Santa, Inc.: Hollywood’s Latest Attack on Jesus Christ

This article was originally published in the January 2022 edition of Culture Wars magazine.

“The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.”

— Polish proverb

The wicked flee when no one pursues. . . .

— Proverbs 28:1

The murderer always returns to the scene of the crime.¹

As in the culture wars, there are no truces in the war on Christmas. Although he didn’t start it, former Fox pundit Bill O’Reilly played a major role in popularizing the idea that someone was waging a war on Christmas when The O’Reilly Factor ran a segment on “Christmas under Siege” on December 7, 2004. “All over the country,” O’Reilly complained, “Christmas is taking flak. In Denver this past weekend, no religious floats were permitted in the holiday parade there. In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg unveiled the ‘holiday tree,’ and no Christian Christmas symbols are allowed in the public schools. Federated Department Stores—that’s Macy’s—have done away with the Christmas greeting ‘Merry Christmas.’”² Within days, conservative pundit Pat Buchanan joined the fray when he claimed that banning Christian symbols from public events during the Christmas season constituted “hate crimes against Christianity.”³

The Conservative counterattack in the Christmas wars was unfortunately hampered by an inability to identify the enemy. Bill O’Reilly described the aggressors as “secular progressives” and went on to claim that they could never succeed in institutionalizing things like “gay marriage, partial birth abortion, euthanasia, legalized drugs, income redistribution through taxation and many other progressive visions because of religious opposition.” As anyone who has been following the culture wars now knows, the “secular progressives” have been spectacularly successful in imposing their agenda on us in spite of “religious opposition.” Does anyone remember Robbie George’s Manhattan Declaration that marriage could only be between a man and a woman? Amy Dean could hardly conceal her Schadenfreude when that initiative succumbed to the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision.

One year later, on December 7, 2005, Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show, joined the Christmas Wars when he announced “I am your enemy. Make me your enemy.” Stewart, whose real name is Liebowitz, then announced that he hated Christmas, Christians, morality, and, to distract everyone from the fact that he was Jewish and that Jews made up the core of opposition to Christmas, “Jews,” as well. Leibowitz/Stewart’s disingenuous addition of Jews as a category which incurred his hatred did little to change the fact that the Christmas Wars had always been a Catholic-Jewish battle.

As early as 1920, Henry Ford wrote in The International Jew that “the whole record of the Jewish opposition to Christmas … shows the venom and directness of [their] attack.”⁴ Ford complained that just as “3,000,000 Jews can control the affairs of 100,000,000 Americans, … ten Jewish students can abolish the mention of Christmas and Easter out of schools containing 3,000 Christian pupils.”⁵ In 2016, David Duke resurrected Ford’s claim, adding that “the effort to destroy Christmas traditions has been led by the organized Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, the ADL and a host of powerful Jewish groups have led the attack against Christmas.”⁶

“The ACLU,” Duke continued:

is also active. Since its inception the ACLU has been dominated by Jewish lawyers and Jewish funding. …To put it bluntly, the war on Christmas has been led by Jewish organizations, financed by Jewish financiers, fought in the courts by Jewish lawyers, and enacted in government, by Jewish influence over Gentile collaborators. … Underlying the whole campaign is the Jewish dominated media. Extremist Jews who make up less than three percent of the population have prevailed over the wishes of 90 percent of the American people.⁷

During the first two decades of the 21^st century, Jewish organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union created a country in which the Menorah, which was not a religious symbol according to the Jews who ran the ACLU, drove first the cross, then the creche, and finally the Christmas tree, out of the public square because they were religious symbols, at least according to the ACLU. In Duke’s home state of Louisiana, “the Jews continue to turn the Christmas holiday into a ‘multi-cultural,’ ‘multi-religious,’ ‘secularized’ event. For the promotion of the diversity of cultures & religions creates a plethora of disorganized minorities wherein the powerful, wealthy, and very organized minority of Jews gains control over the American masses.”⁸

Duke and Ford were only saying publicly what American Jews like Philip Roth had been saying to each other privately for decades. In his book Shylock: A Confession, Roth claimed that even relatively benign figures like Irving Berlin had “de-Christed” Christmas:

The radio was playing “Easter Parade” and I thought, but this is Jewish genius on a par with the Ten Commandments. God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and then He gave to Irving Berlin “Easter Parade” and “White Christmas.” The two holidays that celebrate the divinity of Christ — the divinity that’s the very heart of the Jewish rejection of Christianity — and what does Irving Berlin brilliantly do? He de-Christs them both! Easter he turns into a fashion show and Christmas into a holiday about snow. … He turns their religion into schlock. But nicely! Nicely! So nicely the goyim don’t even know what hit ‘em. They love it. Everybody loves it. … If schlockified Christianity is Christianity cleansed of Jew hatred, then three cheers for schlock. If supplanting Jesus Christ with snow can enable my people to cozy up to Christmas, then let it snow, let it snow, let it snow!⁹

Like “White Christmas,” virtually every Christmas song that gets played on the radio during Advent was composed by a Jew, not because Jews celebrated Christmas but because they controlled the music publishing business in New York and saw Christmas songs as a surefire way of making money off of goyische sentimentality. The Americans’ image of Santa Claus was created by the American Swede Haddon Sundblom, who was not a Jew, but the image became popular because of advertising as the basis of a campaign to promote Coca-Cola. Christmas, as a result of advertising, became a Jewish narrative not unlike the “Torches of Freedom” campaign which co-opted the Easter Parade in New York City in 1929. The man behind that campaign was Eddy Bernays, the Jewish father of advertising and public relations and the nephew of Sigmund Freud.

Santa Claus was part of a Jewish narrative whose main purpose was the financial exploitation of Christmas by turning Advent into non-stop shopping at Jewish owned department stores. The Jewish Christmas season began on Thanksgiving when Santa climbed up a fire-truck ladder into one of the many department store toylands or Santa’s workshops as the culmination of an annual Thanksgiving Day parade. The “most notable” of these parades was the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade at Macy’s flagship store in New York City. Macy’s was controlled by the Strauss family, which promoted relatively benign Jewish control over the Santa narrative. But as commercial interests became more intrusive, dissatisfaction with Jewish-inspired commercialization of Christmas caused Carol Jean-Swanson to claim that Santa Claus symbolized not “self-less giving,” but rather “conspicuous consumption”:

Our jolly old Saint Nicholas reflects our culture to a T, for he is fanciful, exuberant, bountiful, over-weight, and highly commercial. He also mirrors some of our highest ideals: childhood purity and innocence, selfless giving, unfaltering love, justice, and mercy. (What child has ever received a coal for Christmas?) The problem is that, in the process, he has become burdened with some of society’s greatest challenges: materialism, corporate greed, and domination by the media. Here, Santa carries more in his baggage than toys alone!¹⁰

