



“At the end of the twentieth century, the ‘Holocaust’ is being bought and sold…In short, ‘Shoah [Hebrew word for Holocaust] business’ is big business.”––Tim Cole, Jewish Professor of History at the University of Bristol







When Norman Finkelstein wrote The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering in 2000, he argues that Holocaust “hoaxers” and “hucksters”—namely Jewish organizations—have exploited what happened in Nazi Germany in order to get millions of dollars from Swiss banks. Finkelstein calls those Jewish leaders a “repellent gang of plutocrats, hoodlums, and hucksters.”

The book was quickly denounced as a work of an anti-Semite, despite the fact that Finkelstein lost his grandparents in Nazi Germany. Finkelstein was teaching at Hunter College at the time and lost his job right after the publication of the book.

Many skeptics questioned his motives—and they should have, since serious scholarship dictates that a person’s motive should also be put under the light of reason and intellectual honesty.

Yet no one has put forward a reasonable counterargument to Finkelstein’s thesis. Haaretz told us that the Jewish establishment thought that killing the book “with kindness was the best strategy.”

Anti-Semitism, distortion of facts, among other words, were applied to describe the book by a number of Jewish writers. Israel Guttman, “formerly the chief historian of Yad Vashem,” called the book an “anti-Semitic lampoon.”







Yet when those people are challenged to back up such charges from assertions made in the book itself, and to refute the documented claims Finkelstein made, none could produce evidentiary foundation. As some have stated, it is not a matter of facts that is the issue, but the style that Finkelstein uses in the book.

Michael Brenner, a professor of Jewish history at the University of Munich, Germany, somewhat agrees with Finkelstein’s work, and at the same time diverges from him because, well, of his style:

“There is a nucleus of justified claims in the book, including the stuff about the compensation issue, the lack of transparency of the Jewish organizations that are handling the matter, and the Holocaust obsession of the American Jewish establishment. Nevertheless, in order to gain a proper understanding of these claims, Novick’s book was definitely enough. Finkelstein’s style only makes it harder to accept these claims.”

Ten years later, some Jewish organizations continued to prove that Finkelstein was right. The Nadav Haetzni’s law firm, “which provides legal advice to the state-owned Company for Restitution of Holocaust Victims Assets,” was one of those organizations. The law firm, Haaretz tells us, “has earned millions of shekels in fees over the last three years.”

That’s not all, the firm “took in NIS 1.2 million in fees in 2008 and over NIS 1 million in 2009; the figure for 2007 was similar. That sum is on top of the hundreds of thousands of shekels the company paid to other law firms during those years.”

The same year, The Jewish Week told us,

“The Claims Conference fired three employees last week who allegedly approved more than 100 fraudulent Holocaust-era claims — filed primarily by Russians now living in Brooklyn — that bilked the German government out of more than $350,000, The Jewish Week has learned.”

Semen Domnister, a Claims Conference Leader worker and ringleader, was found guilty of “falsified applications for German funds.” 28 other people were found guilty as well.

The FBI, the Jerusalem Post told us in 2010, “was investigating fraudulent misappropriation of at least $7 million, possibly substantially more, over the past decade from the Article 2 Fund created in 1995 by the German government to provide quarterly pensions to eligible Holocaust survivors.”

The Claims Conference, in the end, was responsible for a massive fraud, and Jewish hoaxers were amassing a whopping $57 million from it. One German observer who was at the trial simply was shocked to see how the organization was taking “money collected as taxes from German citizens” and how the money “went to individuals who were not Holocaust survivors.”

The Claims Conference has been responsible for pressing the German government over compensation claims made by alleged victims of the Holocaust. This is very bizarre for obvious reasons.

What kind of compensation did Christians or the Russian peasants receive after the Bolshevik regime wiped out more than twenty million people —a figure that is far greater than the figure that is attributed to the Jews killed in Nazi Germany? Within less than three years, the Bolsheviks were responsible for starving more than six million people. No compensation was allocated to their children, let alone their generational children. (Yet the Jerusalem Post declared that in 2010 Benjamin Netanyahu was considering designs for a Red Army memorial! )

What kind of compensation did the German civilians receive right after World War II, when the Red Army raped and tortured millions of men, women and children? The Turkish government, which was run by Jewish revolutionaries and Freemasons known as the Donmeh from 1915 until 1923, liquidated about 1.5 million Armenian Christians. What kind of compensation did those Christians receive? What kind of compensation did the Germans receive after the bombing of Dresden? What kind of compensation did Iraqi families receive when the neoconservative movement largely destroyed the country?

