Текст книги "ГУЛаг Палестины"

Автор книги: Лев Гунин

сообщить о нарушении

Текущая страница: 65 (всего у книги 88 страниц)

department-store Santa with an erection and evangelists who liked getting naked in

the woods. And nobody called his bluff. What finally brought Stephen Glass down

was himself.

He kept upping the risk, enlarging the dimensions of his performance, going

beyond his production of fake notes, a fake Web site, a fake business card, and

memos by pulling his own brother into his fading act for a guest appearance.

Clearly, he would have done anything to save himself.

"He wanted desperately to save his ass at the expense of anything," said

Chuck Lane. "He would have destroyed the magazine."

The saga of Stephen Glass is wrenching, shameful, and sad. His actions are

both destructive and self-destructive, and if there is an explanation for them,

his family has chosen not to offer it. Repeated attempts to interview Stephen

were rebuffed, and all his father, Jeffrey Glass, said in a phone conversation was

this: "There's a lot unsaid. You can do whatever you want to do. There's no

comment." (p. 182)

But the result of such a course, at least in some perhaps rare cases, is discovery and

discredit:

Nothing in Charles Lane's 15 years of journalism, not the bitter blood of

Latin America, nor war in Bosnia, nor the difficult early days of his editorship

of the fractious New Republic, could compare with this surreal episode. On the

second Friday in May in the lobby of the Hyatt hotel in the Maryland suburb of

Bethesda, near Washington, nothing less than the most sustained fraud in the

history of modern journalism was unraveling.

No one in Lane's experience, no one, had affected him in the eerie manner of

Stephen Glass, a 25-year-old associate editor at The New Republic and a white-hot

rising star in Washington journalism. It wasn't just the relentlessness of the

young reporter. Or the utter conviction with which Glass had presented work that

Lane now feared was completely fabricated. It was the ingenuity of the con, the

daring with which Glass had concocted his attention-getting creations, the subtle

ease with which even now, as he attempted to clear himself, the strangely gifted

kid created an impromptu illusion using makeshift details he had spied in the

lobby just seconds earlier – a chair, a cocktail table, smoke from a cigarette.

(p. 176)

The New Republic, after an investigation involving a substantial portion of its

editorial staff, would ultimately acknowledge fabrications in 27 of the 41 bylined

pieces that Glass had written for the magazine in the two-and-a-half-year period

between December 1995 and May 1998. In Manhattan, John F. Kennedy Jr., editor of

George, would write a personal letter to Vernon Jordan apologizing for Glass's

conjuring up two sources who had made juicy and emphatic remarks about the sexual

proclivities of the presidential adviser and his boss. At Harper's, Glass would

be dismissed from his contract after a story he had written about phone psychics,

which contained 13 first-name sources, could not be verified. (p. 180)

Post-mortems of how so much lying had succeeded in entering the media paint an

image of a cunning malefactor eluding stringent quality-control mechanisms.

However, perhaps it is the case that such post-mortems serve to delude the public

into imagining that Stephen Glass is a rare aberration, and not the tip of an iceberg.

Perhaps the reality is that right from the beginning any intelligent and critical superior

could have seen – had he wanted to – that Stephen Glass was a simple and

palpable fraud, and not the cunning genius depicted below:

For those two and a half years, the Stephen Glass show played to a captivated

audience; then the curtain abruptly fell. He got away with his mind games because

of the remarkable industry he applied to the production of the false backup

materials which he methodically used to deceive legions of editors and fact

checkers. Glass created fake letterheads, memos, faxes, and phone numbers; he

presented fake handwritten notes, fake typed notes from imaginary events written

with intentional misspellings, fake diagrams of who sat where at meetings that

never transpired, fake voice mails from fake sources. He even inserted fake

mistakes into his fake stories so fact checkers would catch them and feel as if

they were doing their jobs. He wasn't, obviously, too lazy to report. He

apparently wanted to present something better, more colorful and provocative, than

mere truth offered. (p. 180)

HOME DISINFORMATION 60 MINUTES 1017 hits since 9Dec98

Jeffrey Goldberg Globe and Mail 6Feb93 Fabricating history

Mr. McConnell, along with a Buchenwald survivor and a second member of the

761st, was flown to the camp in 1991 to film what turned out to be one of the

most moving – and most fraudulent – scenes of the documentary. As the

three men tour the site, the narrator speaks of their "return" to the camp. Mr.

