Hoaxing Jewsplained

The fake Nazi death camp: Wikipedia’s longest hoax, exposed!

The story under this Haaretz headline is not what you might expect. The “Nazi death camp” narrative is a jew construct, so naturally we are tempted to think maybe the tribe’s own shameless hoaxing is being exposed. It is, but only indirectly.

This attempt to revise the accepted history of the Shoah on the internet encyclopedia parrots the revised historical narrative currently being trumpeted by the Polish government. In this narrative, the Poles in general – not just the country’s Jewish population – were the main victims of the Nazi occupation. This line attempts to shift the light away from a growing body of research into cases of Polish cooperation and collaboration with the Nazis in the persecution of Jews. The effort to rewrite Polish history on Wikipedia joins Holocaust distortion efforts by Polish think tanks – picked up and echoed by nationalist media outlets – that try to increase the estimate of the number of Poles who perished during the so-called Polocaust, a term that has gained popularity in recent years and is used to describe the mass murder of non-Jewish Poles at the hands of the Nazis. Many times, this also includes minimizing the number of Jews who died during the Holocaust. And while this new Polish narrative has failed to make headway in academia or the world media, on Wikipedia it has thrived.

. . .

One explanation is that though there was no death camp in Warsaw called KL Warschau, there was certainly a concentration camp with that name. The false facts that comprise the death camp hoax – the existence of gas chambers and the 200,000 death toll – managed to survive in Wikipedia because they were inextricably intertwined with real historical facts regarding the Warsaw concentration camp.

. . .

part of what Grabowski calls the “competing victimology” of the Polish right.

“In the beginning of 1990s, a new narrative was being pushed out by nationalists that there was an extermination camp in Warsaw and that there were gas chambers there. But it was totally, but totally, absurd as a theory.

“What you have are small-time concentration installations which are now getting magnified by right-wing conspiracy theories to include hundreds of thousands of Polish victims – their objective is to increase Polish losses and therefore Polish victimhood,” says Grabowski.

The number 200,000 is significant in the context, both scholars explain. Some 200,000 ethnic Poles were indeed killed during the 1944 Polish uprising. Adding another 200,000 (fictitious) Polish deaths would raise the Polish death toll in the city to 400,000 – almost identical to the number of Jews who were murdered in the ghetto.

“By pulling another 200,000 victims out of thin air,” explains Dreifuss, “they’re trying to equate what happened to the Jews during the Holocaust to what happened to Poles during the Holocaust. In this sense, it is also no coincidence that the manner of death was also by gas,” she says, adding: “But it’s just false.”

. . .

According to Icewhiz, waging memewar on Wikipedia], simply the number 200,000 should have served as a red flag, for it would have meant that KL Warschau was a bigger death camp than the likes of Sobibor and Majdanek. That didn’t happen, however, and the disinformation only continued to spread with the help of Polish editors.

. . .

The first time was in 2006, as part of what can only be termed a “Polish cleansing” of the text. In addition to adding the inflated Warsaw death toll, the editor also deleted a line explaining that, “the primary intention of these camps was the extermination of the Jews.” The revision highlights how the attempt to push out the false narrative regarding KL Warschau goes hand in hand with attempts to minimize the Jewish Holocaust and exaggerate the so-called Polocaust.

Fancy footnote work

By piggybacking on a real camp and inflating a real death toll, those peddling the KL Warschau conspiracy theory managed to pass Wikipedia’s first muster. But how did they overcome the Wikipedia community’s demand to attribute and source every claim?

. . .

“Ah, yes, the tunnel that is a gas chamber,” laughs Grabowski, “This is of course a joke,” since a 500-meter long tunnel can hardly serve as a sealed gas chamber. However, this joke has a rich history as a Polish conspiracy theory

. . .

riding on the coattails of the populist wind that swept the current government into power in Poland, the story has taken on a life of its own, assuming a key role in the Polocaust narrative and developing a cult-like following among nationalists.

. . .

A church memorial plaque commemorates the “200,000 victims.” The number is “baseless,” Prof. Dreifuss says.

. . .

“If it could be proved that the Germans had built a gas chamber for the purpose of exterminating non-Jewish Poles, this would undermine the status of the Holocaust as a crime of unique proportions,” Davies went on.

. . .

These kinds of claims and calculations “allow the Poles to say, ‘not only you Jews were murdered with gas,” explains Havi Dreifuss. “But the truth is that Jews and Poles were unequal victims. Poles were victims of a horrible ethnic cleansing, but that was not the systematic annihilation that the Jews faced.