Unlike Jesus Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, “Santa” has inspired more than one “noble lie.” Philosopher David Kyle Johnson contends that the Santa narrative of gifts coming down the chimney from a sleigh on the roof is a lie which degrades “parental trustworthiness” and “encourages credulity” instead. “Itdoes not encourage imagination, and it’s equivalent to bribing your kids for good behavior.”¹¹

Conservatives, as O’Reilly’s laundry list of now approved cultural assaults like gay marriage indicates, have been singularly ineffective in the culture wars. Because they couldn’t identify the enemy, conservatives got accused of manufacturing a crisis which existed nowhere but in their own minds, leading to claims that: “The so-called ‘War on Christmas’ … is a right-wing demagogic neologism referring to real or imagined secularist attempt to keep the December solstice holiday shopping season culturally inclusive. It sets the standard by which all other manufactroversies may be judged, and is most famously hawked every year by none other than now-former Fox News Channel host Bill O’Reilly.”¹²

Those who still feel that the war on Christmas is a right-wing fantasy would do well to watch Santa, Inc., “an animated limited series written for an adult audience,” whose “plotline centers on an elf, voiced by Sarah Silverman, who wants to take over the role of Santa Claus. Seth Rogen plays Santa.” Santa, Inc. suffers from all of the ailments which killed Jewish humor years ago. In lieu of being funny, the script calls for liberal use of the word “f—,” as when Santa tells a reporter at a press conference, “f— you.” Or when Silverman, the Jewish elf, announces, “Let’s get these f—ing kids some f—ing presents.”¹³ Not to be outdone by Silverman, Seth Rogan tweeted: “I finally get to live every Jewish boy’s dream of being f—ing Santa Claus.”¹⁴ To her credit, Silverman did not announce that she was willing to kill Christ in this children’s Christmas film as she has done elsewhere,¹⁵ but the same animus, hiding under humor that isn’t funny, pervades the entire film because virtually everyone associated with Santa, Inc. is Jewish, a fact which vindicates David Duke’s claim that “Jewish Hollywood continues to produce films and TV programs that defile our European Christmas traditions. Even the venerable figure of Santa Claus or St. Nicklaus has not escaped Jewish hate.”¹⁶

Santa, Inc. is a prime example of the Jewish hatred that has been fueling the War on Christmas for decades now and proof that that hatred is a category of reality and not “a right-wing demagogic neologism.” But to say that David Duke has been vindicated is not to say that there is nothing new here. Santa, Inc. opened a new front in the War on Christmas when Silverman’s character tells Santa, “Good news, sir, more American kids believe in you than they do in vaccines or the Holocaust.”¹⁷ Mentioning Santa Claus and the Holocaust in the same sentence ignited a series of comments in the trailer’s YouTube comment box which, one pundit tells us, “are written in thinly disguised code, potentially to evade punishment or detection. For example, commenters use ‘elves’ to refer to Jewish people and 6 million ‘toys’ or ‘presents’ to refer to the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust.”¹⁸

The top commenter, Man of Low Moral Fiber, who “has a verified YouTube channel with 100,000 subscribers,” wrote, “Did you know? Elves have been knocked off of at least 109 shelves? Somehow they always end up climbing back on and making rules about knocking them off.” According to the ADL, “The number 109 is white supremacist numeric shorthand for an antisemitic claim that Jews have been expelled from 109 different countries.” Is it an “anti-Semitic claim,” or is it a fact whose mention sets off claims of anti-Semitism? Either way, the combox continued undeterred in the same direction, comment after comment. “And they always display the same voracious elfnocentrism that got them knocked off the shelf in the first place. Some might suggest that it’s simply time to take the shelf down. The international elf is the world’s foremost problem.” Ms. Goforth tried to claim that the comments were part of a conspiracy led by Man of Low Moral Fiber’s comments, which had 10,000 likes and more than 100 comments, such as, “Total elf extermination is the only option.” But the fact that “All the top comments are of similar nature” doesn’t make a conspiracy any more than the ADL’s attempt to dismiss them as such does. Ms. Goforth is outraged by the fact that “Many either deny the death toll of the Holocaust or celebrate it” but fails to admit that Sarah Silverman created the equivalence between Santa and the Holocaust when she mentioned them in the same sentence. Far from making gratuitous sleights, the contributors to the combox were only taking Silverman’s statement to its logical conclusion. Both Santa and the Holocaust were Jewish narratives. Both were created with specific purposes in mind. When another top comment says, “6 million presents every Christmas eve? That’s not possible. It takes about one to five minutes to wrap a package,” he is only drawing conclusions from the comparison Silverman herself made, no matter what her intention might have been. All of the YouTube comments on Santa, Inc. are traceable to the equivalence which Silverman herself proposed:

“Did you know? The Elves tell this great story about the 1940s when more elves were killed by Santa than actually existed. If anyone questions the story, their lives are ruined by the elves instantly. Truly magical creatures, the elves,” another commenter wrote.

“Almost everyone involved in this ‘Christmas’ movie is an elf.”

“An anti-elfite used to mean someone who hated elfs, now it means someone who is hated by elfs.”

Joseph Sobran

Jews can engage in cultural aggression with impunity, but as soon as Christians object, it is they who incur the guilt for Jewish infractions. This is known as moral reversal or projection, which involves blaming the accused for what the accuser has actually done. Accusations of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are the infallible signs of Jewish aggression, and Jewish aggression is the infallible sign of suppressed Jewish guilt projected back on the victim. When the victim is especially effective in expressing his grievance, as the banned YouTube comments about “elves” were, the discussion gets shut down. The main engine of moral reversal is the Holocaust, as the banned YouTube comments show. By equating the Holocaust and Santa Claus, Silverman’s “elf” character opened the door for the “holocaust denial” which followed in the comment box. Instead of allowing the discussion which is its supposed raison d’etre, YouTube disabled its dislike counter when the tally stood at 2,500 likes and 84,000 dislikes,¹⁹ and when that failed to stem the tide of negative comments, it disabled all comments completely. “As of this writing,” Goforth tells us, “comments remain enabled on the Santa Inc. trailer.”²⁰ As of this writing, however, all comments were taken down as YouTube’s way of blunting any response to Jewish cultural aggression. YouTube no longer registers dislikes.