McConnell now says: "I first went to Buchenwald in 1991 with PBS, not the

761st."

The Globe and Mail, Saturday, February 6, 1993, D2.

FILM FRAUD

The liberation

that wasn't

A PBS DOCUMENTARY CLAIMS A BLACK U.S. ARMY UNIT

FREED JEWISH INMATES FROM GERMAN CONCENTRATION

CAMPS. NICE STORY, BUT NOT TRUE, SAY THE SOLDIERS

BY JEFFREY GOLDBERG

THE NEW REPUBLIC

NEW YORK

It was a rare moment: Rev. Jesse Jackson, surrounded by white-haired Holocaust

survivors, embracing Leib Glanz, a bearded Hasidic rabbi, on the stage of the

Apollo Theater in Harlem. The occasion was a black-Jewish celebration of the

Liberators, the PBS documentary about all-black U.S. Army units that, according

to the film, helped capture Buchenwald and Dachau. The sponsors of the

screening, Time Warner and a host of rich and influential New Yorkers, billed

the film as an important tool in the rebuilding of a black-Jewish alliance.

But the display of brotherhood turned out to be illusory. The next night

Rabbi Glanz was nearly chased out of synagogue by angry Hasidim for the

transgression of consorting with Mr. Jackson. More significantly, the film's

backers and the press failed to point out that the unit featured most

prominently in the Liberators had no hand in the capture of either Dachau or

Buchenwald in Germany. "It's a lie. We were nowhere near these camps when

they were liberated," says E. G. McConnell, an original member of the 761st

Tank Battalion. He says he co-operated with the filmmakers until he came to

believe they were faking material.

Mr. McConnell, along with a Buchenwald survivor and a second member of the

761st, was flown to the camp in 1991 to film what turned out to be one of the

most moving – and most fraudulent – scenes of the documentary. As the three

men tour the site, the narrator speaks of their "return" to the camp. Mr.

McConnell now says: "I first went to Buchenwald in 1991 with PBS, not the

761st."

'It's totally inaccurate.

The men couldn't have been

where they say they were

because the camp was 60

miles away from where we

were on the day of liberation'

Nina Rosenblum, who co-produced the film with Bill Miles in association

with WNET, New York's public television station, admits that the narration of

the scene "may be misleading." But she says Mr. McConnell can't be trusted.

"You can't speak to him because he's snapped. He was hit on the head with

shrapnel and was severely brain-damaged." Mr. McConnell, a retired mechanic

fro Trans World Airlines Inc., laughs when told of the statement. "If I was so

disturbed, why did they use me in the film?" he asks.

His claim is supported by a host of veterans of the 761st, including the

battalion's commander, the president of its veterans' association, two

sergeants and two company commanders, among them the black commander of C

Company.

Two of the company's soldiers assert in the film that they liberated

Dachau. Yet a statement issued by historians at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial

Museum states they could find no evidence that the 761st Battalion helped free

either camp.

"It's totally inaccurate," says Charles Gates, the former captain who

commanded C Company. "The men couldn't have been where they say they were

because the camp was 60 miles away from where we were on the day of

liberation."

Paul Bates, the colonel who commanded the battalion, confirmed Mr. Gates's

account. "In our after-action reports, there is no indication that we were

near either one of the camps," Mr. Bates says. According to him, tanks of the

761st were assigned to the 71st Infantry Division, whose fighting path across

Germany was 100 to 160 kilometres away from the two camps. "The 71st does not

claim to have liberated those camps," he says.

Several Holocaust survivors are quoted in the film and in the companion

book published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich as saying they were liberated by

blacks of these units. But Christopher Ruddy, a New York writer who has

conducted extensive research on the film, says two of the survivors featured in

the Liberators told him they were no longer sure when they first saw black

soldiers.

One of the survivors who appeared with Mr. Jackson at the Apollo confirmed

that he too was unsure of what had happened at Buchenwald. "It's hard to say.

I know there were black soldiers in the camp, but I don't know when exactly,"

says the survivor.

Ms. Rosenblum angrily denounces the film's critics as Holocaust

revisionists and racists. "These people are of the same mentality that says

the Holocaust didn't happen," she says. In the course of a telephone

interview, she declares: "There's tremendous racism in the Jewish community.

How people who have been through the Holocaust can be racist is completely

incomprehensible. To think that black people are less, which is what most

Jewish people think, I can't understand it."

