Elie’s Awesome Adventure

Elie Wiesel - professional jew, ‘Holocaust survivor’, outspoken Zionist, author of ‘Night’ and winner of the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize - was probably one of the best-known jewish individuals in the United States and Western Europe of the twentieth century. Wiesel’s fame is largely based on two seminal events in his life: his supposedly being imprisoned by the Germans and their subsequent and generally inexplicable failure to gas Wiesel despite ordering him to the gas chamber numerous times. (1) The second is the publication of his book ‘Night’ which despite many claims and how it is taught to school children is in fact now acknowledged to be a complete fiction. (2) Both these events are rather open to criticism as Carlo Mattogno has pointed out: Wiesel might well be lying about just about everything he has ever claimed in regard to his experiences in the ‘Death Camps’. (3)

After Wiesel attained international fame as a professional ‘Holocaust survivor’: he began to use his ill-gotten gains to put forward his views on jews in general and critics of jews specifically. Wiesel was one of the key propagandists of the state of Israel who has argued that any criticism of Israel is by nature anti-Semitic as it is criticism/opposition to a jewish state. This is of course utterly illogical and is easily sliced six-ways-to-Sunday by pointing out that any criticism of Britain for example would therefore be anti-Christian because Britain is officially a Christian country (much as Israel is officially a jewish country as opposed to being the jewish nation [which actually refers to jews as a whole both in Israeli law (a-la the ‘Law of Return’ having biological criteria) and in halakhah]). This is obviously an absurd position and therefore Wiesel’s ‘logic’ is shown to be utterly inconstant not to mention vapid in that he applies a double-standard for what is true for the jews is not true of anyone else, because the jews are ‘special’ in Wiesel’s view.

Like many jews - particularly those of the Zionist persuasion - (4) following Stalin’s 1949-1953 attack on ‘rootless cosmopolitans’, which - although often claimed to be anti-Semitic because it disproportionately targeted jews - cannot be reasonably considered so. (5) Wiesel began to turn his attentions as a self-proclaimed Zionist to the ‘plight’ of Soviet jewry and in particular the so-called ‘refuseniks’. (6) Wiesel, of course, already being something of a celebrity in the jewish community decided to visit the Soviet Union personally to ‘ascertain’ - well more correctly to lend credibility to his already held Zionist views on this subject - the ‘condition’ of Soviet jewry. This trip and his ‘exploits’ were subsequently turned into his best-selling 1966 book ‘The Jews of Silence’, which had gone through three new editions by 1987 and further to which Wiesel had travelled back to the Soviet Union twice more claiming to once again be ‘studying the conditions’ that Soviet jewry existed in.

‘The Jews of Silence’ is a book which should be of great interest to anti-Semites as it provides us with a highly respected jewish source for some rather useful claims which he makes during the course of the pages. One in particular - regarding the ‘Holocaust’ ‘mass execution site’ of Babi Yar (in the Ukraine) - is famous within revisionist circles as it is beyond merely comical and actually suggests that Wiesel was either mentally ill or knowingly writing fiction (both solutions are equally plausible in my view).

This claim is as follows:

‘Eyewitnesses say that for months after the killings the ground continued to spurt geysers of blood. One was always treading on corpses. Only recently someone dug up a new mass grave, and it is generally held that this was not the last. So, it is impossible to rely on figures; the dead themselves ensure the need for occasional revisions of former estimates.’ (7)

This is of course utterly absurd in so far as dead bodies - especially those that have been dead for a few days and have thoroughly begun the decomposition process - cannot spurt ‘geysers of blood’ and certainly purpose-built mass graves would not be so shallow as to enable people to be constantly ‘treading on corpses’ in the sense that Wiesel means (i.e., literally and not as some might try to argue metaphorically [this is clear from the context of Wiesel’s remark]). Another obvious problem with Wiesel’s statement is that - as far as I am aware - the actual site of the supposed Babi Yar massacre has never been definitely located and no mass grave has been positively identified to contain Babi Yar’s thousands upon thousands of alleged jewish victims. (8)

Wiesel doesn’t stop there however and actually narrates another obviously fraudulent ‘Holocaust survivor’ fairy tale when he relates as follows:

‘Indeed, those who are prepared to speak the whole truth about Babi Yar can find no one to listen. I was told, for instance, about a woman who rose from her grave in that ravine of death. She had only been wounded. At night she managed to extricate herself from the tangle of bodies that had fallen on top of her and fled, naked. She was given shelter by a Ukrainian. The next day he turned her over to the Germans. Once again she was forced into the long lines, stripped of her clothes, and shot. Once again, she was saved, and this time managed to escape. But her mind had snapped. Now she rants aloud, remembering forgotten things, and people say, “Poor woman, she lives in another world.”’ (9)

This is once again obviously preposterous as the story makes out that the conveniently unnamed jewess managed to defy medical science: survive being shot twice and not lose consciousness due to massive loss of blood due to lack of medical treatment over at least two (and presumably a considerably higher amount of) days (if we also factor in the fact that she was almost certainly vigorously exercising then we can see how further improbable Wiesel’s tall tale is).

This also leaves out the fact that the jewess somehow acquired new clothes (presumably from the Ukrainian) and promptly ran away naked through the countryside twice without being noticed or once again turned in by the undoubtedly bemused locals. Who - if we follow Wiesel’s reasoning and all the other many ‘Holocaust survivor’ claims that have been published - must have regularly seen individual - and groups of - naked jews running through the Soviet countryside after having ‘survived’ the apparently not very efficient Germans attempts to kill them. Not a few of them would have also - like our unnamed jewess - been sporting open bullet wounds that in Wiesel’s logic were ‘spouting geysers of blood’ and managing to defy medical science: these jews promptly survived or performed numerous other miracles. After all, why shouldn’t the jews perform miracles? They are the self-ascribed ‘Chosen’ of Yahweh/Hashem: are they not? Apparently, nothing - even things that defy the laws of nature - is impossible for the jews.

We should also note a further impossibility in how on earth Wiesel came to know such a story - let alone check its authenticity (he implies it is authentic by using it as his ‘best example’ in his chapter entitled ‘Babi Yar’: he predictably doesn’t tell us how he knew that it was) - when he explicitly tells us that the old jewish biddy had lost her proverbial marbles after the event with said event being the direct cause of her general nonsensical gibbering. Did Wiesel simply believe insane people if they say things he happens to like? Apparently so: no doubt Wiesel would ‘believe’ anything that helped him gain differentiation for his product (i.e., himself) and establish himself further again the many would-be jewish ‘Holocaust survivor’ messiahs. (10)  

So why is Wiesel making such outrageous - and in three cases utterly nonsensical - claims?

The simple fact is that he thinks - per his heavily bloated personal ego/messiah complex - that as the ‘prophet’ of Western jewry: he can divine exactly what is truth and fiction. This becomes rather hilariously obvious to us when we read the following absurd claim from Wiesel in his introduction to the first edition of ‘The Jews of Silence’ in 1966.

This is as follows:

‘Having never been involved in political action, I hope that what I have written here will neither exacerbate the cold war nor be used for political purposes. I have never engaged in propaganda, and have no intention of beginning now.’ (11)

This is once again obviously both absurd and utterly egoistic in nature.

We can note the almost mind-numbing lunacy of Wiesel’s claim to ‘not be a propagandist’ because he has never been involved in ‘political action’, which also happens to be an outright lie on Wiesel’s part as he had been involved in pro-Zionist and pro-Holocaust political activity from his ‘liberation’ in 1945 onwards and especially beginning with his fame as the author of ‘Night’. Aside from the false nature of Wiesenthal’s statement we can note that propaganda/propagandistic activity does not exclusively cover political behaviour but rather any activity where-in one knowing purports one’s specific views on a given subject: especially where one is attacking another’s views or addressing persons of different views on a given subject. (12)

It is also clear from the work itself that Wiesel’s obvious intent was for it to be used for ‘political purposes’ - which is actually implied by Martin Gilbert (who also wrote an afterword to the 3^rd edition of ‘The Jews of Silence’) in his compliments to Wiesel - (13) as why else did Wiesel seek to publish a book regarding his experiences if not to propagandise his particular observations and claims. If Wiesel’s aim was not to propagandise surely, he would have just kept his observations to himself, but he didn’t and therefore we cannot but reasonably conclude that Wiesel’s purpose in writing ‘The Jews of Silence’ was propagandistic in nature.

