We will write a custom Essay on “Night” by Elie Wiesel specifically for you
301 certified writers online
For people who have not been completely deprived of their ability to utilize their sense of logic, as a result of being continuously brainwashed by hawks of political correctness, it does not make a whole lot of sense that – the further we are from the time of WW2, the more there emerge “holocaust survivors”, who demand monetary compensations for their “suffering”, even though that it should be other way around. Elie Wiesel, who is being often referred to as “Pope of Holocaust religion”, is a good example of such “survivor”. He was able to become an immensely wealthy individual with the mean of telling horror stories about babies being dumped into fire pits by truckloads. The fact that the critical examination of Wiesel’s outrageous claims is actually punishable by law in such countries as Germany, France and Britain, allowed this “talented and sensitive Jew” to make a good business on spreading lies about WW2, while charging $25.000 per lecture on the subject of Holocaust in colleges and universities. In 1986, Wiesel was awarded a Nobel Prize for his contribution into “revealing the truth about Holocaust”, even though that neither of his claims was being confirmed independently. He was the one who continued to talk about Nazis making soap out of Jews, well after American and British authorities had admitted that the stories of “Jewish soap” were nothing a part of Allied war-propaganda. Yet, despite the fact that there is a plenty of evidence that points out at Wiesel as false witness, his book “Night” is still being considered as an absolutely credible witness account of what happened to Jews during the WW2, simply because the issue of Holocaust has long ago turned into one of the most lucrative businesses, along with drug trafficking and arms trade. Due to the fact that examining holocaust now represents a criminal offence, in countries where hook-nosed descendants of Bolshevik commissars succeeded in instilling citizens with the sense of “historical guilt”, countless “holocaust survivors” are now allowed to extort money from Swiss banks in broad daylight, to establish “museums of Holocaust”, where visitors are being charged $50 per person, and to hold lectures across the country, during the course of which they teach White people how to be ashamed of their own cultural heritage.
“A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel”
In his article “A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel”, Robert Faurisson provides us with numerous examples of conceptual inconsistency of Wiesel’s claims, which brings author to conclusion that Wiesel is nothing but swindler who should be held accountable for spreading lies: “Elie Wiesel passes for one of the most celebrated eyewitnesses to the alleged Holocaust. He claims to have witnessed Jews being burned alive, a story now dismissed by all historians. Wiesel gives credence to the most absurd stories of other “eyewitnesses.” He spreads fantastic tales of 10,000 persons sent to their deaths each day in Buchenwald” (Faurisson, 2002). While seeming to never get tired of whining about cruel Nazis, who strived to “exterminate Jews en masse” (which nevertheless did not prevent him from leaving the camp with retreating German “monsters”, instead of waiting for Soviet “liberators”), Wiesel denies the very possibility that it was not only the Jews that suffered during the course WW2. He also refers to an artificial Ukrainian famine of 1933, which was organized by Jewish commissars and which resulted in death of 10 millions of Ukrainians from starvation, as “fascist myth”, simply because Jews consider “Holocaust religion” as exclusively their “intellectual property”.
Is Wiesel a crook?
Nowadays, it became a statement of good taste to refer to Wiesel’s “Night” as such that provides us with the insight on what constitutes the essence of human cruelty. For example, in his article “The Ethics of Reading Elie Wiesel’s ‘Night””, Daniel R. Schwarz suggests that Wiesel’s “masterpiece” contains moral implications of global magnitude. While discussing the significance of character of Moshe the Beadle, Schwarz states: “Implicitly, he (Wiesel) is urging us that it is our ethical responsibility not to turn away from the Witnessing Voice – Moshe, himself, indeed all those who have seen, specifically, the Holocaust, and metonymically, for us, man’s inhumanity to man – whether it occurs in Bosnia, Northern Ireland, or Somalia” (Schwartz, 1998). This betrays Scwartz as truly naïve person, because Jews had always claimed that “Holocaust” cannot be compared to acts of genocide committed against “goims”. After all, “goims” translates as “cattle”. Jews feel themselves at liberty to kill Palestinian children as “terrorists”, to kidnap and to murder their opponents in foreign countries, to have sexual slavery officially legalized in Israel – yet, they scream “bloody murder” when people criticize Israeli’s genocidal policies. This is why Wiesel’s “horror story” needs to be taken with a grain of salt, as even if there was no Holocaust, it would have to be invented, as it effectively entitles Jews with the status of “holy cows”, whose actions cannot be criticized, no matter what.
“Never shall I forget that night, the first night in camp, which has turned my life into one long night, seven times cursed and seven times sealed. Never shall I forget that smoke. Never shall I forget the little faces of the children, whose bodies I saw turned into wreaths of smoke beneath a silent blue sky” – says Wiesel, without bothering to specify the factual details of his “eyewitness account”. The reason is simple – there is not even a single evidence as to the fact that Germans were actually gassing Jews (not to say burning them in open fire pits, which is simply impossible physically), except for contradictory accounts, on the part of such “trustworthy” survivors as Wiesel. Readers are simply expected to “swallow” Wiesel’s lies unquestionably, so that they would be more willing to open up their wallets, while being approached by “chosen people” with demands of monetary compensation for “historical injustice”. Therefore, we can only agree with Eric Hunt, who in his article “Elie Wiesel and the ‘Big Lie’” suggests that the fact that many people consider criticising Wiesel’s claims as something inappropriate, can be thought of as an indication that “there is something rotten in the state of Denmark”: “Wiesel is considered by many dissidents to be the biggest fraud in the entire holocaust industry, and the more attention is drawn to the fictional nature of his supposedly ‘non-fictional writings, the better. The fact that many people immediately consider doing so to be anti-Semitic is only proof of the degree to which Western societies have been brainwashed” (Hunt, 2007).
There can be no doubt that Wiesel did suffer from Nazi’s cruelty, as they had issued him with the shovel and told him to do something useful, for a change, which prevented him and his brethren from indulging in shady commercial activities as their full-time occupation. It is quite understandable that Jews consider themselves as being so much above performing physical labour, because of their “existential sophistication”. However, this does not give them a right to mislead people on the subject of what happened to “chosen people” during WW2. “Survivors” like Wiesel do their best to convince people to think of anti-Semitism as having purely irrational essence. They blame just about everyone for Jewish misfortunes, except for Jews themselves, while being unable to learn from the lessons of history. However, as we all are aware of – those who do not learn from their own mistakes are bound to repeat them over and over. We do not argue Wiesel’s right to relate his “memories” to readers openly, just as we do not doubt our right to think of “Night” as what it really is – a fictional horror story, created by mentally and physically inadequate person, who was able to able to utilize his readers’ naivety for the purpose of making huge commercial profits.
Faurisson, Robert “A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel”. 2002. Institute for Historical Review. 2008. Web.
Hunt, Eric “Elie Wiesel and the ‘Big Lie‘”. 2007. City Belt. Hudson County’s Independent Weekly. 2008. Web.
Schwarz, Daniel “The Ethics of Reading Elie Wiesel’s ‘Night’”. 1998. Bnet Business Network. 2008. Web.
Wiesel, Elie “Night”. New York: Bantam, 1982.