Concentration camps were not nice places. I have seen them. I knew men who were there. They really were not nice. You can see them for yourselves. Concentration Camps tells us where. They show us the evil that was the Nazi regime. The Holocaust story is the part that Zionist Jews feed us with great enthusiasm. They have made billions out of it, not that the money [ US$ 20 billion to the World Jewish Congress alone ] has gotten to the victims, real or alleged, not when a third of Holocaust survivors in Israel live in poverty.
The idea that Jews ran concentration camps - see Concentration Camps In Poland - after the war is not good for their pretensions as victims who are morally superior to us. Perhaps that is why they have been so vigorous in suppressing the truth. Notice too that it was a Jew telling the truth.
The Wikipedia article on Mr Sack [ RIP ] confirms the basic story but is skewed against him; not blatantly but the bias is there. The Wiki is a Zionist propaganda operation. You can see what he had to say at John Sack - An Eye For An Eye
From JEWISH INFLUENCE IN THE MASS MEDIA with thanks.
In 1994 after rejections from numerous publishers, John Sack, a respected Jewish journalist for Esquire and other magazines for nearly 40 years, managed to get his manuscript (An Eye for an Eye, about the "vengeful" Jewish heads of post-World War II concentration camps for Germans and Poles) published by Basic Books. (The book was originally commissioned with a $25,000 advance by the Henry Holt publishing company. When Sack's final manuscript was completed, it was abandoned by the firm). "Major U.S. newspapers and publishers," noted the Associated Press, "shied away from the manuscript before Basic Books finally put out the English edition in 1993." [BAJACK, INTERNET] The editor for the volume at Basic Books, Steve Fraser, noted that
"We concluded it ought not to be suppressed -- which is what was happening. I take my vocation as a publisher seriously enough to feel that it is my responsibility to publish something that's important even if the rest of the industry is afraid to do that." [WIENER, p. 24]
Terry McDonnell, one of Sack's editors at Esquire, was one of those refusing to publish any of the investigators articles about the Jewish commandants of concentration camps. "[Other publishers are] scared," he told Sack. "And I'm scared too." [LOMBARDI, p. 18]
Sack had researched the facts of the volume for seven years. "Although Sack's facts were not disputed," notes the Associated Press, "the book was slammed as sadistic sensationalism in a review by powerful German [Jewish] critic Elke Geisel, whose seething polemic called it 'vile docudrama' and 'a gift to neo-Nazis.'" "[Sack's book] is the greatest filth," added Ralph Giordano, a German Jewish writer who never read the book in question, " ... [it is a] vulgar artistic fetish." [AP, INTERNET] (Press censorship about Jewish history even occurs in Poland, presumably because the new capitalist state must seek so much western/Jewish economic aid in rebuilding their nation. In 1994 the Gazeta Wyboroza, one of Poland's most-widely read newspapers, covered an investigation of fifteen former officers of the Office of State Security [Poland's communist secret police]. "The paper is avoiding any mention of Jews," notes Jewish journalist Carol Oppenheim. "I think there is widespread opinion of the dominance of Jews in the Communist Party," said Michael Cichy, the cultural editor of the paper, "but mention of this in the Polish press is taboo." [OPPENHEIM, p. 39]
In response to Jewish outrage that such truthful information be published, the new head (Viktor Niemann) of the publishing house that printed Sack's book in German, R. Piper, decided to destroy all 6,000 copies in its warehouses. "It was the fourth time," notes the Associated Press, "that Sack's story ... had been bought by a publisher who subsequently decided against printing." [BAJACK, INTERNET] "It is tragic," wrote Sack in response to his German publisher's actions, "that 'An Eye for an Eye' is not being published in Germany now and that Germans have nowhere to learn the truth." [SACK, p. A18]
When the TV news show 60 Minutes investigated one of the Jewish subjects of Sack's book, Shlomo Morel, Sack's broader story "looked as if it might take off," said Carol Oppenheim, "and it sent shock waves through the Jewish community." "A feature by '60 Minutes' that backed up Sack seemed to promise major attention and at least minor bestsellerdom," noted the Washington Post, "but the rest of the media either attacked or ignored the book. The general tenor was summoned up in Miami Jewish Week: "Do me a favor -- don't read this book." [STREITFIELD, p. D4]
In 1994, John Lombardi wrote a disturbing article for New York magazine about the Sack story and the massive censorship surrounding it. Lombardi called his piece "The Book They Dare Not Review: An Inconvenient Holocaust Story." Lombardi formerly worked at Advance Publication's GQ magazine, the periodical that had initially paid Sack $20,000 to research and write about the Jewish concentration camp overseers, only -- after the article had been typeset -- to quietly kill it.
The most venomous attack on Sack's book came from the New Republic (owned by avidly pro-Israel publisher Martin Peretz). Sack wrote a point by point rebuttal to their review, but the magazine refused to publish any of it in their Letters to the Editor section. "But," noted the Nation, "the magazine made the remarkable decision to sell him ad space to run it ($525 for five column inches). The ad was typeset, but the magazine then chose to reject it." [WIENER, p. 287] Leon Wieseltier, the Jewish literary editor of the New Republic, was even quoted as saying, "I'm not embarrassed to say that as part of my job of policing the culture, I felt that the sooner we stopped this book, the better.... It's one of the stupidest books I ever read, and I frankly resolved to do as much damage as I could." [LOMBARDI, p 18] Elan Steinberg, spokeswoman for the World Jewish Congress impugned the veracity of Sack's dozens of interviews with Jewish (and other) eyewitnesses to Jewish-created atrocities, saying: "You cannot rely on witnesses ... [because] you're insulting the memory of 6 million [Jewish Holocaust] martyrs." [LOMBARD, p. 18]
In 1997, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC suddenly cancelled a lecture by Sack about his book and his findings therein. "The invitation to give your lecture was issued without my knowledge," wrote Director Walter Reich to the Eye for an Eye author, "Having had the opportunity to examine the matter, I have determined that holding the presentation would not be compatible with the Museum's programs." [STREITFIELD, p. D1] In turn, Sack decided to rent (for $301) a room at the nearby National Press Club to discuss his book and the censorship around it. There is no record in the major national computer research database of America's newspapers that Sack's press conference was ever reported upon.
"It would be tempting to simply dismiss this painful book as the work of an anti-Semitic crackpot, as many have," wrote Jewish author Carol Oppenheim, "The New York Times, the Washington Post, and Time have ignored An Eye for An Eye [i.e., not reviewed it]. But John Sack is a noted journalist with some forty years experience. His work on the Vietnam War is studied in college classes. And he is also a Jew." [OPPENHEIM, p. 39]
Errors & omissions,
broken links, cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever;
if you find any I am open to comment.
Email me at Mike Emery. All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep it private, use my PGP Key. Home Page
Updated on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 18:38:31