“The current attempt to invent slaughters and victims that never took place is a horrible thing that may actually undermine the real history of the vicious persecution Poles suffered at the hands of Nazi Germany. The truth is that there was no systematized mass murder of the Polish population – and that is of course a good thing. The Holocaust is not something one should envy.”

. . .

“For example,” she continues, “in the [English] article on the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the fighting forces [that battled the Germans] are misrepresented in the info box on the side. A reader that is not well versed in history could think that it was a joint struggle by four equally important organizations – two Polish groups and two Jewish ones. But that’s not true, the uprising was the result of Jewish actions and the Jewish organizations led the fighting, while Polish groups played an extremely marginal role. There are other much more serious examples.”

. . .

Grabowski explains that “nationalists in Poland don’t care about what’s written in Polish, they already control the public discourse in Poland. They dominate the local narrative, but not the international narrative. That’s why they are flocking in a frenzy to Wikipedia and dedicating so much time and energy to it. I’ve heard there are hundreds of volunteers.”

According to Icewhiz, however, the number is no greater than six or seven: “You don’t need more than that to take over an entire discourse.”

Operation Poland

Icewhiz admits he can be a bit obsessive, and over the past year and a half he has documented almost fanatically what he claims is a systematic attempt by a handful of editors to rewrite the history of the Holocaust. This group, he claims, is comprised of Polish expatriates who have embraced a nationalistic position that is far to the right of the Polish mainstream.

. . .

Grabowski, whose own Wikipedia page was targeted by members of the group Icewhiz describes, is not surprised. “Everything that is related to negative treatment of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust is now being distorted and manipulated – with the goal of promoting a false narrative and sowing confusion on English Wikipedia.”

. . .

Icewhiz claims Poeticbent and Piotrus, for example, were active in rewriting numerous articles dealing with Jewish ghettos, with the goal of including a disproportionate emphasis on heroic rescue of Jews by Poles to overshadow any negative aspects. This kind of editorial skewering is the minutiae of Wikipedia politics, where the battle is over framing as much as facts.

. . .

Most of the examples in this story are taken from Icewhiz’s increasingly quixotic battle against the group of Polish editors.

. . .

A review of Icewhiz’s claims reveals what does indeed look like a concerted attempt by a small group of editors to distort the history of the Holocaust along the lines being espoused by the IPN and the Polish regime.

. . .

Though Icewhiz has earned a bad reputation on Wikipedia, due to his combative personal style and aggressively pro-Israel position, his claims of an encyclopedic conspiracy are not unfounded

. . .

He says the Poles on Wikipedia benefit from an unholy alliance with editors affiliated with the American left – people who are sensitive to claims of victimhood and reluctant to call out anti-Semitism. It is exactly these kinds of claims that have turned many in the Wikipedia community against Icewhiz. For example, a Twitter account allegedly set up by the Israeli to counter the distribution of revised Wikipedia articles online recently got him banned.

This is exactly the type of behavior that has caused Icewhiz to lose his standing within Wikipedia. For many, his past efforts to defend Israel’s good name on Wikipedia is no different than the Polish editors’ attempt to defend Poland’s.

. . .

Icewhiz says that he brought his story to Haaretz because he has all but lost the battle against Polish revision on Wikipedia. Having a respected newspaper vet his claims and publish the story of the hoax plays a key role in his attempt to defend history. By reporting on Polish revisionism on Wikipedia, the facts being purged by Polish editors are preserved as true by a verifiable source, granting him ammunition for his last offensive in the footnote war.

Despite having history on his side, on September 28, Icewhiz lost his case against the group of Polish editors.

. . .

Moreover, they accused the Israeli editor of harassing them on Wikipedia, claiming he was driven by hatred of Poland and Poles.

. . .

After deliberating the case, Wikipedia’s top panel ruled against Icewhiz and he was banned from editing any article related to the subject of Poland and the Holocaust. In their ruling, the panel members accepted the Polish editors claims and said Icewhiz’s use of terms such as “Polocaust” and “Polophile” were “ethnically derogatory.” As a result of their decision, henceforth, any attempt by one editor to label another editor or source as revisionist or anti-Semitic can be considered a form of hate speech on Wikipedia.

What we have here is an example of just how deep jew chutzpathy runs, how shamelessly jews screech when they see someone else trying to follow their playbook, how they attack and psychopathologize their own tribe’s thinking and behavior whenever they believe they’ve caught a glimpse of it reflected in the goyim.

