The Open Double Standard: Aribert Heim versus Yitzhak Arad

It has been all over the mainstream media and some of the ‘alternative’ media outlets as well of SS Officer Dr. Aribert Heim is supposedly alive and well in South America and Ephraim Zuroff of the Simon Wiesenthal Center is ‘hot on his trail’. (1) Heim is supposed to have committed numerous crimes at Mauthausen concentration camp during the Second World War. The crimes of which Heim has been accused are indeed bestial if they were true, but their supposed purpose would tend to logically discredit them from having occurred for this purpose and having been ignored by the SS administrative and medical personnel both at the camp and in the respective central offices. Indeed, this has proven in recent years by Italian ‘Holocaust’ historian Carlo Mattogno. (2)

Marc Perelman writing in ‘The Jewish Daily Forward’ reports that Heim performed ‘torture experiments he conducted on Jewish prisoners at the concentration camp in Austria.’ Now what Perelman does not state openly - for what reason we shall not speculate on - is the nature of the crimes alleged to have been committed. Heim to be specific is alleged to have injected jewish concentration camp inmates with toxic chemicals such as petrol to see what would happen. Now any competent physician in the 1920s or 30s let alone the 1940s when these experiments were supposedly conducted knows what will happen when you injected a lethal substance into the bloodstream. The patient is going to die in excruciating agony with the time depending on the dosage given to them. (3)

What has perhaps not been asked by Perelman and even by Heim’s ‘hunter’ who seems to view Heim as some form of ‘prey’ - like a wild beast to be corralled in a cage – (4) is what the purpose of these alleged experiments in fact was. Say Heim was in fact doing this he must have had a good medical reason for doing so and certainly he would have had a research objective. However, we are forced to wonder in the literature what the research objective and medical reason for doing said experiments was? After all, in a state of war would it not have been a criminal offense to use scarce materials - such as petrol and medical supplies - which were in extremely high demand on all military and civilian fronts for a non-essential purpose would have been a crime against the German folk and the Third Reich itself.

But what possible reason could there be?

Perelman in fact implies the accepted reason - at least among the jewish people generally - when he uses the phrasing ‘torture experiments’ to describe Heim’s alleged crimes. That phrase tells us that in fact the supposed purposes of these experiments was supposedly to ‘torture jews’ and that there was no obvious research goal or medical need for the data that was supposedly gathered. What purpose these experiments served or more precisely what the research goal was is to the best of my knowledge completely unanswered in the orthodox literature on the ‘Holocaust’; rather we get a formulation similar to that which Mr. Perelman offers us where jews are simply the target because they are jews.

Now are jews really so special as to be the specific target of torture just because they are jews and the world at large is jealous because they are the ‘chosen of Hashem’. So therefore, this special status is the root in the jewish mind of why Heim - and presumably the Third Reich itself - though it was so very important to torture jews to death in horrific ways simply because they were jews.

This jewish interpretation of their own history is perhaps unsurprisingly the standard by which the jewish-dominated modern world at large looks at jews. When an author opposes some of the key established interpretations - such as jews being the victim of ‘irrational prejudice’ rather than the party provoking the other parties in a given settlement, province or country to rise against them - then one is automatically guilty of ‘anti-Semitism’ or more precisely ‘irrational hatred against the jews’ to use the general jewish definition there-of.

Now the stalking of Heim - if he is indeed still alive - is something quite unusual in that here is a man alleged to have been involved in gruesome experiments but jews are so obsessed in finding him that they will do anything to bring publicity to their cause as the German prosecutor quoted almost as a criminal in Perelman’s article noted. What seems obvious to the reader of Perelman’s article is that jews and jewry are still doing anything and everything in their power to find Heim but the question remains why? If they have proven nothing against him from the documentary evidence; why are they pursuing a very old man to deaths door? Ephraim Zuroff himself has stated repeatedly that ‘time in no way diminishes the crime’, (5) but then what about so-called ‘war crimes’ committed by jews?

A story which has been getting less coverage in the international press but quite a lot within Israel itself over the last two decades is the issue over the Lithuanian government’s investigation of a leading jewish ‘Holocaust’ historian Yitzhak Arad (6) in connection with crimes committed against the Lithuanian population in Kaniukai by Soviet anti-German partisan units. (7) What is of interest here is the double standard being used by the jewish people in regard to alleged crimes committed in the same war.