Celebration of Christmas may seem innocent to Christians, but Jews understand that “there’s a sinister underbelly to this distraction, steeped in antisemitism” which requires constant vigilance around this time of year.²¹ The Jew who made this comment then explains the proper way for Christians to celebrate Christmas:

Readers of this column frequently ask me, “what can I do to help?” This holiday season, embrace the differences we all share. Hold your friends and family accountable when they wander into casual antisemitism like espousing some variation of conspiracy talk about the Rothschilds or George Soros. Remember that amid the Christmas marketing blitz, there are myriad other cultures that don’t share the same traditions, and it’s okay to honor those. Spread that love and joy this season’s supposed to be all about.²²

The COVID pandemic has only intensified hostilities in the War on Christmas. Supporters of Christmas now have blood on their hands. In an article entitled, “Right-Wing Media’s ‘War On Christmas’ Claims May Have A Death Toll This Year,” we learn that the War on Christmas debate:

has taken on a new meaning amidst the coronavirus pandemic — and the stakes are actually incredibly high. Fox News hosts and right-wing media influencers are aggressively claiming that the secular warriors are fighting Christmas with social distancing measures and government restrictions. Convincing people that these basic public health efforts are illegitimate and offensive is incredibly dangerous as COVID-19 cases surge around the country and the United States surpasses its record for the number of deaths from the virus in a single day.²³

Anyone who decides to celebrate Christmas regardless of what Dr. Fauci says is demonized as a Neo-Nazi, and is subjected to an algorithm of moral reversal which traces ultimately back to the Holocaust:

In a tweet featuring a video of Dr. Anthony Fauci talking with Jake Tapper about social distancing measures, One America News correspondent and neo-Nazi collaborator Jack Posobiec wrote that the CNN host “does not get to tell me whether or not my family celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ.” Breitbart ran a column asking if readers would allow “fascist governors” to “cancel your Christmas.” Right-wing radio host Mark Levin tweeted that “the government doesn’t have the power to cancel Thanksgiving or Christmas!”

The same article then goes on to say:

The baseless narrative that Christmas is somehow being outlawed or erased from public celebration is one of the most enduring talking points for conservative culture warriors, first gaining traction in the mid-2000s through former Fox News hosts such as Bill O’Reilly. During the pandemic, right-wing pundits have infused their message with the panic of “cancel culture” and included Thanksgiving in their fearmongering. But in right-wing media, these harsh realities are nonexistent. As they have for much of the pandemic, Fox News hosts and pro-Trump media activists are peddling falsehoods about social distancing and the administration’s handling of the pandemic. To them, the threat does not come from coronavirus; it comes from the left.²⁴

Not surprisingly, the Jewish CEO of Pfizer has adopted the same mechanism of Jewish moral reversal in dealing with critics of his “vaccine.” According to a report in RT:

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has blamed people spreading “misinformation” on Covid-19 vaccines for the loss of “millions of lives,” and declared that things can only go “back to normal” once they take the jab. Speaking to the NATO-backed Atlantic Council think tank on Tuesday, Bourla said that a “very small” group of people are spreading “misinformation” on Covid-19 vaccines, his company’s own shots included. “Those people are criminals,” he told Atlantic Council CEO Frederick Kempe.²⁵

Why did Mr. Bourla call anyone who disagrees with him a criminal? Following the principle of Jewish moral reversal, we are forced to conclude that he made this claim because he himself is a criminal. One contributor to the RT combox came to precisely this conclusion when he wrote that Bourla called the non-vaxxed criminals because “he is a criminal spreading vaccine misinformation, along with the WHO, CDC, FDA, the government, all health agencies pushing this fraudulent product on the global population.” Bourla calls those who reject his vaccine criminals because “Bourla is a criminal that belongs in prison.” Bourla can make these accusations because he has Jewish privilege, which grants him unlimited use of moral reversal, and he has Jewish privilege because of the Holocaust, which is based on the same sort of moral reversal we just noticed in the Vaccine Wars. The Jew Bourla cries out in pain as he poisons you with his vaccine.

Speaking of poison, Plan A is a recent film which demonstrates that the current regime of moral reversal began during the period when the Holocaust narrative was being created, which is to say immediately following Germany’s defeat in World War II. During the summer of 1945, when Germany’s cities were piles of smoldering rubble and the German people lived like rats in their cellars, the German Jews who had run away during the 1930s swarmed back into Germany lusting for revenge. Plan A is not only based on “a true story,”²⁶ “this film from Israeli brothers Doron and Yoav Paz dramatises an astonishing piece of Holocaust history: a deadly plot by a small group of Jewish survivors to poison the water supply in Nuremberg. ‘An eye for an eye. Six million for six million.’”²⁷

Proverbs 28:1 tells us that the wicked flee when no one pursues them. Plan A indicates that the same psychological dynamic applies to the guilty. If this is not the case, please explain why two Israelis would make a film about Jews poisoning the water supply in Nuremberg? If you look up Jews poisoning wells, you will learn that this is a classic anti-Semitic “canard.” Why then would two Jews make a movie about “the true story” of Jews poisoning the water works in Germany? Is it because they feel the need to justify their actions? More understandable is the German funding for this film. The folks at the Bavarian ministry of culture probably had a good laugh when the Israelis left the room because, in a classic expression of German passive aggressive behavior, they were funding a film that made Jews look like monsters.

I can understand why Germans would fund a film like this as their passive aggressive way of getting back at the Jews who now rule them with an iron rod, but why would Jews want to make a film about the notorious anti-Semitic “canard” that they poison wells? Could it be their guilt that drives them to do this sort of thing? Lay the world’s resources at their feet and they make movies about how they are a wretched bunch of cowardly terrorists who are obsessed with revenge against the innocent. Or did two Israelis make Plan A because the murderer always returns to the scene of the crime?

Murderers return to the scene of the crime because they want to be caught, and they want to be caught because after a while the burden of guilt which accumulates because of their wicked deeds becomes psychologically unbearable. At this point the criminal turns himself in and confesses. The classic example of this sort of behavior can be found in the scaffold scenes in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel, The Scarlet Letter. In scaffold scene one, Hester is publicly condemned as an adulteress and forced to put on the Letter A as a sign of her guilt, while Rev. Dimmesdale, the father of her child, stands by in silence. In scaffold scene two, Dimmesdale returns to the scaffold and bears his own chest but at midnight when no one can see him, engaging in a private act of repentance which does not remove his guilt. In scaffold scene three, Dimmesdale joins Hester and his daughter Pearl on the scaffold in broad daylight and acknowledges his guilt in public, thereby ending the torment which guilt has caused him.