The article is very long, but the excerpts above capture the most relevant points.

Too few non-jews understand that when jews screech about the supposedly holy “six million” supposedly killed by the supposedly demonic “Nazis”, that it isn’t just about continuing a totally absurd conspiracy theory that jews created and promulgated during that war. This screeching, like all their screeching, is part of a much older and darker story.

I happened across a book titled Six Million Open Gates recently. The author gathered together a small sample of the victimology which the jews today accuse the Poles of trying to compete with. The book, like the Haaretz article, makes the totally convincing case that the jews’ victimology really does have no equal. As everyone knows, if only by absorbing it unconsciously through repetition by the jewsmedia, the magical number in the jew narrative is “six million”. What many people don’t realize is just how long the jews have been screeching about their supposed victimhood and attaching it to this magic number. We know now, thanks to the internet, that it predates by at least half a century the fratricidal White-on-White war during which the jews added their even more absurd claims about “Nazi death camps” with “gas chambers”.

What we have here, via Haaretz, is a window into the mind of the jew. We see how jews consciously conspire to do what they perceive to be best for jews, and how they do so by ruthlessly promoting and defending their jew-first victimology. We see how sensitive they are to anyone contradicting their jew-first narrative, how incensed they are by the slightest pushback from non-jews. We see how they perceive the rhetoric of equality as a weapon, and how, especially when they perceive its use mimics their own, they regard it as an existential threat to themselves.

Most White people mistakenly think that the great crime that the “Nazis” (and Germans, and Poles, and Whites generally) are accused of by the jews is that we don’t regard them as equals. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of jew identity and mentality. When someone who looks like us screeches as if they are being treated badly, most Whites instinctively sympathize, because we imagine ourselves in their place. The semitically correct moral of the jews’ “Nazi death camp” narrative is that Whites must sympathize with people specifically because they are not like us. So, some Whites sympathize with jews because we mistake them for us, while others pretend to sympathize because they understand that jews are the most non-White non-us of all. Either way the jews benefit.

Whatever your rationale, rejecting the jews’ “Nazi death camp” narrative can get you the gulag. Social media websites cite the jews’ “Nazi death camp” narrative to justify silencing Whites. The jews don’t see this as an unfair bias in their favor. They see it as unfair that they even have to argue with the lowly goyim at all.

The jews have nothing but antipathy for Whites – whether they see us as Poles, Germans, or otherwise. The grievances of non-jews, even if only directed at other non-jews, are effortlessly discounted and dismissed by the jews.

When jews swarm and screech about some supposed injustice they often try to muddy the water by thrusting some proxy out in front. Occasionally the true nature of the spectacle is made plain when their proxy says something that vexes the jews. The surreal screeching about Trump and “The Squad” is a recent example. The jew cries “LEAVE JEWS OUT OF THIS” as he strikes.

Sometimes the spectacle is nothing but jews screeching at jews. When you dig into these victimological kerfluffles you find nothing but bagelian dialectic, nothing but a more or less disguised debate about what’s best for the jews. The concerns of non-jews are window dressing, utterly secondary and disposable. Back in the 1920s Adolf Hitler saw the most common form of this fakery in the apparent conflict between zionism and liberalism. He called it “this fictitious conflict”.

More generally, the driving force is intersectional jewing, and this driving force is laid as bare as can be in this Haaretz article. Here the jews are clearly grappling with the prevalence and dominance of their own narrative, the supremacy of their own victimology. It presents them with a conundrum. How can they shut down the goyim without interfering with jewing? The answer is to throw off the mask, to proclaim that nobody’s victimology rivals their own, nobody’s narrative is as sacred as their own, nobody’s concerns are as great, nobody’s opinion as worthy of protection, nobody is like jews. Here is just another example of jews themselves saying so.

18 thoughts on “Hoaxing Jewsplained”

  1. ‘Remember the 11 million’? Why an inflated victims tally irks Holocaust historians | The Times of Israel, from February 2017:

    “Five million non-Jews died in the Holocaust.”

    It’s a statement that shows up regularly in declarations about the Nazi era. It was implied in a Facebook post by the Israel Defense Forces’ spokesperson’s unit last week marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day. And it was asserted in an article shared by the Trump White House in defense of its controversial Holocaust statement the same day omitting references to the 6 million Jewish victims.

    It is, however, a number without any scholarly basis.

    Indeed, say those close to the late Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal, its progenitor, it is a number that was intended to increase sympathy for Jewish suffering but which now is more often used to obscure it.

    . . .

    The “5 million” has driven Holocaust historians to distraction ever since Wiesenthal started to peddle it in the 1970s. Wiesenthal told the Washington Post in 1979, “I have sought with Jewish leaders not to talk about 6 million Jewish dead, but rather about 11 million civilians dead, including 6 million Jews.”

    Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli Holocaust scholar who chairs the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, said he warned his friend Wiesenthal, who died in 2005, about spreading the false notion that the Holocaust claimed 11 million victims – 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews.

  2. When the Jew Bari Weiss was on Joe Rogan there were a few moments where it seemed like she really wanted to rip that mask off. When she was talking about how Jews are just another victim group that look white.
    Imagine Poland being allowed to control the narrative in their country.

  3. It’s pretty standard holohoax lore that around 5 million other people were exterminated in nazi death camps, along with the 6 million Jews. Poles, Gypsies, homos, Russian prisoners of war, etc. These kikes must not be very bright otherwise it might dawn on them that knocking down one pillar of the myth may endanger other pillars.

    Recently, kikes demanded reparations from Poland for the latter’s alleged collaboration in the “Final Solution” that would amount to an obscene proportion of the Polish GDP. I think these Polacks are implicitly encouraging the kikes to go knocking on Germany’s door for those shekels, and when those shekels arrive, to send some Poland’s way. We all know that it takes three Polacks to screw in a lightbulb, but how many does it take to screw the Krauts out of still more shekels? Apparently not many, if kikes have already done the thinking for them.

  4. another favorite Jewtrick is conflating the 1944 Warsaw Uprising – which really was a mass uprising – with the early 1943 so-called “Warsaw Ghetto” uprising…which involved about 1% of a then extant ghetto population of c. 50,000 Jews.

    as to the mythic “muh 6 million”, one of the best debunkings remains Don Heddesheimer’s The First Holocaust: Jewish Fund Raising Campaigns During and After World War One.

  5. o/t: regarding TFeed:
    – wtf is it that sites such as spreaker.com not expressly state the date of the podcast/issue but state “28 days ago” [as of now]? The date is THE most important item of any publication in any medium imo. Perverse.
    The other things is, might Survive-the-Jive find a hint of an answer in…?

  6. In a link to your previous post, ‘This Fictitious Conflict,’ you write these two terrific paragraphs, Tan,

    “The extent of the contradiction is worse than Weiss admits. The jews have an ethnostate, a state explicitly by for and of jews, whereas Whites have none. Not one. Even outside their explicit ethnostate the jews have laws specifically protecting themselves and their ethnostate from criticism. Jews claim that jews are White, that Whites have privilege and thus deserve to be oppressed, and that jews are oppressed by Whites and thus deserve their privilege. When Whites object even indirectly to any aspect of this jewing the jews swarm forth as a tribe and screech louder for even more special funding and protection from their ostensibly liberal host state.

    “So-called liberals and their liberal democratic states aren’t advertised as elevating one group above others. Quite the contrary. Yet they openly elevate the jews above all others, and especially above Whites. That’s the big contradiction. Zionists do not merely support a state for jews, they oppose any state for Whites. They regard Whites and jews as political opposites. That’s not a contradiction, it’s the parasite having its cake and eating its host too. Liberalism has always served the jews, providing the means by which any and all forms of jewing have been simultaneously advanced and defended.”


    I think this might qualify as the best summation of the problem we have, wherever it were argued that this liberal consensus subsumes also the ‘conservative’ and the ‘independent’ mind: it is all one Jewish moulded mush. But if you’ve written equally pithy things more particularly targetting conservatives or the unknowingly mushed, which could be appended to this quote somehow, it would be nice to have an overall take-home soundbite that whacks em all.

  7. So-called liberals includes everyone who describes themselves as conservatives. These are the wise fools who use liberal as an insult, to mock others they see as hopelessly deluded about reality, yet imagine themselves as free-thinking, free-speaking classic liberals, as if their delusion is entirely different.

    The fictitious conflict is not only in the fake fight jews engage in, so their apologists can point and say, See! The jews are not a monolith!, while they all argue about what’s best for the jews. It includes all the partisanship they encourage among non-jews, providing the illusion of some choice in the matter. The Enlightenment was all along a jew-led, jew-serving psyop, entirely concerned with guiding non-jews along in how to “repair the world” to better suit the jews. You can vote for the anti-White/pro-jew “left”, or you can vote for the pro-jew/anti-White “right”. It’s important, goy! We’re tearing down White supremacy and supporting Israel harder and faster than the “racists” and “anti-semites” on the other side!