On the one hand specialist jewish organisations are pulling out all the stops to find Heim - including threatening South American governments with their considerable international commercial and political clout - who is alleged to have been involved in war crimes. Whilst we have a famous Israeli ‘Holocaust’ historian - to whom Israel has repeatedly denied Lithuania access – (8) who is being investigated in relation to a massacre of 38 non-jewish civilians in a village in 1944.

Of particular note here is that jewish organisations – (9) as well as the Israeli government - have expressed ‘outrage’ and ‘shock’ about how a jew who ‘fought against the Nazis’ could possibly be investigated for ‘war crimes’. Now if the jewish organisations and the Israeli government wanted ‘truth and memory’ then they would have happily given Lithuania access to Yitzhak Arad. (10)

What do the jews - and presumably the Israelis as well - have to hide?

Surely; they wish to document potential crimes by their own people towards this goal - after all are we not told by what Norman Finkelstein has aptly termed ‘The Holocaust Industry’ – (11) that we must ‘never forget’ and that the slogan of ‘never again!’ should always be on our lips.

But does this not apply when looking for justice for the murdered villagers of Kaniuaki?

Apparently, this is not the case.

Arad is quoted by Perelman and Gerstein as stating:

‘The murderers are now becoming national heroes, and we, the few surviving victims who took up arms and fought the murderers, are under investigation as criminals.’ (12)

Now let’s stop and re-read this breath-taking bit of audacity for a moment; Arad is telling us that he is not a criminal that’s quite a normal statement to make.

However, if he is not a criminal then he should have opened himself up for investigation to the Lithuanian authorities; after all we presume that he has nothing that he wished to hide?

Further he should have voluntarily put himself at the disposal of Lithuanians public prosecutor in order to clear up the matter and actually lending his help to clear his name.

Arad did none of this and as in any criminal investigation when your suspect and his friends and associates don’t co-operate and begin to proclaim their unconditional innocence to the world you are going to get suspicious. After all, if you have nothing to hide; why bother it is far easier to just go down to the proverbial police station and get this sorted out?

That is what any good law-abiding citizen would do. (13)

Now we look at the first far more audacious part of Arad’s statement in which he says that ‘the murderers are now becoming national heroes’; now this might seem a little odd to readers out of context. What it is refers to is the theory put forward by Israeli and jewish sources that there is a ‘right-wing conspiracy’ at work here which seeks to put a jew up for trial for offenses against the Lithuanian people; the underlying logic being that Arad was – and is - a ‘scapegoat’ for all the wrongs of communism since he was part of a Soviet partisan unit (allegedly) fighting for the Lithuanian people.

Now let us ponder this ‘conspiracy’ for a moment.

Perelman and Gerstein describe it thus:

‘As a part of his work, Arad drew the ire of right-wing groups when he publicly asked that the country address the role of Lithuanians in the murder of Jews during the Holocaust. After a number of attacks on Arad in right-wing Lithuanian newspapers, Lithuania's chief prosecutor opened a pre-trial investigation of Arad's wartime actions in Kaniukai. A Polish institute had earlier found that 38 people in the town were killed in 1944 by a Soviet anti-Nazi unit consisting of 120 to 150 people, including both Jews and non-Jews.’ (14)

Now it is obvious from reading this that Perelman and Gerstein are intimating that because Arad was demanding recognition of some ‘war crimes’ against jews - please note the wording ‘against jews’ not against ‘ethnic minorities’ or some such but quite specifically jews - he has had an investigation - which it is implied is spurious - opened into his alleged ‘war crimes’ during his time fighting for the Soviet Union. The supposed spuriousness of these ‘war crimes’ is implied at the end of the article by Perelman and Gerstein quoting Carl Rheims (15) as follows:

‘These are absurd charges. It's an outrage that these charges are being levelled. Even seeking these people as witnesses is obscene.’ (16)

Now apparently it is also ‘obscene’ to investigate jews for war crimes as well; particularly such an established and well known individual as Arad. Why is not ‘obscene’ that charging Heim with crimes that cannot be proven beyond ‘he said, she said’ testimony, (17) but I would suppose that perhaps this is righteous? Because Heim allegedly killed jews, which is apparently the root of all these screaming and spittle-flecked denials that we have thus far quoted. (18)

What Perelman and Gerstein are saying is not what would appear to be the case from the distortion of the facts presented by them. Let us untangle their paragraph to understand the situation as it presents itself.

Arad was temporarily residing in Lithuania after having been invited by the country’s president to help with examining supposed ‘war crimes’ involving Lithuania during the Second World War. It came to light that he - as a member of a Soviet anti-German partisan group in 1944 - may have been involved in a massacre of civilians in Lithuania. ‘Right-wing’ newspapers and organisations then understandably began to agitate for Arad to be investigated in relation to these charges and the government - being the supposed democracy that it is - decided to investigate these serious charges which might compromise Arad’s position on the commission. It continued these investigations in secret because it doesn’t wish for a scandal; however, the Israeli government is informed as per diplomatic etiquette that Lithuania would like to question to Arad in relation to potential ‘war crimes’ offenses in Kaniukai. Then with the ‘right-wing’ newspapers and organisations in Lithuania welcoming this opportunity to clear up some of the uncertainty surrounding the Kaniukai massacre; the jewish organisations and newspapers [Israeli and in the diaspora] begin to shriek loudly to the effect of that this inquiry is an ‘obscene’ and that this should be dropped immediately - presumably with a grovelling apology - as per Andrew Baker of the ‘American Jewish Committee’.

So, Perelman and Gerstein are telling us that this is a ‘right-wing conspiracy’ because a prominent Israeli jew is being asked to come forward and help investigators understand the massacre of Lithuanian people in Kaniukai? I think not but rather what has occurred here is something that is common across jewish history whereby jews as a general rule simply refuse to take responsibility for anything negative.

When Elliot Horowitz discussed this very point in his book ‘Reckless Rites’ he notes in relation to the slaughter of Christians - either perpetrated or encouraged by jews depending on the account you read - in Jerusalem in 614 A.D. that:

‘The tendency in Israeli historiography, both academic and popular, to ignore the slaughter of Jerusalem’s Christians in 614 and/or the Jewish role therein only strengthened after the city came under exclusive Jewish rule as a consequence of the Six Day War.’ (19)

In this regard; we can the same is occurring with the Second World War in that alleged or real ‘war crimes’ against the jews are the subjective of a very considerable amount of popular and academic literature - references being made to them even in works that don’t deal with jews or the so-called ‘Holocaust’ - and that those alleged or real ‘war crimes’ committed by jews are just to be straight out ignored by the world.

So, we get to the bizarre situation that we have discussed where Heim is still being pursued through the world by jews on the premise that he ‘must answer’ for his alleged crimes for which we have nothing more than a heap of jewish testimony that these things supposedly occurred. While a jew who may or may not have had something to do with a massacre in a Lithuanian village is lauded with honours and then protected by his own people; while loudly denouncing his accusers as part of a ‘right-wing conspiracy’ against him.

If Arad had nothing to do with these ‘war crimes’ then why did he not come forward voluntarily and help the Lithuanian public prosecutor with their investigations? If he was not guilty it should have been a simple matter; since he has many friends to stand up for him and allow for a fair trial. While Heim - presuming he is actually still alive - does not have a favourably disposed government or a large body of international media to support him.

The double standard in operation is obvious… if you are a jew apparently you are allowed to quite literally get away with the murder of non jews. However if you are a non-jew and you are alleged to have murdered jews then the jews will allow nothing to get in their way of finding you and serving jewish ‘justice’ upon you.

The chutzpah involved here is quite astounding… even for jews.

References

(1) For example: http://www.forward.com/articles/13850/

(2) Cf. Carlo Mattogno, 2016, ‘Heathcare in Auschwitz: Medical Care and Special Treatment of Registered Inmates’, 1st Edition, Castle Hill: Uckfield and Carlo Mattogno, 2017, ‘An Auschwitz Doctor's Eyewitness Account: The Bestselling Tall Tales of Dr. Mengele's Assistant Analyzed’, 1st Edition, Castle Hill: Uckfield

(3) A sample of what would happen even if you engaged in the much milder practice of petrol sniffing can be found at the following address: http://www.abc.net.au/health/library/stories/2005/11/24/1831506.htm

(4) The imagery evoked by Perelman’s article is a wild, animal trapped in a pit with the hunters circling; this imagery is likely deliberate to convey the impression to the reader that indeed Zuroff’s proclamations that he will ‘find Heim soon’ carry some weight of authenticity. It seems however unlikely that Zuroff’s claims are actually authoritative as Perelman himself notes in passing that (and treats the statement like it was itself criminal): ‘When contacted by the Forward to discuss the sightings, the German state prosecutor leading the cold-case investigation into Heim’s whereabouts alleged that Zuroff had manipulated the facts in order to garner press coverage.’ Which in fact suggests that Zuroff is lying and/or misrepresenting his real position to the world in order to achieve some other objective; since the German government is very much at the mercy of jews and jewry given that is consistently blackmailed into giving ‘Holocaust survivors’ - as well as Israel - capital or payment in kind.

(5) He famously asserted this in relation to Alois Brunner in the television documentary directed by Guido Knopp; ‘The SS: The Mystery of Odessa’ between 36:38 and 36:41 minutes.

(6) A former Chairman of the world-famous Yad Vashem holocaust museum and the author of one of the standard works on the ‘Holocaust’ concerning Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka (the ‘Operation Reinhart Death Camps’).

(7) http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1000086.html

(8) The wording is as follows: ‘In June 2007, Israel was formally asked to question Arad - a request that Israel declined’ in Ibid.

(9) Including the influential American Jewish Congress who stated in Ibid. that: ‘"There was a fair degree of frustration and disappointment because there was nothing really forthcoming, nothing new, no commitments, no promises," said Andrew Baker, director of international Jewish affairs at AJC. "We are all puzzled at why the investigation isn't closed."’

(10) These two generalised entities; the influential jewish organisations and the Israeli government can be generally presumed to equate the will of the jewish people as their well-financed representatives at the international level so we must assume if they generally agreed then they speak to all intents and purposes with the united voice of international jewry.

(11) Norman Finkelstein, 2001, ‘The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering’, 2nd Edition, Verso: New York. On this point also see Barnet Litvinoff’s, 1969, ‘A Peculiar People: Inside the Jewish World Today’, 1st Edition, Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, pp. 264-271.

(12) http://www.forward.com/articles/13850/

(13) In the case of Heim it is well recorded by previous - such as the Demjanjuk - trials of this kind that he would not get a fair trial and that regards of the evidence brought forward in his favour the jury and judges would be inevitably biased against his defence case. This is as true now as it was for Adolf Eichmann when he was tortured in Jerusalem for information and to ensure that he towed the standard ‘Holocaust’ line at that time during his trial trial. For more information about this please see Theodore O’Keefe’s review of ‘Eichmann Interrogated: Transcripts from the Archives of the Israeli Police’; which is available here: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p237_Okeefe.html.

(14) http://www.forward.com/articles/13850/

(15) Carl Rheims is the Executive Director of the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research.

(16) http://www.forward.com/articles/13850/

(17) For example: the witnesses who claim he put dried jewish heads on his desk to decorate it and the experiments which we have already discussed which apparently served no purpose what-so-ever other than making life for jews that bit more uncomfortable.

(18) Along with the jewish preoccupation with being the ‘Chosen people’ and therefore a cut above the rest of humanity. For more on this point I would suggest reading the following: Nathan Perlmutter & Ruth Ann Perlmutter’s, 1982, ‘The Real Anti-Semitism in America’, 1st Edition, Arbor House: New York, pp. 39-41; Dennis Prager & Joseph Telushkin’s, 1981, ‘The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism’, 2nd Edition, Simon and Schuster: New York, pp. 25-31; John Allegro’s, 1971, ‘The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish history from the time of the Exile until the Revolt of Bar Kocheba’, 1st Edition, Hodder and Stoughton: London, pp. 5, 42-51 and 105-126 and Ephraim Levine, 1955, ‘The Jewish Heritage: A Symposium Edited by The Rev. Ephraim Levine’, 1st Edition, Vallentine, Mitchell & Co.: London, p. xii.

(19) Elliot Horowitz, 2007, ‘Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence’, 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton, p. 243