|
Robert Faurisson on the Great Lie
Written 22 March for 31 March 2001
Beirut Conference on Revisionism and Zionism.
See also French and Arabic translations. (The English text
alone is formally authentic.)
The Leaders of the Arab States should Quit their Silence
on the Imposture of the "Holocaust"
Five introductory remarks:
1. I do mean "the leaders", and not: "the
intellectuals, the academics, the journalists" some of whom
have already expressed themselves on the matter;
2. The word "Holocaust" (always to be placed in
quotation marks) designates the triple myth of the alleged
genocide of the Jews, the alleged Nazi gas chambers and the
alleged number of six million Jewish victims of the Second
World War. In the course of a history full of fury, blood
and fire, humanity has known a hundred holocausts, that is,
appalling losses of human life or bloody catastrophes
(presented, at the origin of the word's use in this manner,
as a sort of offering demanded by some superior forces);
but our contemporaries have been conditioned to keep in
mind only one holocaust, that of the Jews; it is written
today with a capital letter, and has become unique: there
is no longer the need to add "of the Jews". None of the
other previous holocausts has given rise to any financial
indemnity, reparation or compensation to match those which
the Jews have claimed and obtained for a catastrophe
or "Shoah" which they describe as unique and unprecedented,
and which would, in effect, be so if its three components
(genocide, Nazi gas chambers and six million victims) had
been real. If many European Jews suffered and died during
the war in question, without that suffering's amounting to
what today's Jews mean by the term "Holocaust", many other
peoples and communities, in particular the Germans, the
Japanese, the Russians and the Chinese, suffered, in
reality, a fate far worse than that of the Jews; let us but
think of the phosphorous- or nuclear-fuelled firestorms in
which at least a million Germans and Japanese met an
atrocious death (and what of the wounded and mutilated?).
It is, moreover, fitting to add that millions of European
Jews survived this alleged policy of physical extermination
to go on to enjoy, after the war, a power and a prosperity
without precedent in their history. To privilege, as is
thus done, the alleged "Holocaust" is to inflate Jewish
suffering beyond all measure in both quality and quantity
and to reduce, in direct proportion, the suffering of all
others, none of whose ordeals receives even so much as a
specific name;
3. Imposture is an imposed lie; here it is a question of a
historical lie, meaning that, forged by liars or
fabricators of outlandish tales, it has subsequently been
adopted by an ever-expanding number of people who, in good
faith or bad, have peddled it; in the event, we are thus
dealing with a tiny number of liars and a plethora of
peddlers;
4. The opposite of such a lie, fabricated or peddled, is
the factual truth. Still, as the word "truth" is vague and
overused, I prefer exactitude. Revisionism consists in
trying to examine and correct what is generally accepted
with a view to establishing with exactitude the nature of
an object, the reality of a fact, the worth of a figure,
the authenticity, the veracity and the import of a text or
document;
5. Zionism is an ideology whilst revisionism is a method.
As a revisionist I shall be making a judgement less of
Zionism itself (at the dawn of the 21st century) than on
the use which it makes of the "Holocaust" imposture.
If the leaders of the Muslim states planned to quit their
silence on this imposture and if, in so doing, they put a
challenge to the Jewish and Zionist lobby, they would
obviously need first a) to make a proper sizing up of the
adversary, then b) to decide on an appropriate strategy
and, finally, c) to determine the exact area on which to
concentrate their attacks. To discuss these three points, I
shall divide my talk into three parts.
In a first part, in order to avoid any mistakes as to the
opponents' identity and to ensure that they are correctly
sized up, I shall expound on what are, in my view, the
seeming weak points of the Jews and Zionists, then on their
true weak points. In a second part, concerning the strategy
to adopt, I shall sum up certain conclusions that I
reached, in November 2000, during my visit to Teheran, in
the company of representatives of the Centre of Strategic
Studies of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Finally, in a
third part, I shall designate the precise target to
hit: "the magic Nazi gas chamber" (as Louis-Ferdinand
Cèline put it).