She adds that racism of the type exhibited by the film's critics is what

kept all-black combat units from receiving proper recognition in the first

place. "The 761st fought for 33 years to get the Presidential Unit Citation.

People don't want the truth of our history to come out," she says. WNET says

it stands by the film's veracity.

The Liberators' focus on events that appear never to have occurred seems

all the more perplexing considering the true achievements of the 761st. Among

other accomplishments, it played an important role in the liberation of

Gunskirchen, a satellite of the Mauthausen concentration camp in Austria, and

its performance at the Battle of the Bulge was exemplary.

The documentary approaches accuracy, the veterans say, when it focuses on

the unit's heroic battles both against Germans and discrimination in its own

Army. But the unit citation eventually awarded to the veterans by president

Jimmy Carter does not list the liberation of either Buchenwald or Dachau as an

achievement of the unit.

"It's no great accomplishment to liberate a concentration camp, not

compared to fighting the German army," says Philip Latimer, president of the

761st veterans' organization. "What we're concerned about is our combat

performance. The unit has a lot to be proud of ... and I don't want to see it

blamed for this documentary. I don't want the unit to be hurt."

Questions have also been raised about the 183rd Combat Engineer Battalion,

which the filmmakers say played a role in the liberation of Buchenwald. The

unit's commander at the time, Lawrence Fuller, a former deputy director of the

Defense Intelligence Agency, says the 183rd only visited Buchenwald after its

liberation, when General George Patton ordered units in the sector to see proof

of German atrocities. Mr. Fuller says the documentary's producers never

contacted him to discuss the unit's history.

Leon Bass, a retired school principal who served in the 183rd, calls

himself a liberator in the film and in the frequent lectures he gives on the

Holocaust. But Mr. Bass says he does not remember exactly when he entered the

camp. "I don't know whether we were first or second ... We didn't go in with

guns blazing," he recalls. "There was just a handful of us. I was only there

for two or three hours. The rest of the company came later."

The Liberators, fuelled by the public-relations success at the Apollo, is

gaining momentum. The Rainbow Coalition is sponsoring a similar gala in Los

Angeles in March. Ms. Rosenblum tells of a packed calendar of showings with

co-sponsors ranging from the Simon Wiesenthal Center to the American Jewish

Committee.

Copies of the documentary will be distributed to all New York City junior

and senior high schools, according to board spokeswoman Linda Scott. The cost

of the schools project, Mr. Rosenblum says, is being picked up by Elizabeth

Rohatyn, the wife of investment banker Felix Rohatyn, who co-sponsored the

Apollo showing, although Ms. Scott says that several philanthropists are vying

for the honour of buying the tapes for the schools.

According to a memorandum on the documentary circulating at school-board

headquarters, the film will be used to "examine the effects of racism on

African-American soldiers and on Jews who were in concentration camps ... to

explain the role of African-American soldiers in liberating Jews from Nazi

concentration camps and to reveal the involvement of Jews as 'soldiers' in the

civil-rights movement."

The documentary continues to be supported by a number of influential Jews.

PR guru Howard Rubenstein, who is a vice-president of New York's Jewish

Community Relations Council (and who also flacks for radio station WLIB, known

for the anti-Semitic invective it regularly airs), worked pro bono on the

Apollo event and continues to plug the documentary, despite having heard that

it is misleading.

"I have no reason to distrust Nina [Rosenblum]," he says. "She seemed very

able and honest. I hope and pray it's accurate."

Peggy Tishman, a former president of the JCRC and a co-host of the evening

at the Apollo, is sticking by the documentary too. Ms. Tishman says the

documentary is "good for the Holocaust."

"Why would anybody want to exploit the idea that this is a fraud?" she

says. "What we're trying to do is make New York a better place for you and me

to live."

She claims that the accuracy of the film is not the issue. What is

important is the way it can bring Jews and blacks into "dialogue." There are a

lot of truths that are very necessary," she says. "This is not a truth that's

necessary."

Jeffrey Goldberg is New York bureau chief for The Forward.

The above Jeffrey Goldberg article was accompanied by two photographs, the

captions of which were:

U.S. soldiers, both high-ranking officers and

enlisted men, view a scene of horror at a death

camp. Concentration-camp prisoners were murdered

as a last act by departing German guards.

A black U.S. soldier guards German prisoners in

France during the last weeks of the war.