The Jewish equivalent to the murderer returning to the scene of the crime is the Holocaust genre of innumerable books and over 400 feature films. The Holocaust oeuvre corresponds to scaffold scene two in The Scarlet Letter. The Jews keep making Holocaust films because the criminal always returns to the scene of the crime. The Jew proclaims his guilt in a perverse and ultimately ineffectual fashion by portraying himself as the victim, when in fact he is the perpetrator, as Plan A, which involves the modern-day equivalent of poisoning the wells, makes clear.

The scaffold triad in The Scarlet Letter conforms to Hegel’s dialectic, which means that it conforms to the Trinity, which means that it has universal application. So, to transpose that dialectic to an understanding of Jewish psychology, scaffold scene one conforms to the German admission of guilt after the war, which corresponds to Hester’s willingness to wear the Scarlet A and Dimmesdale’s refusal. Dimmesdale’s silence corresponds to the suppression of the guilt which the Jews incurred during the orgy of revenge, rape, and murder which the Jewish people inflicted on innocent Germans after the war. The symbol of that repression is the “Holocaust,” which got memorialized for the next 70 years in Holocaust fictions like Elie Wiesel’s Night, Ilse, She Wolf of the SS, Schindler’s List, and Plan A.

Scaffold scene two in which Dimmesdale bares his chest but at midnight corresponds to the Jewish promotion of the Holocaust as a deflection of guilt into Jewish moral reversal. Denial of guilt deformed the Jewish psyche every bit as much as it deformed Dimmesdale’s. Unfortunately, the Jews have yet to participate in any public act which would acknowledge that guilt as scaffold scene three does in The Scarlet Letter. Unlike Dimmesdale, who is redeemed by public confession of his guilt, the Jews continue to protest their innocence and eternal victimhood, which imprisons them more and more in their sins until the guilt becomes intolerable. At this point, the Jews begin to confess their sins in spite of themselves. This is precisely what happens in Plan A, a film in which they plead guilty to the traditional, anti-Semitic “canard” that Jews poisoned the wells in every country in Europe which welcomed them as aliens.

Like the plot to poison the water supply which never got carried out, Plan A has yet to make it into theaters, even though it was scheduled for release in August 2021. Could it be that some big Jew distributor took the brothers Paz aside and told them Jew to Jew that poisoning helpless Germans doesn’t make Jews look good, even if it’s payback for the Holocaust? That’s entirely possible, but the story of Jewish vengeance after the war is undeniably true, and it has been told by others, notably Michael Bar-Zohar in his book The Avengers. Instead of poisoning the water supply in Nuremberg, the Jewish Avengers opted for a more manageable mission, which they called “Operation Poisoned Bread,” after the Jewish Brigade arrived in Germany in July of 1945, thumping their chests and ready to take on the Wehrmacht, knowing full well that at this point it was hors de combat, interned in Eisenhower’s Rheinwiesenlager, and starving to death. For some reason, Bar-Zohar fails to mention this fact in his book, distracting us from the fact that Israeli soldiers are good at killing unarmed civilians like Palestinian children who throw stones at their tanks but not so good at fighting other soldiers, as they discovered in 2006 when 1,500 Hezbollah soldiers drove them out of Lebanon. The helpless state of the German people at this moment in history, if anything, increased the Avengers’ lust for vengeance. After the leaders of Nakam, “a Hebrew word meaning vengeance,”²⁸ considered three separate plans, they decided not to implement Plan A because, unliked the courageous Jews in the Paz film, the real Jews in Nakam felt that a plan “designed to kill millions of Germans … all at the same time,” including “men, women and children, old and young” was so “diabolical” even Jewish terrorists “couldn’t carry it out.” “Some of us,” one of Bar-Zohar’s sources confided, “were loath to commit such a terrible deed, even against Germans.”²⁹

Softened by moral considerations of this sort, the Avengers instead “decided to poison 36,000 SS”³⁰ soldiers who were being held captive at an internment camp near Nuremberg, which had always been a hotbed of Nazism. After “an industrial chemist carried out several experiments with different poisons,”³¹ the Avengers decided that the “the best method” to kill the unsuspecting prisoners of war was “to spread the poison—arsenic, with other ingredients—[which] was just as white and would not be noticed” on to the bread from the camp bakery which was the German prisoners’ chief source of food.³² With the help of “Jews in the ranks of the Americans guarding the camp,”³³ the courageous Jewish Avengers put their plan into effect on the night of April 13, 1946, hoping to poison 14,000 loaves.³⁴ Unfortunately, at least from the Jewish perspective, the Avengers could only spread poison on 2,000 loaves. As a result, when the loaves were delivered on April 15, 1946, “thousands of SS were seized with violent stomach pains,” but only “700 or 800 died in the next few days.”³⁵ Fortunately, again from the Jewish perspective, “others became paralyzed and died during the year,”³⁶ bringing the final toll up to around “1,000 deaths altogether,”³⁷ which was a mere drop in the bucket compared to the six million, leaving plenty of room for future Jewish vengeance.

After Patton warned Eisenhower that “What we are doing is to utterly destroy the only semi-modern state in Europe so that Russia can swallow the whole,”³⁸ Eisenhower sacked him for his anti-Semitism. Encouraged by politicians like General Eisenhower, the Jews continued to wreak their vengeance on the prostrate German nation, thereby undoing the sympathy which they had gained under Nazi persecution. Before long Jewish vengeance began to convert more Germans to anti-Semitism than all of Hitler’s racial laws and propaganda, something Freda Utley made clear in her 1949 book, The High Cost of Vengeance:

Under the Nazis many, if not most, Germans sympathized with the Jews and were ashamed of the atrocities committed by the Nazis. But accord­ing to what I was told by German Jews, since the defeat of Germany and the Allied occupation more and more Germans formerly free of anti-Semitic prej­udice are saying that after all Hitler was right; the Jews are the cause of Ger­man misery and the unjust treatment Germans receive at the hands of the vic­torious democracies…. Jeanette Wolff, the intrepid Jewish Social-Democratic leader … told me that it was tragic for the German Jews that the behavior of many American Jews and DPs was giving legitimate grounds for anti-Semitism in Germany…. Jeanette- Wolff’s views were not exceptional. Whereas hatred of the German people too, often drives out all pity and sense of justice among those Jews who escaped from Germany in the thirties or never lived in Germany, the German Jew who stayed at home and suffered under Hitler’s terror, whose relatives and friends were murdered, and who themselves endured the horrors of the concentration camps, are for the most part without hatred of the German people, and still feel themselves to be Germans. It is the American Jews (often of Polish or Russian origin) and the returned exiles who seem determined to avenge the agony of the Jewish people in Hitler’s Reich by punishing the whole German people. I suppose the explanation lies in the fact that the Jews who stayed in Germany know from experience that the German people as a whole were not responsi­ble for Nazi crimes. Many of them owe their survival to the risks taken by plain ordinary Germans to save them by hiding them or feeding them. And the Jews who emerged alive from the concentration camps know that many Germans suffered the same hunger and torture as the Jews because they opposed the tyranny of the Nazis and spoke out against the persecution of Jews.³⁹