I. The Jewish and Zionist adversary
A deceitful adversary may display fears that he does not
really feel. He may expose to the view of all certain weak
points which in fact are not such and try to hide what it
is that causes him real disquiet. In so doing he will be
attacked where it does not bother him in the least and be
spared an attack that would truly do him harm. Here, the
adversary is almost indifferently Jewish or Zionist. The
Jews are undeniably diverse ("Two Jews, three synagogues",
says the Yiddish proverb) and, politically speaking, they
have never formed a single bloc, not even against Hitler;
but, without Jews, there is no Zionism ("Zionism is to the
Jew what the hammer is to the carpenter", as Ahmed Rami
thinks) and, except for some rare instances, the Jew will
feel solidarity with the Zionist and the Zionist with the
Jew if both notice that their common "Holocaust" myth is in
peril; this is why the distinction that usually deserves to
be made between the two hardly belongs here.
a) The adversary's false fears and seeming weak points:
1. Despite their display of fear of a military
attack on the state of Israel, the Zionists who rule that
state and the Diaspora Jews who support them do not really
dread the enemy's military strength, for they know that the
enemy in question will always be outclassed by the Israeli
army, thanks to the technology and money supplied from
abroad, especially by the Americans and the Germans;
2. They do not really fear the variety of anti-
Judaism improperly called anti-semitism; on the contrary,
they feed on it; they need to be able to cry out against
anti-semitism, if only to collect more money in the
Diaspora; in general, moaning is of vital necessity to
them: "The more I sob, the more I get; the more I get, the
more I sob";
3. Jews and Zionists are not really afraid of the
Jewish denunciations of "Shoah Business" and the "Holocaust
Industry" made by the Peter Novicks, Tim Coles or Norman
Finkelsteins for there it is a matter, paradoxically, of
more or less kosher denunciations in which care is taken to
show reverence for the "Holocaust" itself; it will be
noted, moreover, that if the industrial or commercial
exploitation of the real or supposed sufferings of the Jews
constitutes a lucrative line of business, criticism of this
exploitation has over the last few years become another
such line; but, these two lines of business, especially the
latter, happen to be strictly reserved to the Jews; they
are "off limits", and a Gentile who ventured to imitate N.
Finkelstein in his denunciation of the "Holocaust" mafia
would immediately be set upon by a pack of its watchful
henchmen;
4. They do not really fear anti-Zionism as such; at
times they even authorise its expression;
5. In particular, they have not much cause to
worry about a now commonplace form of anti-semitism which
consists in attacking all of the founding myths of Israel
except that which has become essential for them:
the "Holocaust";
6. They need not be anxious about accusations of
racism, imperialism and Judeo-nazism since such
accusations, even if at times founded, resemble ritual,
mechanically uttered slogans, coined in outdated language.
To see the Jews being compared to Hitler, then hear it said
that the Zionists are, like the Nazis, carrying out a
policy of "genocide" is not altogether disagreeable to the
Jews and Zionists, for it serves to reinforce the images of
Hitler and the Nazis that they themselves have succeeded in
fabricating; this helps them to fix firmly in all minds the
illusion, first and foremost, of a "genocide" of the Jews.
In reality, Hitler was no more a monster, as his Jewish
enemies claim, than was Napoleon an "ogre", as English
propaganda used to have it. Although a racialist, and
hostile to internationalist Jews (but not to Zionist ones),
Hitler never ordered or allowed the killing of anyone on
account of his or her race or religion; moreover, his
military tribunals or courts martial meted out sentences -
sometimes the death sentence - to German soldiers,
officers or civil servants who had been found guilty of
killing a single Jewish man or woman (even in regard to
acts committed, during the war, in Poland, Russia or
Hungary); here is a point of history that has been shrouded
by the exterminationist historians and regrettably
overlooked by revisionist authors. If Hitler had been such
a monstrous racist as described, never would such a
prestigious Arab and Muslim personality as the Grand Mufti
of Jerusalem (the Palestinian Hadj Amin Al-Husseini) have
remained on his side until the end. Despite the episode of
the Germano-Soviet pact (August 1939-June 1941), Hitler was
essentially hostile to Stalinism and to what he called,
because of the Jews' decisive contribution to
Bolshevism, "Judeo-Bolshevism". The German soldier, like
the European, Russian, Asian or Muslim volunteer who fought
beside him, had but Moscow-style Communism as his essential
enemy;
7. Although they pretend the contrary, the Jews and
Zionists laugh - not without reason - at those who talk
of a "Jewish plot" or a "conspiracy of Auschwitz", since
there is no "Jewish plot" (any more than a Masonic, Jesuit,
Papal, American or Communist plot) but a Jewish power or
influence; in the same manner, there is no "Auschwitz
conspiracy" but rather an Auschwitz lie; incidentally,
ideas of plot or conspiracy, dear to the Jewish tradition,
ought to remain the privilege of the latter; we should be
wrong to turn to them.
b) The adversary's true fears and veritable weak points:
1. In Israel-Palestine, Jews and Zionists truly fear the
weapons of the poor (children's stones, their slingshots
like that of David against the giant Goliath, the suicide
attacks) and all that may endanger persons and business;
they fear a demeaning of their brand image; they dread
having to choose one day between the suitcase and the
coffin;
2. But they are above all apprehensive of "the poor man's
atomic bomb", that is, the disintegration, by historical
revisionism, of the lie of the gas chambers, the genocide
and the six million; they dread this weapon that kills no-
one but that would not fail, if properly used, to explode
their Big Lie like a bag of hot air;
3. They fear seeing revealed before the eyes of the world
that it is the imposture of the "Holocaust" that permitted,
in the wake of the Second World War, the creation in the
land of Palestine of a Jewish colony called Israel, and
this at a time when, throughout the globe (except in the
Communist empire), a gigantic decolonisation movement was
well under way;
4. They know that to lose the "Holocaust" is to lose
the sword and the shield of Israel as well as a formidable
instrument of political and financial blackmail; Yad
Vashem, which, in Jerusalem, is a "Holocaust" memorial and
museum all in one (now undergoing expansion work), is still
more precious to them than the Wailing Wall; every foreign
personality on visit to Israel for political or financial
dealings is, before all other business, obliged to call at
this museum of horrors so as to be well imbued with a
feeling of guilt which will render him more malleable;
sometimes there is a dispensation from this formality for
representatives of those rare nations which the Jews and
Zionists, try as they might, cannot rebuke for an active or
passive role in the alleged "Holocaust"; it is then amusing
to notice the Israeli officials complaining about the
difficulty in dealing with partners whom they have not been
able to condition beforehand;
5. They are aware that "were the Holocaust shown to
be a hoax, the number one weapon in Israel's propaganda
armoury disappears (sic)" (letter of W. D. Rubinstein,
Professor at Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia, in
Nation Review, 21 June 1979, p. 639);
6. They know only too well of "the fact that, if
the Holocaust can be shown to be a Zionist myth, the
strongest of all weapons in Israel's propaganda armoury
collapses" (the same academic in "The Left, the Right and
the Jews", Quadrant, September 1979, p. 27);
7. They nearly faint at the thought that the
general public might finally learn of the sum of iniquities
represented by all the purges, the cases brought in the
style of the judicial masquerades of Nuremberg, the
confessions extorted on the subject of gas chambers or gas
vans which had, in fact, never existed or the further
confessions about implausible killings imputed to the
Einsatzgruppen, the hunting down of old men, be they
patients in homes for the aged, more than half a century
after their alleged crimes, the indoctrination of all
minds, from primary school to university, in books,
newspapers, on radio and television, on every continent,
morning, noon, afternoon, evening, night; all this is
accompanied by a fierce repression of the revisionists,
carried on especially in a Germany subjugated to its
conquerors (and with which no peace treaty has yet been
signed); these revisionists have committed the awful crime
of simply demanding the right to verify either staggering
accusations devoid of proof or testimonies received as
truthful, albeit in the absence of examination and cross-
examination, concerning the material nature of the
purported facts and without, beforehand, a single
investigation of the alleged weapon of the alleged crime;
8. To sum up, the nightmare of these Jews and
Zionists would be to have to hear repeated all over a
certain sixty-word sentence pronounced on the air more than
twenty years ago on Radio Europe 1, before the journalist
Yvan Levaç, by a French revisionist, disciple of Paul
Rassinier. Here is that sentence which, at the time, was to
earn me a heavy fine in court:
The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide
of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has
permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle, the
main beneficiaries of which are the state of Israel and
international Zionism and whose main victims are the German
people - but not their leaders - and the Palestinian
people in their entirety.
