"It's difficult to admit the obvious"
political world

Preserving Memory: The Struggle to Create America's Holocaust Museum;The Taxpayer-Funded Palace of Holocaust Supremacy (USHMM) Sits Right in the Nation’s Capital

jan peczkis|Monday, June 26, 2017

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) is the palace—open in 1993. The Nazi German genocide of 5-6 million Jews is a fact; its “self-evident” special status is not. Although not putting it in these terms, this book provides an eye-opening description of various subterfuges used to elevate the genocide of the Jews (Shoah) to pre-eminence. At the same time, there is the minimizing of all the many genocides of non-Jews, and of “throwing some crumbs” to them in order to deflect objections. [For a survey of the dozens of genocides that had collectively consumed at least 100 million human lives, and that in only the 20th century, please see my review of DEATH BY GOVERNMENT, by Rummel. Note that Jews are just 6% of this conservative total]

. [For a survey of the dozens of genocides that had collectively consumed at least 100 million human lives, and that in only the 20th century, please see my review of DEATH BY GOVERNMENT, by Rummel. Note that Jews are just 6% of this conservative total].

This work includes interesting tidbits of information. For instance, it was Yaffa Eliach, a member of the President’s Commission on the Holocaust, who first said that “‘There is no business like Shoah business.’” (p. 13).


Holocaust supremacism is often protected by a bodyguard of pseudo-intellectual lingo, in which the Holocaust is enchanted, and endowed with quasi-magical properties that are not recognized for any other genocide. Examples of the mystification of the Holocaust in this work include author Linenthal’s reference to the Holocaust as “a transcendent event”, “unique”, “not to be compared to another genocidal situation” (p. 4), as well as other highfalutin terms: “transformative”, “epochal”, “a watershed”, “a break in human history” [ZIVILIZATIONSBRUCH]. (p. 267).

Who had ever determined that all this was so? And when did the world’s people vote the Holocaust into this exulted position over all other genocides?


One Jewish strategy for delegitimizing Poles, Ukrainians, and other Slavs, as co-victims of the Nazis under the term “Holocaust”, was the fact that some of them had collaborated with the Nazis. (p. 39, 41, 81, 120-121). Not mentioned is the reductio ad absurdum of this consideration: It would also exclude Jews as victims of the Holocaust! After all, many Jews had collaborated with the Nazis—against fellow Jews as well as non-Jews.

Then there is the well-worn claim of the total annihilation of Jews (e. g, Yehuda Bauer, Henryk Grynberg: p. 54. Lucy Dawidowicz, p. 113) as a “grounds” for the special status of the Jews’ genocide. The Poles’ genocide is delegitimized through the claim that “only” 10% of Poles were murdered by the Nazis. (See comment). Likewise, the Gypsies were told—and this was supported by the USHMM--that they do not qualify for equal standing with the Jews because Hitler never tried to kill all the Gypsies (Sinti and Roma) in the Porajmos. (p. 247). Gypsies, however, argue that they WERE slated for total annihilation. (p. 243).

This, too, is an exercise in sophistry. Is the difference between a total genocide and a partial genocide a profound difference, or is it an ancillary one? Besides, it is untrue that the Nazis tried to kill every single possible Jew within their reach. Nor is it correct that the Nazis had some kind of internally-consistent, all-encompassing obsession with Jews. See comments.

There is also this standby (or variant thereof) argument: Jews were killed because they were Jews; Poles were killed because it was war.” (p. 120, 228). Against such insulting nonsense, one must know that the Germans most certainly murdered Poles for no other reason than the fact that they were Poles. (p. 249). [For details, see, for example, THE FORGOTTEN HOLOCAUST, by Lukas.]

Now consider the Armenians. Yaffa Eliach objected to their inclusion because it would open the door to the inclusion of the genocides of Cambodians, African tribes, etc. (p. 229, 232). Of course, she is correct—but this precisely shows the reductio ad absurdum of trying to erect ANY kind of meritocracy of genocides.


Consider the term Holocaust, and the Jewish effort to monopolize this term in reference to themselves. Polish-American leaders such as Aloysius Mazewski and Kazimierz Lukomski strove in vain for the Nazi genocide of ethnic Poles to be included under the term “Holocaust”. (p. 39).

As described in the two ensuing paragraphs, the way that the five million Nazi-murdered gentiles were manipulated became a truly laughable exercise in the use of Orwellian constructs (Holocaustspeak). It would have been a scene from the Theater of the Absurd had it not taken place. Then again, such are the strictures imposed by the dictates of Holocaust supremacism.