Also, within Wiesel’s statement: we also find an extremely oversized ego. This is evident in Wiesel’s claim that he hoped that what he writes will not ‘exacerbate the Cold War’, which directly implies that Wiesel is on the same level as any major political figure in NATO or the Warsaw Pact. This is, of course, absurd, but it does demonstrate the fact that Wiesel’s motivation and thought process was essentially egoistic and not based on any real concern for his fellow jews. Rather Wiesel was far more interested in how the supposed ‘plight’ of Soviet jewry can be used to his own personal advantage in order to further his own career and profile thus satisfying his considerable ego, which required constant sustenance in order to maintain. This sustenance in Wiesel’s case must most obviously have been derived from the increase in his fame, laurels, monetary gain as well as the simple increase in attention that is paid to him by ‘championing’ a jewish cause.

One suspects that Wiesel didn’t really care for his fellow jews, but rather pretends to care: on the basis that throughout ‘The Jews of Silence’ Wiesel often speaks of - what he claims was - the Soviet jewish reaction to him (as well as his Israeli-born son) (14) while not saying very much about the condition of Soviet jewry in general. What Wiesel does say about Soviet jewry is often meagre, extremely general, sometimes likely contrived/made-up and usually in some way relates directs back to Wiesel himself (according to himself all kinds of implied complements [which the reader is meant to pick up and repeat as if they were his or her own]). (15)

Wiesel’s egoism is perhaps most evident in his assertions that his jewish audience in the Great Synagogue in Moscow was enraptured by him and kept telling him just how wonderful he was. He also asserts that ‘crowds’ of jews ‘crushed each other’ to get at him to ask him questions. (16) Wiesel also claims how wonderful his jewish audience was (17) and that by implication this was because they ‘loved’/‘worshipped’ him (and as such temporarily satisfied Wiesel’s need for ego gratification). (18)

This can only demonstrate to us that Wiesel didn’t really care for the jewish cause that he was championing, but rather was only interested in the supposed ‘plight’ of Soviet jewry in so far as the propagandising of that ‘plight’ could benefit him as an individual jew. In essence Elie Wiesel - like the rest of his Semitic kin - was an absolutely selfish and mercenary character who didn’t care what happened to anyone but himself.

Another aspect of himself that Wiesel brings forth in ‘The Jews of Silence’ was his positive attitude towards the Marxist-Leninist worldview when he tells us in no uncertain terms that it is a ‘pure and humane ideology’, (19) but realising how this might sound he added an ‘apparently’ before that remark to imply that he admired Marxist-Leninist though - perhaps even believing in its validity himself - but at the same time trying to distance himself from too close association with it as to not hamstring or disadvantage his own career as a celebrity jew by publicly associating himself with the Soviet Union and/or Marxist-Leninist thought in its totality.

The reason for this unnecessary inclusion in ‘The Jews of Silence’ is made obvious to us by Wiesel’s constant referencing of all the events and situations that he finds himself in to his own person. In essence making ‘The Jews of Silence’ far more about Wiesel himself than Soviet jewry: in spite of its ostensible subject. This constant self-referencing suggests that Wiesel was looking at the alleged ‘plight’ of Soviet jewry as an opportunity for himself; without caring or even acknowledging the importance of others be they jew or gentile.

This leads us to the conclusion that Wiesel’s pro-Marxist-Leninist statement is in fact an unconscious/conscious ploy that Wiesel is using to attempt to place himself in the middle of the situation between NATO and the Warsaw Pact where he believes he can serve as a mediator/negotiator between these two warring power blocs. This was manifested in Wiesel’s claim that his book (and by logical extension: himself) was so important as to potentially cause an ‘exacerbation of the Cold War’. (20) This then must lead to the conclusion that we have stated above in so far as Wiesel was seeking with his book (which he implicitly believed in his utterly egoistic frame of reference would have a major impact on the world) to achieve an enormous egoistic boost by becoming a ‘power broker’ himself and thus assuring himself perhaps the ultimate status that a jew hopes to achieve: Messianic immortality and the only form of material ‘godhood’ to which any individual may aspire. This would have provided Wiesel with the means to be remembered forever and thus in essence potentially equal Moshe/Moses in his own mind to whom jews habitually look as a role model (but not in the way that non-jews sometimes do). (21)

With this then we conclude our analysis of Wiesel as an individual egocentric jew in his ‘The Jews of Silence’, but there is still one more general matter that Wiesel often brings up that should be put before the reader.

This is perhaps one of the hardest points for some to understand about Judaism: in that it is a religion based on very simple biological principles. In so far as when we speak of Judaism, we do not speak of just another religion that looks for converts, proselytises and holds that it is the only true beacon of light in the darkness of the world. There have been a great many of those: some current and many more that have ceased to be. What marks Judaism out is that it is a religion that cannot but be practised by jews born as jews and by nobody else. This is inherent - although not often explicit today - in much of Judaic thought (some jews even go as far as to lie outright or lie by omission on this point) (22) and is widely acknowledged in both jewish cultural custom and the rabbinical literature. (23)

Wiesel clearly understands that this is the case as he repeatedly informs us throughout ‘The Jews of Silence’ that the jews are special/‘Chosen’ and that jews stay jews regardless of what religious or irreligious creed they espouse. A clear example of this can be found when Wiesel talks of his experiences in a synagogue in Kiev where he observes that the Kohanim ‘blessed the people of Israel’. (24) This to a reader without an understanding of Judaism might seem all rather innocuous, but the small footnote at the bottom of the page inserted by the translator shows us a smidgen of the much more disturbing reality of what Judaism is when it correctly defines the Kohanim as:

‘Members of priestly class, as distinct from “Levites” and “Israelites.” Traditionally, descendants of Aaron the High Priest.’ (25)

The implications of this idea of the Kohanim being present at the service and of importantly a distinct biological order (in terms of hereditary) within Judaism are obvious, but if we take a moment to think about what Wiesel said and his translator’s explanatory note. We realise that what Wiesel is saying here is that in Judaism you have a distinct ‘class above’ ordinary jews in those jews who are biological (and not spiritual as some Christians might be inclined to argue on the basis of Saul aka Paul of Tarsus) descendants of the last high priests/priests of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem. This then begins to clarify the importance of biological (i.e., inherited) status in Judaism, which obviously - as the translator’s note points out - classifies jews into orders of worthiness. We can also point out to complete the impression that in halakhah (jewish religious law) the transmission of ones status as a jew (and not as a lower order of part jew of unsure ancestry such as a ‘mamzer’ (i.e., a bastard or ‘foundling’ [a person of uncertain ancestry]) is dependent on the mother’s being of pure jewish ancestry (the father’s ancestry is held to be less important), but in the case of the Kohanim the father’s pure jewish ancestry is that which is required (the mother’s jewish ancestry or lack of it being unimportant). (26)

The reasons for this have long been conjectured upon and argued about by both jewish and non-jewish scholars. However, the most obvious rationale for this little bit of ‘pure blood’ legislation can be found in the relations between jews and non-jewish servants and slaves. (27) This legislation’s origin can be reasonably traced back to the Torah and most famously the story of Hagar: who was of course used as concubine by the jewish patriarch Abraham who promptly sent her away when his wife Sarah got antsy about being upstaged by a non-jew (and was probably complaining about her looks going as jewesses - especially today - are prone to do). (28)

This leads us to the suggestive although speculative conclusion that this hereditary practice on the part of the jews actually derived from the rather Freudian jewish predilection for seeking to bed gentile women and avoiding marrying jewesses. We can note with interest that this seems to indicate why these laws came into effect in so far as the jewish authorities wanted jews to marry jewesses and to make sure that any concubines - which were undoubtedly kept by any jew who could afford a serving girl or a slave - who bore partially jewish children could not demand that these children be recognised as legitimate by the father because of their jewish heritage. This in essence prevented the dilution of jews and gave rise to the ‘mamzer’ (i.e., bastard) biological class in Judaism.

