No „New Interpretations”. SMOKING GUN: The Leftist Goal of Dismantling Poland’s Catholic Culture

  • Poland and Polin: New Interpretations in Polish-Jewish Studies by Irena Grudzińska-Gross (Editor), Iwa Nawrocki (Editor)Published March 22nd 2016 by Peter Lang Gmbh, Internationaler Verlag Der Wissenschaften


The title of this book is a bit misleading to the reader, as I belatedly found out. Only a fraction of its content actually deals with the Polin Museum in Warsaw. Instead, this book is primarily a repeat of all the standard Judeocentric memes. Far from featuring “new interpretations in Polish-Jewish studies”, as the title claims, it is the same-old same old bashing of Poland. The publisher is a German one—Peter Lang GmbH. I invite the reader to draw his/her own conclusions.


What Genevieve Zubrzycka writes is priceless, “In other words, how can Jews and Jewishness be ‘normalized?’ Part of the answer, I argue, is to work even harder at problematizing the Catholicity of Polishness. Another strategy is to make ideological, political, and sexual diversity a legitimate form of NATIONAL pluralism—this is an area where the last few years have brought many significant developments in the public sphere that could be productive.” (p. 179. Emphasis is hers).

Deja vu. The LEWICA LAICKA of its day had attempted to redefine Polishness and patriotism in accordance with the dictates of the Communist ideology forced on Poland by the Soviet-imposed puppet government.


Part of the mystification of the Holocaust involves the very structure of language—the free use of Holocaustspeak. For instance, the reader of this volume will be treated to the likes of “Holocaust de-Judaization” (Jan Grabowski vel Abrahamer, p. 22), and, better yet, the “de-Holocaustization of the Holocaust”. (Elzbieta Janicka, pp. 122-123). What next, the “Poles’ 3rd of May—ing of the Holocaust”? (Just kidding.)

Perhaps the most egregious example of Holocaustianity, in this book, is the discussion—for the umpteenth time, of Jan Blonski. He once again gets adulatory mention (on five pages, and by three different authors: see p. 223), as if he was some kind of extraordinary mystic-prophet that heroically came to bring enlightenment to the dark Poles.

The denigration of Poland, in this book, is transparent. If there is anything noble or heroic in Poland’s past, then it must be a myth.

Many of articles in this anthology show an undercurrent of hostility to Polish suffering under the Nazis and Communists. It is just as if Poles have some kind of duty to forget their sufferings and just pay obeisance to the Jews and their Holocaust.

As always, the genocides of Poles, at the hands of the Nazis and the Soviets, get no recognition, let alone mystification. When mentioned at all, they are portrayed merely as hindrances to the Poles accepting the „self-evident” supremacy of the Holocaust over their own. Perhaps one day, the elevation of the genocide of ANY one people, over the genocides of other peoples, will be recognized for what it is–a modern form of racism.


Jan Grabowski vel Abrahamer (p. 22) defends the primacy of the Holocaust with the well-worn non sequitur argument that the Holocaust is entitled to special recognition just because all Jews were targeted for extermination. Besides being illogical, his argument is fallacious to begin. Top Nazis (including Hitler) deliberately spared thousands of leading German Jews, relabeling them Aryans. And, even at the height of the Holocaust itself, the Nazis granted amnesty to thousands of European Jews, allowing them to leave German-ruled Europe.


As usual, a big deal is made of minor events like the Jedwabne massacre, in the Polin Museum. (Konrad Matyjaszek, p. 60). It is yet another exercise in selective historical memory. There is nothing in the Polin Museum about the Jewish massacres of Poles at places such as Naliboki or Koniuchy.

As always, Jews never have to „confront dark chapters in their history” or „Come to terms with the past” or engage in „moral reckoning” for THEIR crimes. There is nothing in the Polin Museum about the millions of people murdered by the ZYDOKOMUNA (Judeo-Bolshevism). It has disappeared down an Orwellian memory hole.

To make matters even more egregious, Jan T. Gross (p. 33) once again boldly tells the reader that Jews did not denounce Poles to the Soviets. Gross is fibbing big-time. For dozens of documented instances, mostly from Jewish sources, of specific Jewish acts against Poles, in 1939-1941 Soviet-occupied eastern Poland, please read NEIGHBOURS ON THE EVE OF THE HOLOCAUST, by Mark Paul.


Consider the neo-Stalinists. [A neo-Stalinist, in this context, is not someone who rehabilitates Stalin. It is someone who resurrects the old Stalinist-era tactics of demonizing non-leftist and devoutly-Catholic Poles as fascists, anti-Semites, Nazi-admirers, etc.]

In their respective chapters, Jan T. Gross and Jan Grabowski vel Abrahamer, once again, make anti-Polish and anti-Catholic pronouncements according to their neo-Stalinist ideation. Elzbieta Janicka is not much better. In fact, she manages to repeat Grabowski’s totally made-up monstrous figure of 200,000 fugitive Jews falling victim to the Poles in the JUDENJAGD. (p. 125).


The following authors, some of whom are listed by Erica Lehrer (p. 198), have complained that the POLIN Museum does not properly address Polish anti-Semitism, and that it simplistically appeals to the nostalgia of young, progressive American Jews: Joanna Tokarska-Bakir, Konrad Matyjaszek, Elzbieta Janicka, Piotr Forecki, and Anna Zawadzka. Evidently, these authors want to perpetuate the dialectic consisting of the all-innocent victim-Jew and the villainous Catholic and Pole. Clearly, it is these authors, and not the Polish nationalists, that want to keep old antagonisms alive, and they are the ones functionally opposed to Polish-Jewish reconciliation.


Genevieve Zubrzycki complains that the modern revival of interest, in Poland, of Jews and Judaism, is beset with the fact of Jews being exoticized, fetishized, and othered. (p. 12, 179). How could it be otherwise? For many centuries, Jews had not only emphasized their otherization and exoticization, but had perfected them to a fine art. Moreover, because of Talmudism and rabbinism, Jews had elaborated on their differences from the GOYIM, in such fastidious detail pertaining to everyday life, that they had effectively fetishized themselves.

Today’s Jews, by insisting on the supremacy of the Holocaust over the genocides of the Poles, have now otherized, exoticized, and fetishized themselves in a modern, secular manner. As an example of the latter, see Genevieve Zubrzycki’s THE CROSSES OF AUSCHWITZ. The Polish proposal, which had called for a division of the Auschwitz site into Birkenau (for Jews) and Auschwitz I (for Poles), was rejected by the Jews, on the basis of the fact that Jewish ashes can be found everywhere at the site. If this is not a fetishization of Jews in general, and of Jewish ashes in particular, then what is? (Needless to say, Polish ashes, which are every bit as lifeless, gray, and dusty as Jewish ashes, get no such sanctification or fetishization.)


Jan Peczkis


Published with the author’s permission.


  • Title image:  POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, Warsaw. Source: / selected by wg.pco

Polish-Club-Online-PCO-logo-2, 2018.09.09.

  Podziel się: