all humanity, and if the two species of humanity compete, where is the justice in the fact that one species, the gentiles, presently dominates the other, Israel? It follows that to make sense of and to justify world order the subordinated status of both species, the gentiles in the age to come and, Israel in the present age, has to be explained and the same explanation must govern both..

But when it comes to the law of the Mishnah, ”Israel” is defined with the reference to the end of days; Israel is comprised of all those who will emerge victorious over death.’ (7)

While the Orthodox Rabbi Emanuel Feldman is even more blunt about the supremacist implications of this belief that this necessitates:

‘David: I do not want to repeat what is obviously a cliché, but doesn’t choseness imply superiority? Do we actually consider ourselves superior to the rest of mankind?

Rabbi Emanuel Feldman: That is another false supposition. Superiority per se is not an evil. Certain athletes are superior to others; certain musicians are superior to others; certain doctors are superior to others...

The fact is that certain nations are superior to others in specific areas of endeavor.

Yes, we believe that the Jewish people is chosen for its mission by God because it possesses certain God given talents; a clear vision and knowledge of God and how He wants mankind to live on His earth, and the ability to connect with God and with the sacred in life... The Jewish people was seen by God as having certain qualities – steadfastness, spiritual resilience, courage, faith, self-discipline – which made us the most suitable agent for bringing the concepts of God and holiness into the world. That is to say our national character.’ (8)

However, the bluntest statement of this attitude is provided by the former Chief Rabbi of Switzerland Arthur Cohn – aka the Baseler Rav – who wrote that:

‘Nobody can deny that we are a people. We are one through descent, blood and race. We have never mingled with other nations and have kept our blood pure.’ (9)

Put another way: Judaism assumes, believes and preaches the absolute racial superiority of every jew – defined biologically not by confession of faith – over every non-jew also defined biologically not by confession of faith.

Subscribe now

References

(1) On this please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/idolaters-and-the-abomination-in

(2) https://vinnews.com/2026/05/11/labor-court-rejects-supermarket-employee-claim-of-wrongful-dismissal-over-kashrus-concerns/

(3) Maurice Lamm, 1991, ‘Becoming a Jew’, 1^st Edition, Jonathan David: New York, pp. 68-60; Neville Laski, 1952, ‘The Laws and Charities of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews Congregation of London’, 1st Edition, The Cresset Press: London, pp. 94-95

(4) Anita Diamant, 1997, ‘Choosing a Jewish Life: A Handbook for People Converted to Judaism and for their Family and Friends’, 1^st Edition, Schocken: New York, p. 20

(5) Quoted by Lamm, Op. Cit., p. 36

(6) Lawrence Hoffman, Morris Kertzer, 1993, ‘What is a Jew?’, 5^th Edition, Simon & Schuster: New York, p. 114

(7) Jacob Neusner, 2004, ’Making God’s Word Work: A Guide to the Mishnah’, 1st Edition, Continuum: New York, pp. 64-65

(8) Emanuel Feldman, 1998, ’On Judaism: Conversations on being Jewish in Today’s World’, 2nd Edition, Shaar Press: New York, pp. 269-270

(9) Arthur Cohn, 1972, ‘Of Israel’s Teachings and Destiny: Sermons, Studies and Essays’, 1st Edition, Ahron Press: New York, p. 79

Thus, I thought it apt that as a convinced ‘Holocaust’ revisionist myself I’d reply to Rosensaft’s god-awful mound of verbal vomit pretending to be an ‘opinion piece’.

To wit Rosensaft writes:

‘When I learned that Holocaust deniers had infiltrated a New Hampshire legislative meeting and tried to insert their view into the state’s Holocaust education efforts, I was personally outraged.’ (3)

Oh no; I mean we can’t possibly include a critical and/or dissenting view into the ‘Holocaust education’ effort now, can we?

For example, it is normal to include multiple perspectives in the discussion of a historical topic and even the crimes of say Stalin get that courtesy because if a critical and/or dissenting opinion has a decent body of scholarship behind it – and the ‘Holocaust’ revisionist corpus of scholarship is heavily primary source based (unlike most ‘books on the ‘Holocaust’ which invariably rely heavy on secondary sources), original and far superior in terms of research quality as well as originality (although not in terms of quantity) to the body of orthodox ‘Holocaust’ scholarship – as it allows young minds to – as the late academic historian and ‘Holocaust’ revisionist Robert Countess once put it – ‘to make their own minds up’. (4)

If orthodox ‘Holocaust’ scholarship is so solid, then why is it so deathly afraid of revisionist arguments and keeps trying to simply ban/criminalise them instead?

