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

DEath to Dust;Eye-Opening Information Inadvertently Refutes Jewish Accusations on Repurposed Jewish Cemeteries in Post-WWII Poland

jan peczkis|Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Author Kenneth V. Iserson has written a detailed book on every imaginable aspect of death and dying. Other reviewers already provide the details, and I do not repeat them.


During the Nazi German occupation of Poland, the Germans murdered nearly all of Poland’s Jews, leaving behind countless Jewish cemeteries that had no remaining Jews to use them or at least maintain them. I focus on the information, provided by Iserson, which unintentionally demolishes the anti-Polish images that have been created, particularly in media and in Holocaust Museums, on the long-unused Jewish cemeteries in Poland, and especially their matzevot (tombstones).

The customary American exhibits of matzevot, which are becoming more and more common, are subtle and manipulative. They take advantage of the fact that most American viewers know absolutely nothing of the realities of cemetery reuse, and they thereby generate feelings that are favorable to Jews (e. g, the politics of victimhood) and prejudicial against Poles. The viewer sees the matzeva and feels sorry for the human being that was identified by the matzevot. He then cannot help but conclude that Poles must be some kind of very base or primitive people for having repurposed the land of unused Jewish cemeteries, and for having reused the matzevot as paving or building stones. The truth behind such conduct, which is perfectly-normal and perfectly-proper, is entirely different, as Iserson makes clear, and as is elaborated below.

But first I touch on the consequences of reopening old wounds on matters of “property restitution”.


The Holocaust Industry is effectively trying to arrange the retroactively bestowing of tribal rights to Jews, so that it can demand compensation for onetime Jewish intestate and communal properties. If this cannot be done through law, then it can be imposed by political manipulation--in accordance with a made-up “moral duty” to be imposed upon the people of Poland and other once German-occupied nations (the PEDAGOGIKA WSTYDU; the Pedagogy of Shame).

Ironically, were the Holocaust Industry to succeed in this, it would only open-up a new can of worms. As an example, the “Who is entitled to compensation?” quandary is vividly illustrated by even the clear-cut situation of doing belated justice to American Indians. Iverson writes, “United States law now allows Native Americans to request the return of pilfered tribal remains and sacred and ceremonial objects from museums…In another case, archeologists and representatives from the Hopi, Zuni, and White Mountain Apache tribes met in June 1993 at Grasshopper, on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation in east-central Arizona, to decide the fate of 696 sets of human remains of Mogollon Indians (who no longer exist as a distinct group) dating from around A. D. 1300, and unearthed during a 30-year-long archeological dig. The Apaches claim the remains since they now own the land, although the tribe did not live in the area when the Mogollons disappeared around 1400. The Hopi and Zuni claim the remains based on biological or cultural affinity. The Acoma and Laguna tribes can also claim that the remains are those of their ancestors, according to archeologists.” (p. 526).


Iserson writes, “English common law states that a grave is only held temporarily (not owned), and its use terminates ‘with the dissolution of the body.’” (p. 527).

He adds that, “Modern cemeteries in many countries routinely ‘rent’ a grave for two to thirty years. At the end of that period, they disinter and rebury the bones in accordance with that country’s cemetery laws. Vancouver, British Columbia, a neighbor of Seattle, successfully uses a 30-year renewable lease for graves. In London, England, the wealthy have for many years obtained 99-year leases on their graves at prestigious cemeteries: graces for purchase, though, are scarce. In some places, a few ‘perpetual’ graves may be available at exorbitant prices.” (p. 528).


The fact are clear, as stated by Iserson, “European and United States cemeteries have been routinely deconsecrated and razed.” (p. 529). Where are the tears shed for THEM? Where is the moral outrage over what Europeans and American had been doing ALL ALONG? Enough matzeva (macewa) manipulations.

Let us take this further. Iserson informs us that, “Some cemetery industry experts have suggested that future societies may wish to recycle cemeteries simply to reclaim metals and reuse valuable land. In some cases this already occurs, as when a cemetery is no longer kept up, the graves become unrecognizable, and the public begins using the land for another purpose. The law considers this to be abandonment, and allows new uses for the land.” (p. 532). Clearly, there is nothing remarkable, or abhorrent, about the repurposing of unused cemeteries!

Of course, there are those who would have us believe that the Holocaust was special. That is purely a subjective opinion designed to instill in people the notion that Jews are entitled to retroactively-applicable special rights, including those pertaining to all the pre-Shoah matzeva and Jewish cemeteries, and thus to set the stage for arbitrary considerations favorable to the money-making efforts of the Holocaust Industry.
Copyright © 2009 www.internationalresearchcenter.org
Strony Internetowe webweave.pl