Yet during her presidential debate last year, Michelle Bachmann—blessed her heart—declared that countries such as Iraq and Libya should reimburse the United States because we have liberated them. What a genius.

Never mind that the neoconservatives sent a six-trillion dollar bill to the average American. Never mind that the war in Iraq was based on hoaxes. The Iraqis who are still ruined by the war have to reimburse!

Bachmann said this maybe because she realized that America had already become “the greatest debtor nation in history.” And after George W. Bush did Israel’s dirty work by invading Iraq, Daniel Tauber of the Jerusalem Post declared, “Thank you, George W. Bush!”

This is certainly immoral. As former security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski noted,

“Hitler’s crimes continue to be justly punished. But there are literally thousands of former killers and former torturers in the Soviet Union, who live off official pensions and attend the various revolutionary celebrations, decked out with their medals.”

In 2009, “Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz will demand between 450 million to 1 billion euros in reparations from Germany on behalf of Jews forced into slave labor during the Holocaust.”

In 2011, alleged Holocaust survivors in Miami, Florida (where this writer is from), wanted to sue European insurance companies in order to gain $20 billion in compensation and wanted Congress to help them achieve that goal.

In the same year, “Menachem Youlus, a rabbi who claimed that he rescued Torah scrolls lost during the Holocaust, was arrested on fraud charges and accused of fabricating the stories.” Youlus, the “Jewish Indiana Jones,” was discovered to have used his organization, Save a Torah Inc., to embezzle thousands of dollars.”

As the late Jewish academic Israel Shahak rightly argues,

“In the last 40 years the number of non-Jews killed by Jews is by far greater than the number of the Jews killed by non-Jews…Although the struggle against anti-Semitism (and of all forms of racism) should never cease, the struggle against Jewish chauvinism and exclusivism, which must include a critique of classical Judaism, is now of equal or greater importance.”

And what does Europe say in return? By the end of January of this year, Angela Merkel declared that Germany has an “everlasting responsibility for the crimes of National Socialism, for the victims of World War II and, above all, for the Holocaust.”

She continued to say, “And this must be made clear from generation to generation and it must be said with bravery and moral courage, every individual can make a contribution so that racism and anti-Semitism have no chance.”

Everlasting responsibility? Should the former Soviet Union have an “everlasting” responsibility for the extermination of more than fifty million people? Should Marxist Mao have an everlasting responsibility for the extermination of about 45 million people within less than six years?

Why can’t we be consistent and memorialize all the dead? All people are precious, regardless of their background. Why should we apotheosize one group of people at the expense of everyone else?

The more we learn about the Holocaust business, the more ridiculous the business becomes. It becomes so ridiculous that Jewish scholar and flaming Zionist Menachem Rosensaft, a lecturer at Columbia and Cornell universities, declared in 2011 that “profiting from Nazi memorabilia should be banned.”

In 2010, a Jewish watchmaker by the name of Jack Barouh was guilty of tax evasion, and his response was that

“his secretive behaviour was motivated by his fear as a Jew of persecution and sudden loss. He is just one of many US citizens being tried for tax evasion who held secret accounts at the Swiss bank, UBS. The bank last year admitted to the US government it had hundreds of such accounts…[Barouh] He admitted hiding about $10m (£6.5m) in bank accounts he controlled from 2002 to 2008, not only in Switzerland. He, alongside hundreds of others, were caught after UBS last year admitted orchestrating tax evasion among rich US clients and paid a $780m fine.”

And almost every year we are discovering that the Holocaust industry is a one of the biggest rackets in the twentieth century. But the issue of racketeering goes much deeper—and it is the by-product of an ideology.

For example, the idea that Nazi Germany made soap out of Jewish fat was largely engineered by Simon Wiesenthal, co-founder of the Jewish Historical Documentation Center in Austria, and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, California. The idea was so popular then that it was later uncritically accepted as fact in popular history books such as The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer.

Even before that, the most famous Jewish propagandist of that era, Ilya Ehrenburg, made it clear in his book The Complete Black Book of Russian Jewry that “In another section of the Belzec camp was an enormous soap factory. The Germans picked out the fattest people, murdered them, and boiled them down for soap. The Gestapo thugs never denied the existence of a ‘production process’ of this kind. Whenever they wanted to imitate a Jew, they would say to him, ‘We’ll make a soap out of you.’”

Previously Ehrnburg wrote,

“The Jews were taken into an enormous hall that could hold up to a thousand people. The Germans had led electric wires along the walls of the hall. The wires had no insulation. The same wires also ran across the floor. As soon as the hall was filled with naked people, the German ran a powerful electrical current through the wires.” It was one huge electric chair. The likes of which no criminal fantasy has ever dreamt up.”

Ehrenburg’s complete forgeries did not stop there, and he went on to imagine that “As the bodies burned, they would start to move in various ways; they curled up and stretched out…It was as though the dead were saying that all goodness was lost, that this world might be transformed into the finest soap…”

These powerful assertions and imaginary reactions had a strong and detrimental effect on the Holocaust story. These stories were also presented at the Nuremberg Trial of 1945-1946 and were later established to be “true.” Even alleged eyewitnesses were summoned to testify that they actually saw the whole event.

A large part of Europe ended up believing the Jewish soap story. In America, the story was even more incredible and hysterical. Soviet Jewish leader Solomon Mikhoels from Moscow would tour the United States showing his audience a bar of soap which he maintained was a direct result of Jewish soap manufactured by Nazi Germany.

Ilya Ehrenburg cited one bank clerk by the name of Arthur Rozenshtraukh who “held this ‘Jewish soap’ in his own hands.” So after World War II, a number of books and articles immediately began to pick up the idea and propagate it as historical truth, and during the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, the Jewish soap story was established as a “historical” event. The Jewish writer Max I. Dimont made those ideas even more popular in his book Jews, God and History, first published in 1962. Over a million and half copies of this book were sold.

Even today, there are a number of people who still maintain that there might have been some truth to the story. Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine and his co-author Alex Grobman of the Simon Wiesenthal Center write a section about the soap story in their book Denying History, concluding:

“What can we conclude about this story? Soap was never manufactured on an industrial scale from victims’ bodies, but it may have been done experimentally. As in the case of renegade SS unit abusing corpses, there may have been isolated cases of turning human fat into soap, but certainly not an organized plan to do so on any scale. We agree with the holocaust historian Yisrael Gutman, who concludes that ‘it was never done on a mass scale.’”

Shermer quotes Raul Hilberg to the effect that the soap story might have actually been a historical event, yet Hilberg himself declared in his widely read study that the soap story is a sheer myth. Other Jewish historians such as Walter Laqueur and Yehuda Bauer declare the same thing. Jewish writer D. D. Guttenplan, who interviewed Hilberg for his book The Holocaust on Trial, wrote:

“For a long time everyone knew the Nazis made soap from the fat of murdered Jews. In its first reports on the extermination camps in November 1942 the New York Times quoted Dr. Stephen Wise, head of the American Jewish Congress, who claimed that the bodies of the dead were being exploited for soap, fat, and lubricants. In the Polish town of Piotrkow, as the transports of Jews passed through the town the locals would say “Jada na midlo.” (‘They travel on their way to soap.’

“After the war, the municipal museum in Prague displayed a bar of soap it said had been made from Jewish corpses. It wasn’t. The grisly tale of human beings rendered into soap, though it figured in some of the earliest accounts of events inside Nazi-occupied Europe, has long been rejected by historians as a recycled left-over from the First World War, when similar atrocity stories were staples of Allied propaganda.”

Guttenplan does not tell us that when the story first came out, it was rejected by a number of people who are now being labeled “Holocaust deniers.” Those same people were persecuted, harassed and were even called anti-Semites for exposing it. Yet when the soap story turned out to be false, popular historians gave no credit where credit is due. Those “Holocaust deniers” could have accused those popular historians of plagiarism.

What strikes me as odd is that Shermer claims to be a skeptic of any claim, but he does not apply his skeptical skills to the claims that have been made by the Holocaust establishment.

Shermer continues to claim that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, but he still believes that there was probably some truth in the soap story, despite the fact that he does not give the evidence for this.

Leaving this aside, even the Israeli documentation center Yad Vashem in Jerusalem stays away from the soap story as much as possible. They declared that “There is no documentary evidence that the Nazis made soap out of human fat.”

Yet no matter how many times a lie is repeated, always keep in mind that truth in the end will triumph. No serious historian would now maintain that the soap idea can sustain any historical and forensic validity, unless he wants to lose his credibility as a historian. So we can ignore Shermer and his co-author now.

Even Jews who would hold the most extreme views of the Holocaust would grudgingly back away from the idea. Deborah Lipstadt of Emory University herself told the Los Angeles Times in 1981: “The fact is that the Nazis never used the bodies of Jews, or for that matter anyone else, for the production of soap.”

In the same vein, Yehuda Bauer, head of the Hebrew University’s Holocaust history department, declared: “The Nazis did enough horrible things during the Holocaust. We do not have to go on believing untrue stories.”

What’s even more shocking is that historians from the 1980s were pretty much clear about the soap story: that it was only rumors with no factual accuracy. Shermer would have made a stronger case as a skeptic had he thoroughly examined the validity of the claims made by the Holocaust establishment. But far be it from me to tell a self-proclaimed skeptic how to do his job.

The Hoax of Simon Wiesenthal

Simon Wiesenthal, according to the secular standard, is a Nazi Holocaust hero. He was nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet, until 2009 no one was able to decipher the complete hoaxes and frauds fabricated by Wiesenthal. As noted British writer Guy Walters documents:

“His reputation is built on sand. He was a liar — and a bad one at that. From the end of the Second World War to the end of his life in 2005, he would lie repeatedly about his supposed hunt for Eichmann as well as his other Nazi-hunting exploits. He would also concoct outrageous stories about his war years and make false claims about his academic career.

“There are so many inconsistencies between his three main memoirs and between those memoirs and contemporaneous documents, that it is impossible to establish a reliable narrative from them. Wiesenthal’s scant regard for the truth makes it possible to doubt everything he ever wrote or said.

“Some may feel I am too harsh on him and that I run a professional danger in seemingly allying myself with a vile host of neo-Nazis, revisionists, Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites. I belong firmly outside any of these squalid camps and it is my intention to wrestle criticism of Wiesenthal away from their clutches. His figure is a complex and important one. If there was a motive for his duplicity, it may well have been rooted in good intentions.

“For his untruths are not the only shocking discoveries I have made researching the escape of Nazi war criminals. I found a lack of political will for hunting them. Many could have been brought to justice had governments allocated even comparatively meagre resources to their pursuit. It is partly thanks to Wiesenthal that the Holocaust has.”

Walters has meticulously gone over many of Wiesenthal’s obvious lies and fabrications in his book Hunting Evil. Even Deborah Lipstadt, of all people, declares that Wiesenthal is a charlatan and is not interested in the truth. Building on Tom Segev’s work Simon Wiesenthal: The Life and Legends, Lipstadt writes that Wiesenthal indeed

“‘fabricated’ evidence, ‘snatched’ stories out of thin air, ‘fantasized,’ was ‘often inaccurate,’ ‘came up with things that never happened, ‘invented’ facts, ‘claim[ed] credit’ for things he never did…Wiesenthal’s account of his experiences during the years of the Holocaust is clearly fabricated.”

Wiesenthal, for most of his life, was working for the Mossad, one of the evil and covert intelligence operations on the face of the earth. They are known for their acts of acts of terrorism against perceived enemies.

In 1974, Simon Wiesenthal accused Frank Walus of having collaborated with the Gestapo during World War II. It must have been a bad omen for Walus when at least twelve Jews came to the stand and testified that as Nazi survivors, they believed that Walus was guilty of war crime in the killing of young children and Jews in the Polish towns of Czestochowa and Kielce. Not only that, one of the “witnesses” alleged that Walus “stomped to death a young pregnant Jew.”

With all his honesty and courage, Walus presented evidentiary documents which proved that the testimonies by the “eyewitnesses” were false. As the Toronto Star declared, “There were numerous glaring discrepancies in Wiesenthal’s case against Walus. For one, Walus would have been only 17-years-old when he was ‘a Gestapo officer.’ He had been described as being 6 feet tall; when he was only 5 feet and 4 inches tall. Walus, moreover, was Polish; hence, the Nazis would never have allowed him to join the Gestapo.”

Other convincing evidence was on Walus’ side:

“Searches of German war records failed to turn up any record of a Frank Walus, or anyone with a similar name. A Polish war crimes commission had no record of any Walus. Perhaps most important, Walus was able to substantiate with documents and witnesses his wartime alibi: he had been sent to Bavaria, where he performed forced labor on farms.

“Wartime photographs of Walus on a Bavarian farm—which looked so different from his 1978 appearance that the judge in Walus’s first trial suspected that it was somebody else in the photo—were matched to another, indisputable photograph of Walus as a civilian guard in the American occupation.”

The Jewish party was over. Walus was indeed acquitted, and the U.S. Justice Department paid him $34,000 for defaming his reputation. Walus said he spent “$120,000 trying to clear his name.”

But after this incident, one Jewish expert, Gideon Epstein, agreed that there needs to be more than just “eyewitnesses” because alleged eyewitnesses can be wolves in sheep’s clothing: “The Walus case, more than anything else, clearly demonstrates the importance of documentary evidence as opposed to eyewitnesses.”

One man who helped Walus financially was the Christian activist Jerome Brentar. In the late 1980s, Brentar served on Vice President Bush’s nationalities coalition, and for the latter part of his life he spent his own money to defend those who were falsely accused of crimes. “He lost his once thriving travel agency because of his vicious publicity engendered, and now lives at the edge of poverty in forced retirement on his social security pension.”

What made Brentar a spotlight in the media and within the Jewish community was his strong conviction that John Demjanjuk was not a war criminal. He declared, “I could have been an atheist. I could have been a polygamist. I could have been anything else and questions wouldn’t have been asked. And now because I helped a poor victim, I’m everything under the sun.” Wiesenthal did accuse Demjanjuk of the real person responsible for the alleged gas chambers at Treblinka.

Jewish War Criminals After World War II?



When the table got turned around, Wiesenthal and the state of Israel used a different set of rules. In 2005, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz declared that

“Israel has refused for a second time to extradite to Poland a Jewish man accused of crimes against German prisoners just after the end of World War II…Morel commanded a communist-run camp for German prisoners in southern Poland in 1945 after Soviet troops occupied the country.

“Polish authorities accuse him of genocide by seeking to exterminate German prisoners by starving them to death, depriving them of medical care as well as carrying out torture and sanctioning torture by his subordinates. Polish prosecutors charge that Morel is responsible for the deaths of at least 1,500 prisoners in the Swietochlowice camp…Polish historians generally agree that the communist government imprisoned 100,000 Germans, mostly civilians deemed threats to the state after World War II. At least 15,000 died due to ill treatment, and the rest were freed by 1950.”

So much for Nazi hunters. As Professor Tim Cole declared, Shoah business has become big business. And to challenge Shoah is to be an anti-Semite.

David Horowitz writes in The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America that Finkelstein was fired at New York University “because of pseudo –scholarship and rantings against Jews and Israel. The fact that Professor Finkelstein was hired after his anti-Semitic statements had made him notorious reflects on the university itself.”

In other words, “pseudo-scholarship” is pseudo-scholarship because Horowitz says so and because anti-Semitism has been nuclearized by the Holocaust industry and the Jewish establishment.

To give a classic example, Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post recently chastised Jewish political advisor David Axelrod for saying that Sheldon Adelson is “greedy.” Glick declared, “By calling Adelson ‘greedy,’ Axelrod was channeling age-old anti-Semitic imagery, and by inference engaging in it, in his assault against Adelson.”

In other words, everyone can be greedy—except Zionist Jews and supporters of Israel. The word greedy is anti-Semitic because Glick sets the parameters in such a way that only Jews like herself can define what is and is not anti-Semitism. I can understand why she did not want to continue to respond to my queries.

Challenging the Holocaust Industry Is Costly

Just like the Pharisees in the first century who cast people out of the synagogue if they dare say that Jesus was the Messiah, Finkelstein was cast out of the academia in 2007 because he stood against the Jewish establishment. One of its most vocal representatives is none other than Alan Dershowitz.

“It’s like death,” Finkelstein said when he was fired. “You keep saying you’re going to die, but you never really come to grips with it. And I can see I’m not going to get another job. I haven’t yet fully absorbed it.”

Right after he was banished from the academia, Finkelstein resorted to a sort of spiritual healing. “I’m an old fan of the Negro spirituals. I was going around singing to myself, ‘Were you there when they crucified my Lord? Were you there?’ That’s how I felt. I was being crucified by the end.”

When I asked him whether he was a spiritual person or not, he responded, “I am a ‘Negro Spirituals’ kind of guy.”

How did Finkelstein end up losing his academic career? What really happened? This will be discussed at another time.

See for example Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation (New York: Basic Books, 2007); R. M. Douglas, Orderly and Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans after the Second World War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012).

Author Details Author Details Jonas E. Alexis Read Jonas Alexis’s latest posts here >>>



Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, history of Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea. Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, history of Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.