In 1979, Stuart Eizenstat had advised President Carter that the memorial should refer to the Holocaust as “six million Jews and some five million other peoples.” (p. 41). This upset some people, because it was no longer “millions” of others, but now five million, which was only 1 million less than the Jews. (p. 41). Oh, dear.

But wait, it gets even funnier. To prevent the victimhoods of Jews and non-Jews from seeming too close, it was seriously suggested that two dashes be inserted, so that we now have, “six million Jews—and the millions of other Nazi victims in World War II.” (p. 50).

The Orwellian language kept coming fast and furious: Jews were Holocaust VICTIMS, while others were victims of Nazi TERROR. Jews were EXTERMINATED, while non-Jews were MURDERED. (p. 54).

When it came to the Armenian genocide, there was yet another invention of Holocaustspeak: that of a prelude to the Holocaust. It, of course, implied that the Armenian genocide was not a real genocide: It was merely an introductory performance for the “real” genocide that was to come—that of the Jews under the Nazis. (pp. 236-237). [The same thing was later done to the Poles. As an example, see my review of Rutherford. PRELUDE TO THE FINAL SOLUTION.] In the end, the Armenian genocide was largely excluded. (p. 263).


Arthur Davis of the Jewish Federation in Des Moines warned that if Jews capture the Holocaust, “we will exclude the support of many other groups.” (p. 121).

The cursory inclusion of non-Jewish genocides is, in large part, a fig leaf, as admitted by Linenthal, “Some Jews zealously guarded the story as ONLY about Jews, and grudgingly allowed others to ‘rent’ space in the story because of the pluralistic imperative of a national museum.” (p. 249; Emphasis in original).


One strategy for “universalizing” the Holocaust is to play word games—to reframe it as some kind of “representative” or “stand-in” for all other genocides. This clever-sounding gambit is purely an invention of the Judeocentrists: At no time did the peoples of the world vote to let the Shoah serve as a “stand-in” for their own respective genocides, or to usurp all the attention for itself.

To crown the deceptive Orwellian doublespeak, the USHMM calls itself pluralistic—by including some non-Jewish genocides so long as they “know their place” relative to the reigning Jews’ genocide. Using other language, author Linenthal acknowledges as much, “Consequently, the representation of various groups of Holocaust victims in the exhibition satisfies the pluralistic imperative of a national museum to the Holocaust in the nation’s capital, and serves as a way to portray Jewish uniqueness THROUGH comparison with various others.” (p. 228; Emphasis in original).

In fact, any kind of mention of a non-Jewish genocide, at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, was predicated on the notion that it played second fiddle to the Holocaust. Linenthal comments, “Each group argued that they belonged within the boundaries of the Holocaust, and then their representatives made a case for their ‘space,’ their position---ALWAYS DEFINED, HOWEVER, IN RELATION TO THE JEWISH CENTER.” (p. 249; Emphasis in original).


Because this book was written long ago (1995), I now mention some recent developments.

In 2017, the American taxpayer has to pay nearly $60 million dollars annually to fund the USHMM and its Judeocentric promotion of past events. President Trump sought a modest cut ($3 million) and got a furious reaction from politicians of both parties. What does this tell us?

The canned talking point, about having and maintaining Holocaust museums, is always the same: Preventing anti-Semitism and fighting prejudice. So how much longer is it supposed to take for the Holocaust museums to “cure” the world of anti-Semitism, so that the taxpayer no longer is forced to support them? 50 years? 200 years? 1,000 years?

As for “fighting prejudice”, there is this delicious irony: What could POSSIBLY be more prejudiced than elevating one particular genocide, and with taxpayer money to boot, over all the other genocides?

Clearly, Holocaust supremacy is the problem, not the solution!


Surely it is as racist to think that a Poles' genocide is unworthy of the same solicitousness as a Jews' genocide, as it is to think that a black man is unworthy of the same civil rights as a white man. Could Holocaust Supremacism one day be formally condemned as a form of racism under international law?

This would be broad-based. It would encompass anyone saying or implying that his or her peoples' genocide is: 1) A unique wrong (e. g, “the greatest crime in history”); 2) Qualitatively different from all other genocides; 3) At the pinnacle of some imagined hierarchy of genocides; 4) Of greater historical significance or moral gravity than any other genocide; or 5) In any way worthy of more attention than any other genocide.

Genocide-Recognition Equality now!
Copyright © 2009 www.internationalresearchcenter.org
Strony Internetowe webweave.pl