    Democracy, as Ezra Pound once put it, means a country run by jews. Liberal democracy refers to the broader farce by which every party – left, right, conservative, liberal – pretends the world isn’t run by jews.

  8. “Liberal democracy refers to the broader farce by which every party – left, right, conservative, liberal – pretends the world isn’t run by jews.”

    Appreciated. And the rest.

  9. “Liberal democracy refers to the broader farce ….”

    “Lunatic democracy”, would be more appropriate

  10. “The Enlightenment was all along a jew-led, jew-serving psyop”

    I’m afraid you are sorely mistaken on this point, Tan. And I doubt you would much want to live in a world that had not been rendered freer, more prosperous and humane by what you incorrectly denounce as being of Jewish origin.

    Should we dispense with habeas corpus, allowing the government to imprison citizens indefinitely, without good cause or a trial?

    Should the government be permitted to torture citizens as a method of interrogation and punishment?

    Should speech which the government disapproves of be silenced, indeed by imprisonment and torture?

    If you answer “No” to even one of those questions, you have come down on the side of the Enlightenment.

  11. The essence of the so-called Enlightenment is that the goyim must never think or speak or act as the jews do, because jews. The only rationale ever offered for this system is that it serves the interests of “humanity”, i.e. the jews.

    The jews have managed to inflict censorship, kangaroo courts, false imprisonment, and worse upon their enemies not just despite the goyim opposing such things, but by encouraging it. They enabled jewing by encouraging the goyim to support “civil liberties”, except for the enemies of jews.

    So your argument in defense of liberalism is at best nonsensical. To anyone who can see the jewed system we already live under for what it is, your argument comes across as malicious.

  12. There is nothing under the sun that Jewry cannot use, or will refrain from using, as a means to subdue, exploit and ultimately exterminate its European host. Jews are indeed a clever and ruthless group parasite. But what is the point of excluding Jews, or wiping them out entirely, if we must go on living as though they were still perilously close to extinguishing our existence? A hammer can be used to pound nails or as a deadly weapon. Computers can be used as a means for Jews to surveil and brainwash Europeans or as a way to further European well-being. The effect these tools have all depends on in whose hands they reside. Opposing Jewry cannot be an end unto itself. We must also cast our minds ahead to the life to come once their threat has been neutralized. What life will we wish to live as Europeans then? Not one which permits rampant abuse of government power is certainly my preference.

  13. And, with a yaun, Tan casually smashes Captain c’s enlightenment theory. Damn… Back in the day I was blown away buy Jagger’s illumination of the German side of things during the wars foisted upon them by the jews. I myself am the son of Northern European sons and daughters who left their fatherlands, but the fatherlands haven’t left us. We are strong. Our talents unmatched. We are envied, despised, and feared. I knew that from childhood. Starting elementary school in the early 70’s I watched on TV the White men fly on rockets to the moon. And I needed no instruction in knowing that my race was under attack. I appreciate Jagger’s insight, but am indebted to her for bringing us you. Your work, completely freely given, supported by only by your tireless will to investigate and research that which is purposely hidden, reveals pure inarguable facts. I try to comprehend how much you invested, and cannot. I think your interview of Luke Ford, which I listened to at least 5 or 6 times, was most insightful. That kind of confrontation demonstrates the highest level of intellectual warfare. If I may dare to impose a request, perhaps you would consider interviewing other hostiles, and inspire us while you coldly pin them to the dirt.

  14. “The Enlightenment” proper is a period of philosophy which occurred largely in the 1700s. It is not the same thing as the extant political spectrum. However much Jews may use ideas from that time to deceive the goyim today, that does not make these two distinct things interchangeable. Confusion on this point by a writer can cause confusion on the part of a reader.

  15. “There is nothing under the sun that Jewry cannot use, or will refrain from using, as a means to subdue, exploit and ultimately exterminate its European host. ”

    Truer words don’t exist.

  16. “The Enlightenment was all along a jew-led, jew-serving psyop”

    ??? How?
    The foremost minds of the Enlightenment were the most antithetical to the jewish spirit and principles, foremost among them , Voltaire. Proto-Enlightenment philosopher, Bacon, didn’t have any common currency wi judaism. Diderot and his associates didn’t have any jewish persuasions.

    How you can reach the reach the above idea, I don’t understand.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *