Was the Diary of Anne Frank Just Another Jewish Lie?

Was the Diary of Anne Frank Just Another Jewish Lie?

I am going to assume that most readers here at OP News are familiar with the official story of Anne Frank, the young Jewish girl (aged 13–15) who kept a diary while hiding in a house from Jew-hunting “Nazis” in the Netherlands during World War II.

Publisher Clemens & Blair has just released a new book focused on the fraudulence of The Diary of Anne Frank. A number of other works examining the fraudulent Anne Frank diary have been published over the course of many years, most famously “Is the diary of Anne Frank Genuine?,” an article in English in 1982 by Robert Faurisson. But this new book surpasses the old ones in many ways.

Author of the current work, Ikuo Suzuki, a Japanese researcher, reviews a number of these earlier analyses of the diary in his new book, as does editor Thomas Dalton in his Foreword.

From there, Mr. Suzuki explores new analyses of the diary, including an illuminating graphic depiction of the many changes among the many various publications of the diary over the span of decades. So numerous and detailed are the diary’s entries over 26 months that logical inconsistencies and physical and logistical impossibilities inevitably occur; Suzuki identifies many new ones. He calls some of this “Anne magic,” and indeed only a magical explanation can reconcile some of the diary’s many internal flaws and self-contradictions.

Suzuki’s book is arranged into five main chapters, each having four to nine sections. As an example of inconsistency among various published versions of the diary, Chapter one is titled “Absurdity on the Surface,” and one section is titled “The Translation of ‘Cat’ Into ‘Tarantula’.” This Chapter displays pictures and drawings of the “Annex” in which Anne Frank supposedly hid out with seven other Jews, along with examinations of physical and architectural impossibilities.

Suzuki goes on to explore “Absurdities Lurking in the Depths” in Chapter two, closing with the section “Was Everything a Figment?.” Here we see pictures of diary pages themselves, and careful comparisons among the bewildering number of different versions of the diary published at different times in different languages. Here we find Suzuki’s unique graphic display of the many changes among the versions.

For example, Anne Frank is said to have edited her own diaries at a later point in her time in the “hideout.” Edited is not the proper term when we see that one early entry in her Diary as presented in the English publish version is actually a combination of two entries more than a month apart from the original diaries.

Unmasking Anne Frank by Ikuo Suzuki, including the excellent Foreword by editor Thomas Dalton and Introduction and Postscript by myself, achieves the difficult task of summarizing and updating previous diary revision, while presenting new crucial insights. The end effect is to drive a dagger of certainty into the bleeding heart of Diary pathos. Suzuki’s detailed biographical analysis of the person he concludes actually wrote the diary—Meyer Levin—is the climax of a book filled with stunning insights.

This book has much to consider for those new to Diary doubt, and much more to ponder for those already familiar with Anne Frank revisionism. Unmasking Anne Frank is, without doubt, the best such revisionist text ever produced; it is not only a great contribution to diary revision, it may be a culmination.

Origins of the Diary Exposed

According to a recent investigation and reports, Anne Frank’s diary was co-authored by her father and thus the credibility of the diary ultimately comes to an end.

Official Admissions from the Anne Frank Foundation; Two Distinct Handwritings

The Basel, Switzerland, Anne Frank Fonds (Anne Frank Fund), which controls the copyright
to the Diary of Anne Frank, has admitted that the book was in fact at least co-authored by Otto Frank, Anne’s father, after the war.

The admission shows that the book, which is still heavily promoted as a “holocaust memoir”,
is in fact largely a postwar fabrication which contained parts of the young Anne’s diary with
extensive additions added by her father.

This is obvious from even a cursory look at the actual diary. For example, the image below of two pages from the diary, which shows both Anne’s real youthful handwriting and her father’s obviously adult handwriting, although he signs his entries as “Anne Frank.”

Normal copyright on books extends only seventy years after the author’s death.

As Anne Frank died of typhus in Bergen-Belsen in February 1945, the book theoretically entered the public domain in February 2015.

But, as the New York Times went on to say, the Anne Frank Fonds has now decided to try to extend copyright on the book past the 70 year cut-off period by admitting that Otto Frank, who died in 1980, was indeed a “co-author” after all.

Foundation officials “should think very carefully about the consequences“, said Agnès Tricoire, a lawyer in Paris who specializes in intellectual property rights in France, where critics have been the most vociferous and are organizing a challenge.

If you follow their arguments, it means that they have lied for years about the fact that it was only written by Anne Frank.

The Bic Ballpoint Pen Impossibility

People already knew that the dairy was written with a Bic ballpoint pen, which was only a prototype at that time and was in no way industrialized, let alone sold on the market. They were commercialized in 1951.

This already permitted many people to determine the book to be a fraud as it was physically impossible for Anne Frank to write the diary with a Bic ballpoint pen, unless she was capable of traveling through time, to the future and then return with such a writing medium..

https://web.archive.org/web/20190223002136/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCLOqTDFGUI

Simon G. Sheppard, homosexual writer and author of Anne Frank’s Novel: The Diary is a Fraud, even goes a step further claiming:

“Annelies Marie Frank never kept a diary. What she called her ‘diary’ was a collection of sketches,
fictional stories and fantasy letters to the eight members of her imaginary “club.” In 1944 she
rewrote the lot, calling it a novel (“een roman”), but this was translated in the Diary to “a romance.”
Otto Frank lied when he insisted he had not intended to publish it. First published in 1998, this is
the most rigorous debunking of the Anne Frank Diary ever published, and revised in 2001 to include
some recent developments in this ongoing saga.”

Conclusion

Otto Frank, father of Anne, displays what he says is his daughter’s diary, written in 1942–1944 while hiding from the Gestapo. Recent scientific tests have proved the alleged diary could not have been written before 1951. Frank made millions from his forgery before his death in 1980.

Assuming this information is all true, Otto Frank, the father of Anne Frank made millions out of the death of her daughter. This is a disgusting display of macabre money making, thus by doing so he shows no respect for her daughter or her memory, while non-Jews are supposed to cry out for the faked, fantasized stories this man made up.

Here’s to hoping this new movement of truth will open the eyes of many to the genuine nature of holocaust propaganda, and how morally bankrupt these myths are.


Subscribe
Notify of
guest

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x