As for why Judaism demands the Kohanim be a paternal line: that too has an obvious solution in this context. In so far as the high priests and priests of the Kohanim - like their fellow jews often kept concubines who doubled as slaves and serving girls - and whom would produce many children for them and in order to keep their power within their families the Kohanim - as the ruling religious authority with jurisdiction over the halakhah (such as it existed at that point) - ruled that their children with non-jewish wives would be considered jews and more importantly Kohanim so that they could push out other families from their duties leaving only the families of the Kohanim as the ultimate intermediaries between the ‘chosen people’ and Yahweh/Hashem. We can thus see the origin of the split inside Judaism relating to biology and how there are different biological castes - if you will - inside of mainstream Judaism: both today and historically.

This is in essence an egoistic explanation of the origin of this particular custom within Judaism, but as we can see: it makes sense of what is something that is otherwise difficult to understand and explain from a philo-Semitic or anti-Semitic point of view.

Wiesel relates this biological status in numerous ways some of which I will quote by way of example below:

‘Soviet Jewish youth has remained Jewish to a degree beyond anything we could possibly have expected.’ (29)

‘“Who are we?”

“Jews!”

“What are we?”

“Jews!”

“What shall we remain?”

“Jews”’ (30)

‘Their isolation is so total and so absolute that they will do anything to break out, even for a minute. If they fall upon you, begging for a prayer book, a Jewish calendar, a talith, it is not simply because they are religious; they want something to link them to the rest of their people, something to remind them that somewhere in Jewish history continues to be written. Frequently I was approached by young people who wanted anything I could give them, anything at all, so long as it was Jewish.’ (31)

‘On that night of Simchat Torah I happened to be in the company of a Jew from abroad who prided himself on his antireligious and antinationalist convictions, a cold, dry, unsentimental liberated Jew. The youngsters were singing, “Come let us go together, and greet the Jewish people.” Unable to contain himself, he burst into tears. The next day he appeared at the synagogue. “Don’t think I’ve become religious,” he said to me. “It’s not that. But they have made me a better Jew.”’ (32)

I have quoted these four examples of Wiesel’s constant and consistent implication of the jewishness as being biological as opposed to religious in origin. Wiesel informs us repeatedly by these implications that those who claim - usually in books and articles written explicitly for gentiles - that Judaism welcomes converts and is a religion like any other are not being honest. However this is a lie by omission in that what it doesn’t state is that gentile converts to Judaism are accepted (it is however difficult to be accepted as one has to prove one is a jewish soul born in a non-jewish body [note the quasi-biological distinction the jews make here]) but that they are assigned to the lowest biological class (i.e., with ‘mamzers’ and ‘foundlings’) and are only allowed to marry within that biological class. (33) Can it be any clearer that Judaism is not just any religion but is in fact a religion that requires and ensures the supposed absolute biological, emotional and spiritual superiority of the jew over the non-jew.

Thus we cannot but conclude that Wiesel himself also believed all that I have outlined to be true as I have pointed out by quoting him to the general effect of my thesis that Judaism is such a faith, but of course, Wiesel does not state this directly but rather he uses his own version of Leshon Hakmah - the secret language of the jews - to translate his actual meaning to jews while leaving it somewhat hidden to gentiles.

We can thus conclude with the notion that Elie Wiesel is a nasty little jew who has made his wealth and mark on the world on the basis of non-jewish suffering while claiming to have suffered as a jew at the hands of jews. Of course, Wiesel also professed to believe per Judaism that the jews are a superior ‘chosen’ people while the gentiles must be led by the proverbial nose ring to do the ‘good’ which it is apparently not inherent in their nature to do.

That was the real Elie Wiesel.

References

 (1) Robert Faurisson, 1988, ‘A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel’. This is available at the following address: http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml.

(2) The edition of ‘Night’ that is currently sold is actually a massively revised and edited version of Wiesel’s first edition of the work. This has been apologetically covered in Naomi Seidman, 1996, ‘Elie Wiesel and the Scandal of Jewish Rage’. This is available at the following address: http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/tiroirs/tiroirEW/WieselMauriac.html.