Naturally Rosensaft claims he was ‘personally outraged’ – when is a jew not ‘personally outraged’ or ‘personally offended’? – because he sincerely believes that his relatives were ‘murdered with Zyklon B gas’ at Auschwitz Birkenau (aka Auschwitz II) in August 1943, but the problem is – aside from the curious fact that no jew ever seems to want to claim that their relatives were gassed at Auschwitz I (aka the Stammlager) in the same way that no jew seems to have met any other SS doctor at Auschwitz other than Josef Mengele even though Mengele was primarily working at the gypsy sub-camp of Auschwitz Birkenau not among the jews – (5) that there is no evidence that his relatives were ‘murdered with Zyklon B gas’ at Auschwitz Birkenau (aka Auschwitz II) in August 1943 and any orthodox ‘Holocaust’ scholar worth their salt knows this (although apparently not the perennially ignorant Rosensaft).

Rosensaft’s case for his relatives being ‘gassed’ is assumptive and circular.

It runs roughly like this: the ‘Holocaust’ therefore because my relatives died in Auschwitz, they were gassed and the ‘Holocaust’ is true because my relatives were ‘gassed in Auschwitz’.

It is simply an archetypal case of what the British/American popular historian Paul Johnson once rightly called ‘logical fiddlesticks’.

Rosensaft continues by writing that:

‘My grandparents, my mother’s first husband and their 5-and-½-year-old son were murdered by Zyklon-B gas in a Birkenau gas chamber in August 1943 — dying cruelly in exactly the way that Germar Rudolf, who was invited by a state lawmaker to testify before a legislative committee, says no Jews were killed.’ (6)

However as we have seen despite Rosensaft’s claims: he has no direct primary evidence that his claim is actually true – my guess is that if Rosensaft’s relatives were registered inmates at Auschwitz (as is quite possible) then the Auschwitz death books and death certificates would indicate some other cause of death entirely (likely tuberculosis that was sweeping the Auschwitz camp complexes in deadly waves between 1942 and 1943) - (7) and as such his bleating on about his ‘gassed relatives’ is simply histrionics designed to manipulate the reader’s emotions not to actually make an intellectual sound point (probably because he can’t).

Rosensaft continues on by incoherently blathering that:

‘Rudolf is a prominent figure among Holocaust deniers. For more than 39 years, his “Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust” has sought to delegitimize and undermine the historical record of the mass murder of 6 million European Jews during World War II by promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories and characterizing the Holocaust as a myth.

Historian Deborah Lipstadt describes Rudolf as “a hardcore denialist. He says no gas chambers, no plan to kill the Jews. It’s all a myth.” In the course of a 2007 trial in Germany, in which he was convicted of inciting racial hatred, he dismissed the Holocaust as “a gigantic fraud.”’ (8)

In the first instance Deborah Lipstadt is not an ‘expert’ on the ‘Holocaust’ as she’s published remarkably little on it – her famed ‘Holocaust’ ‘expertise’ almost solely rests on her famous 1996 law suit with David Irving and a very poorly researched 1993 book titled ‘Denying the Holocaust’ that doesn’t delve into revisionist arguments past circa 1980 for some unfathomable reason let alone cover Jurgen Graf, Thomas Kues, Carlo Mattogno and Germar Rudolf’s huge output of primary source based micro-historical studies on individual camps and specific aspects of the ‘Holocaust’ theory since circa 2000 (there is almost no equivalent to these studies in orthodox ‘Holocaust’ scholarship) – and functions primarily as a media talking head with a PhD (in ‘Jewish Studies’) as well as a spokeswoman for the ‘Holocaust’ industry.

Quite frankly I’d be surprised if Lipstadt (let alone the even more grossly ignorant Rosensaft) actually knows the difference between Majdanek and Maly Trostenets, but that’s just me.

Ergo her ‘expert opinion’ means very little and she certainly doesn’t have anything like the intellectual authority – even inside orthodox ‘Holocaust’ scholarship – to pronounce the ‘Holocaust is a fact’ given that various ‘Holocaust’ authorities – most famously the doyen of ‘Holocaust’ historians Raul Hilberg – have grudgingly admitted the severe lack of primary evidence for the ‘Holocaust’ as a historical theory.

In the second instance Rosensaft tries to cover the lack of ‘easy to point to’ primary evidence for the ‘Holocaust’ by acting… well… like the lawyer that he is and proclaiming that the ‘Holocaust’ is equivalent to gravity and anyone who denies/doubts the ‘Holocaust’ is being as moronic as denying/doubting the existence of gravity.

However, as we have seen this simply isn’t the case since the ‘evidence’ for the ‘Holocaust’ is remarkably poor and lacking in all the normal bureaucratic documentation that we’d expect to find (such as the financial accounting documentation for example) – and no; the Germans couldn’t have realistically destroyed it all let alone as selectively as is often claimed as a ‘get out of jail free’ card when ‘Holocaust’ believers are presented with this problem - and which are present - for example - in huge bundles in the archives for even the mass deportation and execution of tens of thousands of individuals to gulags in individual operations by Stalin’s Soviet Union around the same time compared it being almost non-existent for the ‘mass extermination’ of millions of jews (and others such as the Romani people [aka gypsies]) by the Third Reich.

The truth is simply that we have reems of primary evidence for the German mass deportation of jews and their transport/use in labour camps (primarily for war work much as with Stalin’s ‘labour army’ in his Gulag system); we have almost none for a German policy of ‘mass extermination’ of these jewish deportees.

Thus, unfortunately for Rosensaft the ‘Holocaust’ is not gravity, and we have abundant evidence for the existence of gravity, but almost none for the so-called ‘best documented event in history’.

Rosensaft’s continues on by whining that:

‘Holocaust denial is not merely the manifestation of an insidious and dangerous antisemitic conspiracy theory. It constitutes a moral clear and present danger motivated by a perverse determination to radically downplay if not expunge altogether the annihilation of 6 million Jews during World War II from the historical narrative.’ (9)

Rosensaft here is showcasing his sheer ignorance of how historiography works; he claims by necessary implication that the ‘Holocaust’ is a fact that ‘cannot be doubted’, but as any undergraduate class on research methods would have informed him. Historians hold any fact or event to be ‘doubtable’ (those who doubt are often called ‘revisionists’ ergo ‘Holocaust revisionists’) and there are regular debates over whether – even well-established/widely-believed - historical events, entities and/or groups even existed in the first place even though to the ill-informed layman – which apparently Rosensaft is – would assume they were ‘solid fact’ with examples being the ongoing debate over whether Holodomor actually happened, the niche debate over whether Charlemagne and his Frankish kingdom ever even existed (and were just a later literary creation), the claim that there was a previously unknown large jewish kingdom in southern France during the medieval era and the now increasing consensus that the famous medieval Christian heretics – the Cathars – against whom the Albigensian Crusade was launched in the early thirteenth century never actually existed at all and were an intellectual phantasm constructed by the newly-created Christian universities of Europe and the Dominicans.

The point is that ‘revision’ is both completely normal in historiography and also required because often new sources come to light or we reinvestigate the source material only to find that previous interpretations were dubious, somewhat inaccurate and/or simply erroneous. The only historical ‘event’ where this apparently doesn’t apply to ‘officially’ – although in practice orthodox ‘Holocaust’ scholars have been steadily and quietly revising their narrative to be very close to the ‘Holocaust’ revisionist one for decades now (for example by now discarding the so-called ‘gas chambers’ of Majdanek and turning Stutthof from a ‘second Auschwitz’ to a ‘second Dachau’ [which again showcases Rosensaft’s serious ignorance of the orthodox ‘Holocaust’ literature]) – is the ‘Holocaust’, which has been elevated to the status of ‘absolute fact’ and secular religious dogma as the late traditionalist Catholic bishop Richard Williamson rightly observed a decade or two ago.

To deny this requirement for scholarly revision and to elevate an alleged ‘historical event’ to the status of ‘absolute truth’ and secular religious dogma is both hilariously ignorant, but also showcases how Rosensaft is a classic case of the Dunning-Kruger Effect where Rosensaft has just enough knowledge to think himself an expert on the ‘Holocaust’ but not enough to know that he barely knows anything about it let alone the intricacies involved.