II. How to wage the fight to quit this silence
1. In November 2000, I spent a week in Iran at the
invitation of the Centre of Strategic Studies, a body
directly attached to the office of the President of the
Islamic Republic, Mr Mohammed Khatami. I had no contact
with the country's press, radio or television but only with
a few personalities who were well-informed about
revisionism. I held no public conference but enjoyed an
interview of several hours with the head of the Institute
for Scientific Political Research, Professor Soroush-Nejad
and a few of his colleagues. There again, I was struck by
the knowledge of revisionism that certain Iranians could
have. At about that time, the Swiss revisionist Jürgen Graf
made his appearance in Iran and I am indeed pleased that,
some months later, thanks to his intense activity and to
the contacts which I, at my end, had maintained with the
Iranian authorities after returning to France, the Teheran
Times undertook the publication of a series of revisionist
articles, the first of which was to bear the signature of
Professor Soroush-Nejad.
2. In exchange for the information with which I had been
able to provide him, I asked my main partner in discussion
within the said body why, up to the present, revisionism
seemed not to have found much of an echo in the Arab and
Muslim countries. He willingly listed eight reasons. Some
of these, in light of the quite recent events in Palestine,
appeared to each of us, by and by, to be no longer valid;
others seemed to be imputable to misunderstandings; other
reasons, in the end, unhappily retained all of their force,
in particular the following: in the Western countries, who
ought to preach by example before complaining of the
silence of others, there were but a laughably small number
of revisionists who had resolutely committed themselves, in
their own names and without any reservations or skillful
manoeuvring, to following the road opened up by P.
Rassinier;
3. I attempted to explain that this deplorable record was
largely due to what one must call the fear (metus
Judaeorum) inspired everywhere by the groaning and
threatening Jew (which Cicero felt in 59 BC). I added that
no political figure of today, be he Iranian, Lebanese,
Chinese or Japanese, could avoid feeling this fear in the
face of a community so rich and powerful in the Western
world that its leaders have the means with which, at any
moment, to invade the media with their grievances and
recriminations in order to demand, in the end, the economic
boycott of whatever nation's leaders failed to make a rapid
enough act of "repentance" or resisted Jewish demands;
4. I then went over the reasons why the leaders of the
Muslim states must nonetheless, as a proper policy, quit
their silence and how, in my opinion, they could do so. I
shall not expound on those reasons here but shall in the
following words sum up my feelings as to the path to
follow: one or more of these leaders should cross the
Rubicon resolutely and, above all, without the least
thought of turning back. My long experience (with) the Jews
or Zionists in this regard has convinced me that the
hoaxers are disconcerted by the hardiness of anyone who
dares to confront them in the open. Just as the false
witness, if one can catch his glance, must be questioned
eye to eye, so must the Edgar Bronfmans, the Elie Wiesels,
the Simon Wiesenthals (the latter two hate and envy one
another more Judaico), or the rabbis Marvin Hier and
Abraham Cooper be defied in direct proportion to their
habitual threats;
5. I warned my hosts against the temptation to resort, be
it only at the first stages, to a form of bastardised
revisionism; here again, experience has proved that wet-dog
revisionism leads to whipping. One must also, in order to
take a firmly revisionist stand, be well acquainted with
the physical, chemical, documentary and historical
argumentation of revisionism. I reminded them, for example,
that the myth of the alleged Nazi gas chambers had already
died on 21 February 1979 when, in the daily Le Monde,
thirty-four French historians showed themselves to be
unable to take up my challenge concerning the technical
impossibilities of those absurd chemical slaughterhouses.
The general public are unaware of that event, just as they
are unaware of the succession of defeats and debacles
suffered by the holocaustic historians'lobby since 1985
(the date of the first Zündel trial in Toronto). It is now
up to the leaders of the Muslim states to bring out into
the light of day information like this, which is still
being kept under a bushel;
6. In these different countries, institutes of history,
sociology or political studies ought to equip themselves
with a section specialising in historical revisionism.
Research resources and archives would enable scholars from
around the world who have been chased out of their
respective countries' universities, centres of research or
libraries because of their revisionist opinions or
tendencies to come to work at the side of their colleagues
of the Muslim lands. The various ministries of education,
research, culture, foreign affairs and information would
collaborate on this project of international scope;
7. If one takes into account the fact that the "Holocaust"
religionists harbour and maintain not only lies but also
hatred, it will seem appropriate to plan the establishment
on an international level of a "Movement against the
imposture of the 'Holocaust' and for friendship among
peoples";
8. It would be fitting to try to bring some equilibrium to
the balance of forces in international relations by
inviting the political or diplomatic personnel of the great
powers to show more modesty; these people, who never spare
the rest of the world their morality lessons, should be
reminded that they themselves bow a bit too low before an
international mafia specialising in lies, swindles and
contempt for human rights; the so-called international
community, which constantly invokes those rights, should re-
establish them in the cases of revisionists before rebuking
those Arab or Muslim countries for intolerance or
obscurantism. Such accusations could easily be turned
against the states which, not tolerating the calling into
question of a legend turned official history and now
protected by special laws, forbid their inhabitants from
casting light on certain historical subjects;
9. A new and powerful medium of information, the Internet,
allows an accelerated spreading of revisionism (see, in
particular, the sites attributed to Ahmed Rami, with their
sections in Arabic); here is a chance for the Arab and
Muslim intellectuals, overly influenced by the dominant
ideology in the Western universities where they have often
been educated, to get detoxified from the holocaustic drug;
10. In sum, the feeling of grave disquiet shown by the
Jewish and Zionist leaders in the face both of the Intifada
of young Palestinians living in destitution and of the
activities of revisionists possessing nothing at all like
the economic or financial resources at the disposal of the
Great Holocaustic Mafia reminds one of the ancestral fear
that the rich feel in the face of the poor, the colonisers
before the colonised and the masters at the sight of their
slaves. The Jewish and Zionist leaders groan, threaten and
strike. They see themselves as rich (never rich enough, of
course), in possession of all sorts of weapons (those of
brute force as well as those of blackmail and racketeering)
and they know how to make themselves feared by all the
leaders of the most privileged nations; they are, in
particular, aware that the German leaders are devoted to
them, willing to provide even the blood of German soldiers
against the foes of Israel and ready to strengthen still
more unmercifully their repression of revisionism. And yet,
Jews and Zionists are haunted by the thought of having to
confront the courage of those who no longer have anything
to lose in the double Intifada, Palestinian or revisionist.
The rich and mighty are enraged to see that they can be
defied as they are by the Palestinians, bare-fisted with
stones, and by the revisionists, barehanded with only their
pens.
III. The main target: "the magical gas chamber" (Cèline)
Let us learn to take aim. Let us not scatter our efforts.
Let us apply ourselves to setting our attention on the
centre of the adversary's operation. But, the centre of the
huge edifice forming the religion of the "Holocaust" is
none other than the Auschwitz lie. And the heart of the
Auschwitz lie is, in its turn, made up of the
prodigious "gas chamber". That is where we must aim.
Placards waved by Palestinian or other Arab demonstrators
bearing the words "The 'Holocaust' of the Jews is a lie",
or "The six million are a lie" would of course worry
the "extor-Zionists" but those formulations remain still
too vague; they are less vivid, less precise and less
striking than "The gas chambers are a lie".
No-one is able to show us, at Auschwitz or anywhere else, a
single specimen of these chemical slaughterhouses. No-one
is capable of describing to us their exact appearance and
workings. Neither a vestige nor a hint of their existence
is to be found. Not one document, not one study, not one
drawing. Nothing. Nothing but some occasional,
pitiful "evidence", which, like a mirage, vanishes as soon
as one draws near and which the Jewish historians
themselves, in recent years, have finally been obliged to
repudiate. Sometimes, as at Auschwitz, tourists are shown
around an alleged "reconstituted" gas chamber but the
historians, and the Auschwitz museum authorities too, know
quite well that, in the words of the French antirevisionist
historian Eric Conan, "EVERYTHING IN IT IS FALSE"
("Auschwitz: la mÈmoire du mal", L'Express, 19-25 January
1995, p. 68). Still, the Jews are lucky. They are believed
on their word. Practically no-one asks to see the
technological prodigy that a Nazi gas chamber would have
been, a veritable large-scale chemical slaughterhouse.
Imagine that someone has told you about an aeroplane
capable of transporting two or three thousand passengers
from Paris to New York in one half hour (according to the
exterminationist vulgate, in a single alleged gas chamber
at Auschwitz, a batch of two or three thousand Jews could
be killed in half an hour). Would you not, in order to
begin to believe it, demand to see at least an image of a
thing which would constitute a technological leap forward
such as science has never known? Are we not in the age of
exact sciences and the audio-visual? Why this sudden
shyness when it comes to our gas chamber? The peddlers have
an easy game. They show you the equivalent of either your
garage or your shower and tell you: "Here is the place
where the Germans gassed the Jews in groups of a hundred or
a thousand". And you lend credence to this. You are shown
human hair like that which you could see at a barber's or a
wig maker's and told, without the least proof, that it is
the hair of gassing victims. You are offered shoes and they
are stamped "shoes of gassing victims". You are presented
with photographs of dead bodies and you believe that you
see bodies of the slain. You are made to shudder at the
sight of crematory ovens which are in fact perfectly
unexceptional. There exists a very simple means by which to
show that we are being fooled as concerns the prodigious
yields of German crematory ovens in the 1940s: this is
simply to set them against the present-day yield of the
most modern crematoria of our cities for comparison. I also
know an unanswerable way to prove that the alleged gas
chambers for the killing of Jews with hydrogen cyanide gas
could not have existed: it entails visiting today, as I
myself did in 1979, the execution gas chamber of an
American penitentiary, or otherwise acquainting oneself
with the so complex nature of the gas chamber, its so
complicated structure and the so draconian procedure of an
execution by gassing, in the 1940s or 50s, in the prisons
of Carson City (Nevada), Baltimore (Maryland) or Parchmann
(Mississippi); precisely, those executions were and are
still carried out with hydrogen cyanide gas. They are so
dreadfully dangerous for the executioners that the putting
to death of one individual requires drastic precautions and
a most complex technology (setting aside the recently
achieved sophistication due either to scientific progress
or to a multitude of safety measures).
On the subject, let us listen to Cèline!
I hold Louis-Ferdinand Cèline (1894-1961) to be the
loftiest genius of French literature in the 20th century.