(3) Carlo Mattogno, 2010, ‘The Riddle of Lazar-Lázár-Eliezer-Elie Wiesel’. This is available at the following address: http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2010/05/the-riddle-of-lazar-lazar-eliezer-elie-wiesel/; Carlo Mattogno, 2010, ‘Elie Wiesel: “The Most Authoritative Living Witness” of The Shoah’. This is available at the following address: http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2010/02/elie-wiesel-the-most-authoritative-living-witness-of-the-shoah/; Carlo Mattogno, 2010, ‘Elie Wiesel: New Documents’. This is available at the following address: http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2010/03/elie-wiesel-new-documents/.

(4) It must be remembered that the two competing theories in terms of favour within the jewish community from the turn of the twentieth century until the present day have been socialism/marxism and Zionism. For example, see Harriet Pass Freidenreich, 1991, ‘Jewish Politics in Vienna. 1918-1938’, 1^st Edition, Indiana University Press: Indianapolis, especially pp. 48-114.

(5) The two best recent presentations of this particular theory can be found in Benjamin Pinkus, 1984, ‘The Soviet Government and the Jews 1948-1967’, 1^st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York and Gennadi Kostrychenko, 1995, ‘Out of the Red Shadows: Anti-Semitism in Stalin’s Russia’, 1^st Edition, Prometheus: New York. Both are well evidenced and reasonably well thought out, but none-the-less: ignore several fundamental considerations that undermine their theory of Soviet ‘anti-Semitism’. We will be covering this particular claim of Soviet ‘anti-Semitism’ in detail at a later date on Semitic Controversies.

(6) Those jews who had applied to Soviet authorities for permission to emigrate to Israel as jews.

(7) Elie Wiesel, 1987, ‘The Jews of Silence: A Personal Report on Soviet Jewry’, 3^rd Edition, Schocken: New York, p. 26

(8) Herbert Tiedemann, 1994, ‘Babi Yar: Critical Questions and Comments’ in Germar Rudolf (Ed.), Victor Diodon (Trans.), 2003, ‘Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of ‘Truth’ and ‘Memory’’, 2^nd Edition, Theses & Dissertations Press: Chicago, pp. 501-528

(9) Wiesel, Op. Cit., p. 27

(10) Of all of these we can perhaps name the fortunately deceased Simon Wiesenthal as being Wiesel’s only notable rival. Wiesenthal is most famous for publishing numerous works on ‘Nazi hunting’ and renting his name to Rabbi Marvin Hier so that the latter could create the Simon Wiesenthal Center (which Wiesenthal himself had little to do with) using Wiesenthal’s fame to give the organisation a false appearance of authority and impartiality to its activities, which are essentially based on ‘Holocaust’ advocacy, pro-Israeli activism and subverting the United States as part of the so-called ‘Israel Lobby’. Wiesenthal was also best known as the most prominent proponent of the ‘ODESSA’ conspiracy theory, which asserts that the SS escaped intact after the fall of the Third Reich and created a massive conspiratorial organisation to create a Fourth Reich.

(11) Wiesel, Op. Cit., p. xi

(12) For a summary - with which I agree in general although not on the specifics of the definition of propaganda - see Nicholas Jackson O’Shaughnessy, 2004, ‘Politics and Propaganda: Weapons of Mass Seduction’, 1^st Edition, Manchester University Press: Manchester, especially pp. 1-109

(13) Martin Gilbert, 1985, ‘The Jews of Hope: The Plight of Soviet Jewry Today’, 1^st Edition, Penguin: London, pp. v-vi

(14) Wiesel, Op. Cit., p. ix; p. 37

(15) For example, Ibid., pp. 85-89. Where Wiesel claims by implication that the jewish youth in the Soviet Union were specially opening up to him as a jew from the West. Also see pp. 7-9 for example where Wiesel claims that jews instantly recognised him as a jew and started following him around covertly trying to tell him all about their ‘experiences’. Of course, Wiesel doesn’t name the jews in question - even just to give them pseudonyms - but rather creates a vapid picture of what is in essence a Russia-wide jewish conspiracy - a-la the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - without realising the implication of his statements.

(16) Ibid., pp. 16-17

(17) Ibid., pp. viii-ix

(18) Ibid., p. ix. Wiesel directly implies here that he was/is Yahweh/Hashem when he says he in effect that he forgot G-d and by implication of his words became G-d to that jewish congregation. It is worth comparing Wiesel’s reaction to that of Moshe/Moses in the Books of Genesis and Exodus in the Torah/Old Testament.

(19) Ibid., p. 21

(20) Ibid., p. xi

(21) The correct nature of this analysis can be seen through study of specific jews and their relation to the jewish and non-jewish worlds that they inhabit. Fundamentally however in order to understand that this is a jewish motivation we have to understand that jews fundamentally do not see the world the say way that gentiles (or more specifically non-Semites) do and do not; per se, see dishonesty, cheating or gaining something by guile/stealth/deception as being in anyway dishonourable (this is considered a positive in jewish/Semitic thought and there are even positive terms for it in popular jewish culture such as ‘schmoozing’ and ‘chutzpah’). The only time a jew (or rather more generally: a Semite) claims that something is negative is when they perceive it to be to their personal advantage to do so and/or when it effects them personally in a negative way. Otherwise jews tend to shrug their shoulders and recite some formulaic response equivalent to ‘who cares?’ For the different assumptions that underlie jewish thought in general (although you will need to look at the implication of what is said as well as it is obviously assumed) then see Gerald Abrahams, 1961, ‘The Jewish Mind’, 1^st Edition, Constable: London and Raphael Patai, 1996, [1977], ‘The Jewish Mind’, 1^st Edition, Wayne State University Press: Detroit. For an anti-Semitic analysis of the jewish mind that is extremely perceptive as well as well-written see F. Roderich-Stoltheim [Theodor Fritsch], 1923, ‘Das Raetsel des juedischen Erfolges’, 6^th Edition, Hammer Verlag: Leipzig.

(22) For example, Morris Kertzer, Lawrence Hoffman, 1996, ‘What is a Jew?’, 5^th Edition, Simon & Schuster: New York, pp. 280-281.

(23) Modern testimonials to this behaviour can be found in, for example, Sarah Cohen, 2008, ‘Costly Roots’, 1^st Edition, Crossbridge Books: Martley; Arthur Katz, 2000, ‘Ben Israel: Odyssey of a Modern Jew’, 1^st Edition, Burning Bush Publications: Laporte; Reva Mann, 2008, ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter: A True Story of Sex, Drugs and Orthodoxy’, 1^st Edition, Hodder & Stoughton: London; David Daiches, 1971, ‘Two Worlds: An Edinburgh Jewish Childhood’, 2^nd Edition, Sussex University Press: London and for a slightly older testimonial to the same effect see Isaac Levinsohn, 1878, ‘The Russo-Polish Jew’, 1^st Edition, Robert Banks: London. For a general introduction as the biological tradition in Judaism (although one has to ‘read between the lines’ and think about the actual implications of what is said a little bit) please see Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert, Martin Jaffee (Eds.), 2007, ‘The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature’, 1^st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York.

(24) Wiesel, Op. Cit., p. 30

(25) Ibid.

(26) For example, see Phillip Birnbaum, 1964, ‘A Book of Jewish Concepts’, 1^st Edition, Hebrew Publishing: New York, pp. 84-85; 113, 283-284; 425-426; 466; 499, which gives an excellent introduction to jewish ritual and the importance of the Kohanim within Judaism (as well as their biological status and how it is derived). 

(27) A very apologetic account of jewish slavery laws in halakhah - as well as the ludicrous extended claim that jews have always been the best masters and have never mistreated their non-jewish slaves - can be found in Mordecai Katz, 1966, [1925], ‘Protection of the Weak in the Talmud’, 1^st Edition, AMS Press: New York. Also see Ex. 21:1-11.

(28) Gen. 16:1-15; 21: 1-21

(29) Wiesel, Op. Cit., p. 43

(30) Ibid., p. 45

(31) Ibid., p. 55

(32) Ibid., p. 73

(33) This is discussed in detail in Maurice Lamm, 1991, ‘Becoming a Jew’, 1^st Editon, Jonathan David: New York.