Comments on the above

Jeffrey Goldberg article

Where's the harm? The Liberators incident is relevant to several of the

topics discussed in the Ukrainian Archive. The Liberators has been somewhat

arbitrarily placed with 60 Minutes documents because it demonstrates the power

of the media to fabricate history. In the case of the 23 Oct 1994 60 Minutes

broadcast The Ugly Face of Freedom, the disinformation served to calumniate

Ukrainians; in the case of the PBS documentary, the Liberators, the

disinformation appears to be oriented toward improving relations between Jews

and blacks. Thus, whereas the 60 Minutes disinformation will readily be viewed

as destructive by all who learn of it, the Liberators disinformation may be

viewed by some as innocuous or even benevolent.

However, there are reasons for not viewing the Liberators disinformation

leniently or indulgently:

(1) Black grievances against Jews may be founded on genuine exploitation of

Blacks by Jews, and the Liberators may be an attempt to quiet opposition to

that exploitation and so allow it to continue.

(2) Setting the precedent of conniving at disinformation such as that offered

in the Liberators offers disseminators of disinformation the prospect of

impunity for manipulating public opinion to their own ends, and these ends vary

on the benevolence-malevolence continuum. Whereas inducing people who had

never been at Buchenwald to simulate returning to Buchenwald for PBS cameras

may seem harmless, the buildup of tolerance for such chicanery makes it easier

to similarly induce people to falsely testify in war crimes proceedings

concerning Holocaust events, with the result that the lives of innocent accused

are disrupted, shattered, and even lost.

"Capturing" and "liberating"? Referring to Allied forces "capturing" or

"liberating" the camps is inflating what really happened – which is that Allied

soldiers peacefully walked into camps that German forces had abandoned days

previously. In the words of Philip Latimer, president of the 761st veterans'

organization, "It's no great accomplishment to liberate a concentration camp."

In other words, the Liberators film leaves the impression of Jews attempting to

get black fighting units to falsely take credit for non-accomplishments.

Unreliability of eye-witness testimony. We have already had occasion to notice on

the Ukrainian Archive the unreliability of eye-witness testimony, as in the

cases of falsely accused Frank Walus and John Demjanjuk. The Liberators film

reminds us once again how easy it is to get some old men to say whatever you

want them to. Thus, we find that "two of the company's soldiers assert in the

film that they liberated Dachau," when we know that this could not have been

the case, and we find that "several Holocaust survivors are quoted in the film

and in the companion book published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich as saying they

were liberated by blacks of these units," again when this is an impossibility.

Of course upon less biased questioning, some of these old men will recant: "But

Christopher Ruddy, a New York writer who has conducted extensive research on

the film, says two of the survivors featured in the Liberators told him they

were no longer sure when they first saw black soldiers."

Responsible Jews and non-Jews oppose irresponsible Jews. It cannot escape

our attention that foremost among those challenging the disinformation in the

Liberators are the apparently-Jewish writer Jeffrey Goldberg, and

possibly-Jewish historians at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. This

reinforces a point introduced earlier in the Ukrainian Archive during the

discussion of Warsaw's 1905 Alphonsenpogrom, to the effect that what may be

taken at first glance to be an expression of antagonism toward Jews may in

reality be an expression of opposition by responsible Jews and non-Jews alike

against irresponsible elements among Jews, and that it is the responsible Jews

themselves who may be in the vanguard of the attack against irresponsible Jews.

We have seen this to be the case repeatedly, not only during Warsaw's

Alphonsenpogrom, but in many prominent incidents – for example, Israeli defense

attorney Yoram Sheftel must be given a large share of the credit for exposing

the duplicity and incompetence of the Israeli justice system, and thereby

saving the life of John Demjanjuk, a case in which other Jews such as Phoenix

attorney William J. Wolf also played leading and heroic roles. The prominent

role played by responsible Jews in opposing irresponsible Jews should not be

surprising – the irresponsible Jews injure all Jews because their

irresponsibility attaches in popular thinking to Jews generally, and thus

serves to smear the good name of all Jews.

Important to note in the Liberators case, then, is that the friction does not

divide cleanly along ethnic lines. The Liberators, and the many other cases

before us, do not illustrate Jews clashing with anti-Semites – rather, they

illustrate the irresponsible clashing with the responsible, the disseminators

of disinformation clashing with the upholders of truth.

Zero repercussions. And so for having told the lies that are told on the

Liberators, have any of the makers of that film suffered any repercussions?

Have any of them been fired? Been demoted? Been censured? Have any of them

suffered a loss of face? Do any of them find that their later work is rejected

because of their earlier loss of credibility? The answer to all these

questions – in all probability – is No!

In American and Canadian society, there is one category of behavior that is

uniquely protected from the repercussions of falsehood – and that is the

category of Jews recounting stories of the Jewish Holocaust. Charges of

falsehood may indeed be levelled, but these are not picked up by the media, and

so make no impact. We have already examined many such cases on the Ukrainian

Archive – the cases of Morley Safer, Neal Sher, Elie Wiesel, and Simon

Wiesenthal standing out – egregious, bald-faced liars all of them, but never

called to task for their lies, honored and even revered despite their lies.

Psychiatric diagnosis of the film's critics. Co-producer of the film, Nina

Rosenblum, accuses critics of the film of being "Holocaust revisionists" and

"racists." But why stop there – why not follow up the two left jabs with the

right-hand haymaker, "anti-Semites"? The answer perhaps is that it may appear

more credible to smear all critics of the film with the same brush, and the

accusation of anti-Semitism does not stick to those critics who happen to be

Jewish. The deployment of terms suggestive of psychological disorder, such as

"revisionist," "racist," or "anti-Semite" exemplifies the stock Jewish ploy of

attempting to silence opposition by dispensing psychiatric diagnoses.

Creating collaborators in disinformation. Jews who lie not only discredit Jews

generally, but also discredit any whom they lure into sharing their lies.

Thus, had the 761st Tank Battalion been seduced into accepting whatever

momentary glory attaches to wrongly claiming to have liberated Buchenwald, then

the 761st would have ultimately suffered a loss of credibility. The 761st does

have genuine achievements, and foresaw only discredit in fabricating any. In

the words of Philip Latimer, president of the 761st veterans' organization,

"The unit has a lot to be proud of ... and I don't want to see it blamed for

this documentary. I don't want the unit to be hurt."

Attempts have been made to seduce Ukrainians, and others, into a similar

complicity in Jewish disinformation, and in the case of Ukrainians, these

attempts have been largely successful. The Ukrainians' reward has been to

receive a Righteous Gentile Award for their efforts in saving Jews during the

Second World War. In accepting such an award, however, such Ukrainians

implicitly acquiesce and lend support to a Jewish history of the war, which is

crammed with disinformation, much of it harmful to Ukrainian interests. Among

the items of disinformation in this false history is that Ukrainians were eager

collaborators of the Nazis (when in reality Ukrainians overwhelmingly served as

opponents), that Ukrainian efforts to save Jews were rare (when in reality

large numbers of Ukrainians took grave risks and even gave their lives to save

Jews), that any anti-Jewish feeling on the part of Ukrainians that did exist

was gratuitous and pathological (when in reality it was founded on a memory of

the recent Jewish domination of the destruction of Ukraine under Communism).

Thus, any Ukrainians who were offered a Righteous Gentile Award should have

declined it for the same reason that the 761st declined to be honored in the

Liberators. Any Ukrainians who have accepted such an award should renounce it.

Ukrainians should consider withdrawing their support from the Public Broadcasting

Service (PBS). The PBS is portrayed by Goldberg as supportive of the

Liberators even after the film had been discredited. Ukrainians may recall,

furthermore, that the PBS broadcast a severely flawed anti-Demjanjuk

documentary despite prior notice on the part of Ukrainian representatives

specifying the nature of these flaws. Observations such as these invite the

conclusion that the PBS acts in sympathy with Jewish disinformation, and in

opposition to Ukrainian interests. For this reason, Ukrainians should consider

withdrawing their support from the PBS.

Ukrainians should consider cancelling their subscriptions to TIME magazine. The

Apollo Theater showing of the Liberators was sponsored by "Time Warner and a

host of rich and influential New Yorkers." Readers of the Ukrainian Archive

will be reminded that TIME magazine was responsible for the calumniation of

Ukraine in the Wallowing Photograph incident. From these two indications, we

may wonder whether Time Warner, and TIME magazine, are not sympathetic toward

Holocaust disinformation and hostile toward Ukrainian interests. After having

been a more than three-decades-long reader of TIME, I recently cancelled my

subscription.

Proven fraud does little to lessen propaganda value. As the Liberators film has

been discredited, it appears to stand little chance of being accepted as

history. However, this does not make the film a failure. The film continues

to be valuable as a tool for shaping public opinion, particularly for molding

the minds of the young. At the time of the writing of the Goldberg article

above, the film was about to be distributed to "all New York City junior and

senior high schools." We may expect, then, that hundreds of thousands of

impressionable students will view the Liberators and will believe it, and that

the refutations of Jeffrey Goldberg, and the soldiers of the 761st Tank

Battalion, and others will reach the ears of only a few. The film may never

succeed as history, but it has a good chance of succeeding as popular history,

and it is popular history that influences elections and that directs the

allocation of government resources.

Choosing between useful lies and harmful truths. One of the weapons within the

armamentarium of the totalitarian controller of information – that a useful lie

is better than a harmful truth – is explicitly wielded by at least one

supporter of the Liberators film:

She [Peggy Tishman] claims that the accuracy of

the film is not the issue. What is important is the

way it can bring Jews and blacks into "dialogue."

There are a lot of truths that are very necessary,"

she says. "This [that the 761st did not liberate

Buchenwald or Dachau] is not a truth that's

necessary."

However, wielding the weapon of the useful lie will succeed only in a context

in which the flow of contrary information can be choked off. In a society that

permits the free flow of information, there is no useful lie, because all lies

stand in danger of being exposed and thus discrediting the liar and his cause.

Thus, we may expect that an ancillary goal of the distributors of

disinformation will be to strangle the free flow of information – and more

specifically, we might expect that those backing efforts such as the Liberators

film will simultaneously back efforts to suppress web sites such as the

Ukrainian Archive. In a totalitarian society, the Liberators film constitutes

a useful day's work for the manipulators of mass opinion; in a free society,

the Liberators film constitutes a self-defeating miscalculation.

Furthermore, such an open avowal of the utility of lying as Peggy Tishman's

above brings to mind the question raised during the discussion of journalistic

fraud Stephen Glass of whether there may exist subcultures which by means of

their tolerance of, or support for, lying produce a disproportionate number of

great liars.

Consorting with Hasidim. In Goldberg's Liberators story above, Hasidic rabbi

Leib Glanz embraces Rev. Jesse Jackson on the stage of the Apollo Theater.

However, "the next night Rabbi Glanz was nearly chased out of synagogue by

angry Hasidim for the transgression of consorting with Mr. Jackson." This

brief description is puzzling, and from it alone we would be unable to arrive

at any strong conclusion, were it not for our having read some of the

characteristics of Hasidism in the writings of Israel Shahak.

With Shahak's description in mind, we are tempted to interpret Rabbi Glanz

being nearly chased out of synagogue by angry Hasidim as a further

demonstration that Hasidic Jews generally are hostile to the idea of any

rapprochement with any non-Jews. That is, Israel Shahak depicts Hasidic Jews

as constituting a debasement of Jewish mysticism, of being superstitious,

fanatical, mysogynistic, given to overindulgence in alcohol, and most

importantly, of being committed to the hatred of all non-Jews. I do not

venture such a description on my own initiative, as I have no personal

knowledge of Hasidism – but I do pass the description along as the opinion of a

reputable authority, Israel Shahak.

The incident of Rabbi Glanz being almost chased out of synagogue can only

remind us of the possibility that it may be one of Ukraine's many misfortunes

that the branch of Judaism which appears to have taken deepest root in Ukraine

is Hasidism. We see this in Hasidic Rabbi Yaakov Dov Bleich's prominence, as

witnessed in his frequent appearance on the pages of the Ukrainian Weekly, and

we see it as well in the central role he played – in undermining Ukraine, as it

happens – during the 23 October 1994 60 Minutes broadcast, The Ugly Face of

Freedom.

The second-greatest calamity. And so, the second-greatest calamity to befall

the Jewish people during this century – which, after the Holocaust itself, is

Jewish misrepresentation of the Holocaust – deepens and broadens as a result of

the Liberators film. Another blow is struck at Jewish credibility. Another

burden is placed on the backs of Jews – the burden of being remembered for

their leading role during the 20th century as stranglers of information,

manipulators of truth, disseminators of disinformation, and corruptors of

history. The consequence of numbers of Jews lying about the history of their

people must be that whenever any Jew discourses upon history, he may expect to

be greeted with heightened skepticism – such is the penalty that all Jews must

pay for the sin of harboring fabulists in their midst.

HOME DISINFORMATION 60 MINUTES 849 hits since 15-May-2000