By 1946, however, two factors put an end to Nakam’s Jewish mayhm. Americans like Generals Patton and Marshall were so appalled with Jewish behavior after the war that they forced a discontinuation of the genocidal Jewish Morgenthau plan. In 1946, the State Department opted for the Marshall Plan, which took a more Christian approach to a defeated enemy. The second factor arose from difficulties among the Jewish terrorists themselves. In 1946, “the leaders of Haganah and other Jewish organizations showed increasing disapproval of the avengers’ activities” because “their prime objective was the creation of the State of Israel.”⁴⁰ Two months after the poisoned bread affair, the Avengers were in Palestine. As a result, in 1947, the Jewish terrorists who had been murdering Germans now shifted their attention to murdering Palestinians, after the General Assembly of the United Nations approved the creation of a Jewish state in November of that year. According to Bar-Zohar, the more radical fringe of the Avengers “couldn’t stand the methods of Haganah” and joined Irgun instead because they wanted “action and not yap-yap-yap.”⁴¹

The alternative to “yap-yap-yap” became clear in April 1948 when the Stern Gang liquidated the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin in a perverse imitation of what the Nazi Einsatzgruppen had done in eastern Europe. The promotion of the Holocaust was a classic example of Jewish moral reversal based now on the slaughter of the inhabitants of Deir Yassin, and not German civilians:

Early in the morning of April 9^th 1948, commandos of the Irgun (headed by Menachem Begin and the Stern Gang) attacked Deir Yassin, a beautiful Arab village with cut stone houses located on the west side of Jerusalem. It was several weeks before the end of the British Mandate and the declaration of the State of Israel. The village lay outside the area to be assigned by the United Nations to the Jewish state; it had a peaceful reputation; it was even said by a Jewish newspaper to have driven out some Arab militants. But it was located on high ground in the corridor between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and with the knowledge of the mainstream Jewish defence force, the Haganah, it was to be conquered and held.

In spite of being better armed, the two Jewish gangs were at first unable to conquer the village. But after they elicited the help of a small band of Palmach troops (the elite fighters of the Haganah), Deir Yassin soon fell. The Palmach soldiers left; it was then that the massacre began. That evening over tea and cookies, in the neighbouring Jewish settlement of Givat Shaul, gang members told foreign correspondents that over 200 Arabs were killed and forty taken prisoner. This was reported in the New York Times the very next day (4/10/48, p.6). The terrorists claimed to have lost four of their own forces. They boasted of the “battle” but made no mention of the male Palestinians whom they had loaded onto trucks, paraded through some Jewish sections of Jerusalem, and then taken back to a stone quarry between Givat Shaul and Deir Yassin and shot to death. On April 13^th the New York Times reported that 254 Arab men, women, and children had been killed at Deir Yassin; there was no mention of prisoners.⁴²

The twisted logic of Jewish moral reversal had reached new levels of refinement over the 2,000 years of its existence. If Christ must have been guilty of something because the Jews killed him, it was just as obvious that the Palestinians of Deir Yassin were terrorists because they had been murdered by the Stern Gang. It was by now equally obvious that Jewish vengeance is the sure sign of Jewish guilt. Jewish guilt began building when the Jews killed Christ, but it reached the point of no return when the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, leaving them without the priesthood, the temple, and the sacrifice which were necessary to expiate the guilt of the Jewish nation. Beginning with Simon bar Kokhbar, Jews attempted to expiate guilt by participation in revolutionary movements, a decision which finds expression in phenomena as diverse as tikkun olam, Zionism, Communism, gay marriage, abortion, and Reichian sexual revolution.

Before long, Bar-Zohar’s repeated claim that the Avengers were highly moral people only draws attention to the guilt they must have felt to make ostentatious claims of innocence like this psychologically necessary. In the determined absence of repentance, this guilt had to be projected onto Germans and then Palestinians. “The year 1948,” Bar-Zohar tells us, “marked the end of the postwar period, but not quite the end of Jewish vengeance.”⁴³ The Avengers planned to “execute Rudolph Hess, Von Schirach, Speer, and the other prominent Nazis serving sentences in Spandau prison,”⁴⁴ but nothing came of that plan largely because the Allies were busy turning Germany into a bulwark against Soviet expansion in Europe. Blocked on the German front, the Jewish Avengers decided to exterminate Palestinians instead in a perverse imitation of what the Nazis had done in retaliation against the murder of Heydrich in Czechoslovakia. In order to become Israelis, Jews first had to become Nazis.

Throughout his book, Bar-Zohar insists that the Avengers felt no remorse for their killings. Bar-Zohar describes in detail how the Avengers executed Adolf Eichmann: “He was put on trial right then and there, sentenced to death and strangled with a silk stocking. We buried his body under the trees,” one of the Avengers told Bar-Zohar.⁴⁵ Or at least they thought they had until Eichmann got captured in Argentina and put on trial in Israel in 1960. Did the Avenger who had murdered the innocent man whom he mistook for Eichmann feel a twinge of conscience at this point? “No,” he said responding to Bar-Zohar’s prompting, “I don’t feel any remorse. Who would?”⁴⁶

Bar-Zohar goes out of his way to exonerate the Jewish Avengers from any guilt incurred in their attack on the prostrate German nation after the war. He goes on to inform us that “the avengers were all just men, men of integrity, whether they belonged to the Jewish Brigade, the Nakam group, the ‘German Battalion,’ the Documentation Center, or lesser known groups. Their behavior bears witness to their complete intellectual and moral honesty. … Justice was their aim. They took care to avoid causing the innocent to suffer. Plans for wholesale reprisals against the German people were never put into effect.”⁴⁷

Bar-Zohar forgot to mention the Morgenthau Plan, which certainly qualified as one of a number of Jewish-inspired “wholesale reprisals against the German people,” but more importantly he forgot passages from his own book, including one in which he mentioned that “The day after one camp was liberated, three hundred women were raped by their liberators.”⁴⁸ In another passage, Bar-Zohar quotes a Jewish Avenger who gives a detailed description of what is going to happen when the Jews arrive in Germany. In his rush to exonerate Jews from any moral culpability for their acts of vengeance, Bar-Zohar forgot what he had written about the Avengers earlier in his own book:

“Give us just a month there, only a month,” they told each other. “We’ll give them something to remember us by forever. They’ll have real reasons for hating us now. We’ll have just one pogrom—in round numbers, we’ll burn down a thousand houses, kill five hundred people, and rape one hundred women.” And more than one youngster was heard to say, “I must kill a German in cold blood, I must. And I must rape a German girl. I don’t care what happens afterwards. Why should we Jews be the only people that suffered in Auschwitz and endured horrors like the Warsaw ghetto, and that had such awful memories engraved on our minds?. . . That’s our war aim—revenge! Not Roosevelt’s four freedoms or the greater glory of the British Empire or Stalin’s ideology. But vengeance, Jewish vengeance!”⁴⁹

It turns out that Goebbels was right when he wrote: “these Americans were combat troops whose only function was to fight; but after them come the rear­guard service troops and especially the Jews, who have in all other cases acted ruthlessly against the population.”⁵⁰

The Jewish justification of rape is not a momentary aberration. It goes to the heart of the Holocaust narrative. Elie Wiesel’s Night is the locus classicus of the Holocaust narrative, but the original French edition as created by the French Catholic writer Francois Mauriac was a heavily redacted version of Wiesel’s original Yiddish text from which Mauriac purged any mention of Jewish vengeance or rape. In the original Yiddish version of Un di velt hot geshvign (And the World Remained Silent), Wiesel wrote (in Seidman’s translation of the Yiddish text), “Early the next day, Jewish boys ran off to Weimar to steal clothing and pota­toes. And to rape German girls. The historical commandment of revenge was not fulfilled.”⁵¹ In La Nuit, the sanitized redaction of Un di velt which got published in France in 1958, Mauriac deleted the verb “rape” and “replaced” it with “sleep with.”⁵² Mauriac the Catholic clearly understood that this passage would render Wiesel odious in the eyes of the reader in a way that Wiesel, who was blinded to the fact by his desire for revenge, did not:

The implication in the Yiddish text is that rape is a frivolous dereliction of the obligation to fulfill “the historical commandment of revenge”; presumably ful­fillment of this obligation would involve a public and concerted act of retribu­tion with a clearly defined target. Un di velt does not spell out what form this retribution might take, only that it is sanctioned—even commanded—by Jew­ish history and tradition.⁵³

Wiesel was also oblivious to the fact that he and his Jewish Avengers were guilty of committing a war crime. Wiesel clearly needed a Catholic superego and editor of the sort Mauriac provided because he:

saw no problem with this particular war crime as long as Jews were committing it and Germans were its vic­tims, [whereas] Mauriac knew that such crimes can never be condoned under any cir­cumstances. As a philo-Semite, he would also have wanted to avoid giving any scandal to non-Jewish readers. His implementation of these emenda­tions is quite possibly mentioned in his correspondence with Wiesel, a cor­respondence much of which has unfortunately disappeared from view, analogously to the use of retroactive continuity in the telling of the Jewish Holocaust story.⁵⁴

Does the Jew feel guilt when he rapes a woman? There are two possible answers to this question: Yes or no. If the Jew does not feel guilt when he rapes a German woman, then he is a psychopath who should be held accountable for his crimes and, if found guilty, locked away in a prison to protect the population at large. But what if the answer is yes? If the Jew does feel guilt, how does he deal with that guilt? How does he get rid of it before it destroys him? The answer is that he projects it onto the victim. This is the purpose of Holocaust movies.

Before long, the subtext of Jewish guilt for the murder of helpless German victims of Jewish vigilante justice becomes too obvious to ignore as the Jews attempt to calm their consciences for the guilt they felt for murdering and raping Germany as it lay prostrate in defeat. The Jews who perpetrated these atrocities, felt “without exception,” that:

they were entrusted with a historic, national mission, that they were the representatives of a whole race. Even today, they are convinced that they were only doing their duty. Gratifying their desire for vengeance does not appear to have affected their moral integrity or mental stability. Nearly all of them, whether their past activities are known or not, now occupy important civilian or military positions in Israel and are quite normal men.⁵⁵

Or, at least, normal Jews or Israelis. As Shakespeare might have said, Bar-Zohar doth protest too much. More importantly, however, this rationalization of criminal behavior became the driving force behind the Holocaust narrative when it entered its pornographic phase as Jews projected their own behavior onto the Germans they murdered and raped after the war, and then onto the Palestinians they dispossessed after the founding of the state of Israel.

Whenever the Germans were given a chance to talk, a different story emerged. Freda Utley, who helped stem the tide of Jewish vengeance after the war, remembered the testimony of a young German soldier who recounted that during his years in occupied France, “We were strictly disciplined and told to be polite and considerate to the French; we lived with them in their houses, and did not throw them into the gutter as you do us. We have learned our les­son though; if there is ever a next time you have taught us Germans what is permitted to a conqueror.”⁵⁶ The fact that after the war so many French women had their heads shorn for fraternization substantiates this German soldier’s claim. Rape was not common in countries occupied by the German army, but it was in the American Zone of Occupation, and it became the official policy of the Soviet troops in the East, who dutifully murdered the women they had raped because they had been encouraged to do this by Jewish propagandists like Ilya Ehrenburg.

The Holocaust narrative is a classic example of Jewish moral reversal. The Nazi concentration camps which got repopulated after the war with German prisoners, were:

Staffed and run by Jews, with help from Poles, Czechs, Russians, and other concentration camp survivors, the prisons were little better than torture chambers where dying was a thing to be prolonged, not hastened. While those with blond hair, blue eyes and handsome features were first to go, anyone who spoke German would do.⁵⁷

The most notorious post-War Jewish concentration camp commandant was 26-year-old Schlomo Morel, who claimed that the six years he spent in Auschwitz justified any revenge he took on the German people but not an explanation of how he survived that period of time in a camp whose main purpose was allegedly extermination. After its liberation at the hands of the Soviet army, Auschwitz was repopulated with German prisoners of war and run by sadistic Jewish guards eager to help Morel exact revenge on the now helpless German people:

As many as eight interrogators, almost all Jews, stood around any one Ger­man saying, “Were you in the Nazi Party?” Sometimes a German said, “Yes,” and the boys shouted, “Du schwein! You pig!” and beat him and broke his arm, perhaps, before sending him to his cell. … But usually a German said, “No,” and the boys … told him, “You’re lying. You were a Nazi.” … A half dozen other interrogators, almost all Jews, pushed the man onto a couch, pulled off his trousers, and hit him with hard rubber clubs and hard rubber hoses full of stones. The sweat started running down the Jews’ arms, and the blood down the man’s naked legs. “Warst du in der Partei?” “Nein!” “Warst du in der Partei?” “Nein!“ the German screamed—screamed, till the boys had to go to Shlomo’s kitchen for a wooden spoon and to use it to cram some rags in the German’s mouth. Then they resumed beating him. … The more the man contradicted them, the more they hated him for it.⁵⁸

German women, perhaps because they were more helpless, fared even worse at the hands of Shlomo Morel and his Jewish avengers. After the sadistic Jewish guards forced German women to exhume the corpses of German soldiers:

they started to suffer nausea as the bodies, black as the stuff in a gutter, appeared. The faces were rotten, the flesh was glue, but the guards— who had often seemed psychopathic, making a German woman drink urine, drink blood, and eat a man’s excrement, inserting an oily five-mark bill in a woman’s vagina, putting a match to it—shouted at the women . . . “Lie down with them!” The women did, and the guards shouted, “Hug them!” “Kiss them!” “Make love with them!” and, with their rifles, pushed on the backs of the women’s heads until their eyes, noses and mouths were deep in the Polish faces’ slime. The women who clamped their lips couldn’t scream, and the women who screamed had to taste something vile. Spitting, retching, the women at last stood up, the wet tendrils still on their chins, fingers, clothes, the wet seeping into the fibers, the stink like a mist around them as they marched back to Lamsdorf. There were no showers there, and the corpses had all had typhus, apparently, and sixty-four women … died.⁵⁹

Holocaust Porn is the classic example of Jewish moral reversal. The Jewish producer of Ilse: She Wolf of the SS is accusing Germans of the behavior which Jews committed against Germans when they ran the concentration camps after the war. The Holocaust became at this point a guilt-driven sexual fantasy which would justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in places like Deir Yassin and the ongoing demonization of the German people to this day.

One of the standard tropes of virtually every Holocaust Porn film from Love Camp 7 to Ilse: She Wolf of the SS involves the same scene: A military truck arrives at the camp; women get out of the truck and are then told to disrobe by sadistic German soldiers. This never happened in any German concentration camp, but it became common after the war when German Jews who had fled Germany during the 1930s returned to exact vengeance on helpless German women. Leni Riefenstahl, the famous German director, was subjected to this behavior when she was interred in one of the vacated German camps which was now populated by German prisoners. One day after her arrival in the camp, Riefenstahl was “taken to a padded cell where I had to strip naked, and a woman examined every square inch of my body. Then I had to get dressed and go down to the courtyard, where many men were stand­ing, apparently prisoners, and I was the only woman. We had to line up before an American guard who spoke German.”⁶⁰ Anna Fest had a similar experience. “Both officers who took our testimony were former German Jews.” Fest recalls those officers screaming questions and accusations at her, “while vicious dogs snarled nearby.”⁶¹ To cite another trope of classic Holocaust porn, one survivor remembers that during his interrogation, “military policemen raped the women at will while leering soldiers watched from windows.”⁶²

In order to steel their consciences against what they clearly knew was immoral and criminal behavior, the Jews “used to read the Jewish Agency’s reports on the death camps and the wholesale extermination of our people. That was to get us in the right state of mind, to push on with it. We were not murderers and, believe me, it was not always easy.”⁶³

Once again, the Jew doth protest too much, telling us over and over again:

what we did was pure revenge. You’ve heard the saying, ‘Vengeance is sweet,” haven’t you? Well, it was for me, I admit. When I had killed a Nazi, knowing that he or one of his kind had torn a baby from its mother’s arms and dashed its head against a wall, then shot the mother in front of the father, then my vengeance was sweet, very sweet. Yes, I killed more than once, and I’ll tell you this—if it had to be done again, I’d do it. We were wholly justified morally, and I’ve never felt the slightest pang of remorse.”⁶⁴

Why does the Jew continue to tell us that he feels no remorse? Doesn’t he understand that his compulsive attempts at self-exculpation betray his guilt?

Once the story of what Jews were doing in the name of the American people became known, public outrage put an end to Jewish vengeance. No one did more to bring the story of Jewish vengeance to light than Freda Utley. Unfortunately, a more sophisticated form of Jewish vengeance continued in Germany as social engineering under the direction of Jewish psychiatrists like David Mardechai Levy, who succeeded in getting Germans to internalize the commands of their oppressors. Jews like Levy turned Germans into “ein Taetervolk” willing “to help, to work, to worry, to obey, to hope, and once more to adapt themselves to the view that the victims were really the guilty.”⁶⁵ The absence of “the spirit of hatred and revenge” among Germany’s Christian citizens only emboldened Germany’s Jewish conquerors:

Continuing the process begun before the war, the Western propaganda offensive against Germany proceeded with renewed vigor following the war. In thousands of books, arti­cles, and movies, the world was reminded over and over again that the Nazi Party in particular, and all Germans in general, were solely respon­sible for the war; that they and they alone had committed beastly atroc­ities; that only the German people and their leaders were war crimi­nals; that German guilt was somehow something “unique.”⁶⁶

When it came to guilt, the Germans had no monopoly. The Allies’ behavior—from saturation bombing in the West to the systematic rape of innocent women in the East—provided enough guilt for extended expiation. German guilt, however, is unique because it arose from social engineering which got inflicted on Germany after war. A crucial part of that social engineering involved the destruction of sexual morality which began when articles on the Kinsey Report started to appear in glossy magazines like Stern in the 1950s and reached a peak in films like Lass Jucken Kumpel in the ‘70s. Lass Jucken Kumpel 5, the first of the series to include hard core pornography, contains a Holocaust scene, which is unsurprising since Franz Marischka, its Jewish director, also worked for MI5 as a translator during the war. The corruption of sexual morals in Germany in the post-War period led to guilt, which the Jews then transformed into guilt over the Holocaust. The spread of sexual deviance in the Catholic Church followed as a matter of course, as Wilhelm Reich had predicted in his magnum opus The Mass Psychology of Fascism. Homosexual priests could now continue acting out in good conscience as long as they supported the Holocaust as the source of German guilt. Jewish guilt, as Katharina Volckmer pointed out, is not non-existent as she claimed in her novel The Appointment; its main manifestation is moral reversal. The Jew cries out in pain when he strikes you. When the Jew assaults Santa Claus, he calls you an anti-Semite if you object to his cultural terrorism.

Endnotes

1 Tito Tricto, “The murderer returns to the scene of the crime,” The Guardian, March 6, 2000, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/mar/06/pinochet.chile2

2 Daniel Denver, “A Short History of the War on Christmas: How everyone from Bill O’Reilly to Jon Stewart became a conspirator in an annual farce,” Politico Magazine, Dec. 16, 2013, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/war-on-christmas-short-history-101222/

3 Denver, “A Short History.”

4 Annie Garau, “A Comprehensive History Of The ‘War on Christmas,'” ati, Dec. 15, 2016, https://allthatsinteresting.com/war-on-christmas

5 Denver, “A Short History.”

6 David Duke, Ph.D., “The Jewish War on Christmas! Christian Christmas Symbols Banned While Jewish Symbols Erected Across America!—If You Love Christmas It is Time to Defend It! The Time is Now!, davidduke.com, Dec. 8, 2016, https://davidduke.com/jewish-war-christmas-christmas-traditions-banned-jewish-symbols-erected/

7 David Duke, Ph.D., “The Jewish Hate Campaign and War Against Christmas!” davidduke.com, Dec. 18, 2014, https://davidduke.com/jewish-supremacist-attack-christmas/

8 Br. Nathanael Kapner, “ADL’s Jewish War on Christmas,” Real Jew News, 2008-2009 copyright, https://www.realjewnews.com/?p=348

9 The Philip Roth Society, “Philip Roth and Holiday Iconography,” Dec. 25, 2012, https://www.philiprothsociety.org/single-post/2012/12/25/philip-roth-and-holiday-iconography

10 “Christmas,” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas

11 David Kyle Johnson, The Myths That Stole Christmas, Humanist Press, 2015, Amazon, https://www.amazon.com/Myths-That-Stole-Christmas/dp/0931779677

12 “War on Christmas,” RationalWiki, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/War_on_Christmas

13 HBO Max, “Santa Inc. / Official Red Band Trailer / HBO Max,” YouTube, Nov. 22, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEx_CBxNrXY

14 Claire Goforth, “Antisemites, Holocaust deniers flood comments on trailer for Seth Rogen Christmas movie,” daily dot, Dec. 1, 2021, https://www.dailydot.com/debug/christmas-special-youtube-antisemitic-santa-inc-seth-rogen/

15 vic975, “Sarah Silverman says ‘I would kill Christ again,'” YouTube, April 24, 2011, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSrhJGGDqx0. The link is still live on YouTube (as of Dec. 14, 2021), and proof that what Silverman said does not constitute hate speech according to their criteria.

16 Duke, “The Jewish Hate Campaign.”

17 Movie Trailer Source (2.19M subscribers), “PLAN A Official Trailer (2021),” YouTube, July 28, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki9pPlrl_bA

18 Goforth, “Antisemites.”

19 Dmitry Pauk, RT reporter, “Distasteful ‘Santa Inc.’ trailer met with equally distasteful anti-Semitic comments,” RT, Dec. 2, 2021, https://www.rt.com/pop-culture/542037-santa-inc-antisemitic-comments/

20 Goforth, “Antisemites.”

21 Dave Flomberg, “Antisemitism on the rise amid the so-called ‘War on Christmas,'” Colorado Times Recorder, Dec. 1, 2021, https://coloradotimesrecorder.com/2021/12/antisemitism-on-the-rise-amid-the-so-called-war-on-christmas/41538/

22 Flomberg, “Antisemitism.”

23 Nick Robins-Early, “Right-Wing Media’s ‘War on Christmas’ Claims May Have A Death Toll This Year,” HUFFPOST, Dec. 19, 2020, updated Dec. 21, 2020, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/war-on-christmas-fox-news-coronavirus_n_5fd3ca07c5b68256b1152e6b

24 Robins-Early, “Right-Wing.”

25 “Pfizer CEO calls people spreading vaccine ‘misinformation’ criminals,” RT, Nov. 9, 2021, https://www.rt.com/news/539828-pfizer-ceo-anti-vaccine-criminals/

26 Movie Trailer Source, “PLAN A.”

27 https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/aug/31/plan-a-review-holocaust-survivors-revenge-plot-doron-yoav-paz+

28 Michael Bar-Zohar, The Avengers, trans. Len Ortzen, (New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1967) p. 46. Digitized by Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation, https://archive.org/details/avengers00barz

29 Bar-Zohar, Avengers, p. 47.

30 Bar-Zohar, Avengers,p. 47.

31 Bar-Zohar, Avengers,p. 48.

32 Bar-Zohar, Avengers, p. 48.

33 Bar-Zohar, Avengers, p. 48.

34 Bar-Zohar, Avengers, p. 49.

35 Bar-Zohar, Avengers, p. 50.

36 Bar-Zohar, Avengers, p. 51.

37 Bar-Zohar, Avengers, p. 51.

38 Thomas Goodrich, Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, (Sheridan, Colorado: Aberdeen Books, 2010), p. 321.

39 Goodrich, Hellstorm, p. 322.

40 Bar-Zohar, Avengers, pp. 54-5.

41 Bar-Zohar, Avengers, p. 79.

42 Daniel A. McGowan, Marc Ellis, Remembering Deir Yassin: The Future of Israel and Palestine, Olive Branch Pr, 1998, https://www.amazon.com/Remembering-Deir-Yassin-Future-Palestine/dp/1566562910

43 Bar-Zohar, Avengers, p. 79.

44 Bar-Zohar, Avengers, p. 82.

45 Bar-Zohar, Avengers, p. 76.

46 Bar-Zohar, Avengers, p. 76.

47 Bar-Zohar, Avengers, p. 85.

48 Bar-Zohar, Avengers, p. 44.

49 Bar-Zohar, Avengers, p. 21.

50 Goodrich, Hellstorm, p. 166.

51 Warren B. Routledge, Holocaust High Priest: Elie Wiesel, Night, The Memory Cult, and the Rise of Revisionism (Uckfield, UK: Castle Hill Publishers, 2015), p. 176.

52 Routledge, High Priest, p. 176.

53 Routledge, High Priest, p. 176.

54 Routledge, High Priest, p. 177.

55 Bar-Zohar, Avengers, p. 25.

56 Goodrich, Hellstorm, pp. 316-7.

57 Goodrich, Hellstorm, p. 305.

58 Goodrich, Hellstorm, pp. 307-8.

59 Goodrich, Hellstorm, pp. 310-11.

60 Goodrich, Hellstorm, p. 302.

61 Goodrich, Hellstorm, p. 304.

62 Goodrich, Hellstorm, p. 302.

63 Bar-Zohar, Avengers, p. 37.

64 Bar-Zohar, Avengers, p. 37.

65 Goodrich, Hellstorm, p. 355.

66 Goodrich, Hellstorm, p. 356.