Indeed, Rosensaft ends up looking like the metaphorical spastic in the magnet factory rather than the august self-styled ‘crusader for historical truth’ that he wants to present himself as.

This is obvious in what Rosensaft says next when tries to provoke a moral panic among his circumcised confreres writing that:

‘The alarming reality, however, is that because Holocaust denial is generally considered to be less harmful than other variants of antisemitism, it is far too often allowed to fester and foment under a spurious guise of freedom of speech.

By failing to prevent Rudolf from testifying and not striking his testimony from the official record when he questioned whether and how my grandparents and my brother were murdered, the chairperson of this New Hampshire state House committee lent credence to Rudolf’s nefarious agenda. Sadly, this is anything but an isolated incident.’ (10)

To translate this from what we may term ‘jew speak’; Rosensaft is claiming that to doubt the ‘absolute truth’ (and the historical reality) of the ‘Holocaust’ narrative is not ‘free speech’ but rather ‘anti-Semitism’.

It is not predictably explained why ‘anti-Semitism’ is not ipso facto free speech (probably because that’d require lots of tortured and self-contradictory verbiage to ‘explain’) but we may reasonably assume the logic Rosensaft is using is a variant of the jewish political philosopher Karl Popper’s popular concept of the ‘Open Society’ where the ‘Open Society’ needs to be protected from ‘anti-democratic’ or ‘harmful’ ideas meaning in effect that Popper (and presumably Rosensaft) aren’t pro-free speech at all but rather want all anti-jewish/anti-Israel speech banned as being ‘harmful’.

In essence Rosensaft is actually repeating the following demand made by jewish organizations in the United States on 17^th May 1954.

To wit:

‘Resolutions calling for the barring of anti-Semitic literature from the mails, and urging the U.S. Government to reconsider its decision to send arms to Iraq were adopted here by the American Association of English-Jewish Newspapers at its annual convention this week-end.

A delegation representing the Association was received at the White House by Presidential Assistant Sherman Adams, who accepted on behalf of President Eisenhower a Bible presented by the Association.’ (11)

Put simply: ban ‘anti-Semites’ from distributing/publishing/writing/making arguments critical of jews, Judaism and/or Israel because ‘jews say so’.

Rosensaft’s ‘argument’ is this same demand dressed up for modernity with some basic rhetoric and unevidenced assumptions.

It is thus little surprise to any observer of the jews that Rosensaft then immediately begins engaging in public self-gratification and self-promotion when he writes:

‘Confronting and refuting Holocaust deniers has come to resemble the classic Whac-a-Mole arcade game except that unlike trying to hit inoffensive plastic facsimiles of burrowing mammals with a mallet, exposing, ostracizing and utterly discrediting Holocaust deniers is both urgent and deadly serious.

Professional charlatans such as Rudolf, David Irving, Frank Leuchter, and Ernst Zündel have made Holocaust denial a career and can be dismissed as such. But I am increasingly unnerved by mainstream or quasi-mainstream figures who spout or otherwise provide a veneer of credibility to Holocaust denial claptrap.

This isn’t new. Patrick Buchanan, the Nixon and Reagan White House official and reactionary populist candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, wrote in a March 1990 syndicated column that it would have been impossible for Jews to perish in the gas chambers of the Treblinka death camp. Until I outed him and it in a 2009 New York Daily News op-ed, his official website, Buchanan.org, featured a Holocaust denial forum that included such comments as “there simply were not gas chambers or mass crematoriums at any of the German internment camps” and “We have known for some time that the Auschwitz myth is of an exclusively Jewish origin.”

Also in 2009, Bishop Richard Williamson, the excommunicated member of an ultra-right-wing splinter group of the Roman Catholic Church whom Pope Benedict XVI briefly brought back into the fold, declared on Swedish television in 2009 that “I believe there were no gas chambers” and that no more than 200,000 or 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, “but none of them by gas chambers.”’ (12)

What Rosensaft is doing here is claiming he has ‘confronted and exposed’ so-called ‘Holocaust Deniers’ (more accurately termed as ‘Holocaust Revisionists’) with the necessary implication that he has personally ‘proven the Holocaust to be true’ and ‘debunked them’.

This simply isn’t true as Rosensaft has never – to my knowledge nor a quick search - published any scholarly work on the ‘Holocaust’ and his ‘list of deniers’ (i.e., ‘Rudolf, David Irving, Frank Leuchter, and Ernst Zundel’) is from the early to mid-1990s with everyone but Rudolf having all but ceased activity by the mid-2000s (he is also missing off other major revisionist figures of this era like Austrian engineer Walter Luftl [who wrote the ‘Luftl Report’ on the gas chambers, the air photograph expert John Ball’s work on the air reconnaissance photos of Auschwitz and the German judge Wilhelm Staglich’s analysis of the ‘evidence for Auschwitz’ among a variety of others]) .

The problem is also that Rosensaft couldn’t quite frankly ‘debunk’ Rudolf if he tried given Rudolf is a trained chemist who has conducted chemical tests on the bunkers of Auschwitz (the ‘Rudolf Report’ that was commissioned by Zundel) with a long record of publishing scholarly material based on primary sources on the ‘Holocaust’ where-as Rosensaft is frankly well… just a jewish lawyer and a ‘Holocaust Industry’ activist with no scholarly publishing history that I can find on the subject he wants to act like an ‘expert’ in.

Similar points apply to Leuchter (an American engineer who specialised in the operation of homicidal gas chambers in US prisons who wrote what has become known as the ‘Leuchter Report’) and Irving (a British historian and probably still the single best biographer of major figures in the Third Reich given his massive reliable on primary source documentation not ‘received opinion’ or ‘court history’ as the nationalist academic William Pierce once termed it), while Zundel was the rough equivalent of Rosensaft and was a ‘Holocaust Revisionist’ activist and publisher albeit Zundel appears to forgotten far more about the ‘Holocaust’ than Rosensaft has ever known about it.

To get around the rather revealing fact that Rosensaft – like Lipstadt – doesn’t appear to have read or heard of any revisionist material beyond about 1995; he simply engages in bluff and bluster by pompously going on about how he ‘engaging in a game of classic Whac-a-Mole’ with revisionists and going around ‘personally debunking’ their ‘silly arguments’ when Rosensaft has never done any such thing.

Rosensaft doesn’t even know the first thing about modern ‘Holocaust’ research but is apparently stuck in a perpetual time loop circa 1995 like a dementia patient in a nursing home.

In reality all Rosensaft actually says is that he ‘exposed’ and ‘attacked’ senior Republican figure and popular historian Pat Buchanan for ‘daring’ to refer to revisionist positions with some kind of intellectual respect – Buchanan himself has long been ‘controversial’ for adhering to the historical revisionist interpretation (again primary source based rather than ‘received opinion’) on the lead up to (and outbreak of) the Second World War – and defamed Bishop Richard Williamson for daring to doubt the ‘absolute truth’ of the ‘Holocaust’ as well as criticising it as a secular religion.

He’s basically the intellectual equivalent of the 300-pound neckbeard who poses as an UFC level fighter on the internet and should be taken the same way: as an amusing joke of a man.

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://www.jpost.com/international/article-895393

(2) https://www.jewishtimes.com/the-new-face-of-holocaust-denial-is-harder-to-spot-and-more-dangerous/

(3) Idem.

(4) On this please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/a-simple-guide-to-holocaust-revisionism

(5) On the many myths about Mengele and what the primary documentation actually tells us please see John Wear‘s excellent summary article at ‘Inconvenient History’: https://web.archive.org/web/20230217010850/http://inconvenienthistory.com/13/1/7585

(6) https://www.jewishtimes.com/the-new-face-of-holocaust-denial-is-harder-to-spot-and-more-dangerous/

(7) On this see Carlo Mattogno, 2021, ‘The Making of the Auschwitz Myth: Auschwitz in British Intercepts, Polish Underground Reports and Postwar Testimonies (1941-1947)’, 2^nd Edition, Castle Hill: Uckfield, pp. 46-94

(8) https://www.jewishtimes.com/the-new-face-of-holocaust-denial-is-harder-to-spot-and-more-dangerous/

(9) Idem.

(10) Idem.

(11) https://www.jta.org/archive/jewish-publishers-urge-mail-ban-on-anti-semitic-literature

(12) https://www.jewishtimes.com/the-new-face-of-holocaust-denial-is-harder-to-spot-and-more-dangerous/