His force, his finesse, his clear-sightedness were
incomparable. His existence, unhappily, was largely one of
hardship. From the day in 1937 when he began to display the
fear of seeing a new world war flare up, he brought on his
own doom. He had been seriously wounded during the First
World War and felt the apprehension of a new butchery with
all his body and soul. The Jews, from their end, did not
see things that way. Most of their leaders clamoured for a
crusade against Hitler. Cèline then condemned this feverish
desire to punish Germany, this frantic warmongering. He
foresaw the catastrophe, and later, when Great Britain and
France had taken it upon themselves to go to war with
Germany, he could only remark in what "fine bed-sheets"
France was lying. In 1944, he narrowly escaped the summary
justice then being administered by, in particular, the Jews
and the Communists. He fled to Germany in its agony of the
final months of the war, then to Denmark, where for nearly
a year and a half he was imprisoned in the worst
conditions. When he eventually returned to France, it was
to live the life of an outcast. France is a particularly
cruel land for its great writers. It is still the case
today, sixty years after their respective publication in
1937, 1938 and 1941, that three of his works, masterly
satires covered in scorn by the Jews, remain prohibited de
facto. No law, in principle, prevents their republication
but everyone knows that the Jewish organisations would drum
up the scalp dance should Cèline's widow, still living,
authorise their appearance. Such is the unwritten law of
the modern Talmud.
Other examples of this Jewish privilege are well known; it
is thus, to cite the case of an academic guilty of having
once written a revisionist sentence, that Bernard Notin
has, since 1990, not been allowed to give any lectures at
his Lyon faculty. No law, no judicial or administrative
decision has been made to serve notice of such a
prohibition. Today, in the same university, it is the turn
of Professor Jean-Paul Allard to be marked with the brand
of Cain for having, more than fifteen years ago, presided
at the viva of a revisionist thesis. A veritable manhunt
has been mounted against him. Formerly, if one remarked to
the Jews that they tracked down the revisionists like wild
animals, they would protest. They would dare claim that
nothing of the sort was done. But times have changed. The
Jews no longer conceal this practice of theirs and proudly
assert responsibility for such violent actions. On 1 March
2001, the weekly ActualitÈ Juive headed one of its
articles: "La chasse -- Jean-Paul Allard est ouverte" ("The
hunt for Jean-Paul Allard is on"), and the contents of the
piece amounted to an incitement to kill. The Jewish
organisations cynically intend to make themselves feared
and it is correct to say, today more than ever, "metus
regnat Judaeorum". In J.-P. Allard's case they seem to be
reaching their goal: just recently, this professor,
exhausted by the chase, has been hospitalised for a stroke
and has lost the ability to speak normally. On another
score, the Jews and their friends have succeeded in
attempts to have the revisionist Serge Thion, sociologist
and historian of merit, removed from his post at the Centre
national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), and this by
means of a procedure so openly arbitrary in nature that the
most arrogant of employers would not use it against his
humblest employee lest he have to pay heavy damages. And I
shall say nothing of the suffering endured by the
revisionists who have fought openly, in their own name, the
most admirable for his intelligence and his heart being, in
my view, the German Ernst Zündel. Having been settled in
Canada for forty years, he has waged a titanic struggle
against the international "Holocaust" lobby, aiming
particularly to obtain justice for his maligned homeland.
Without him revisionism would have continued to live in
semidarkness. But one cannot swim up the Niagara and, in
the face of an almighty coalition of political, financial
and judicial forces, he has recently been obliged, in spite
of some brilliant victories, to leave Canada. In his new
exile, he continues, with the aid of his German-American
wife, Ingrid Rimland, to fight for a just cause.
If, towards the end of this talk, I have called to mind the
lofty figure of the author of Journey to the End of Night,
it is because Cèline, by one of his customary strokes of
genius, had already suspected, just five years after the
war, that the alleged physical extermination of the Jews
might be but a fable, a work of trickery. It must be said
that from 1945, floods of Jews from Central Europe, who
were thought to have been exterminated, had headed for
France, when they had not headed for other Western
countries or for Palestine; in France, they had just added
their number to a Jewish community of which four fifths
were spared by the wartime deportation measures. In
November 1950, upon a reading of P. Rassinier's first
sizeable work, Le Mensonge d'Ulysse, CÈline wrote to his
friend Albert Paraz:
Rassinier is certainly an honest man [...]. His book,
admirable, is going to cause quite a stir - AFTER ALL, it
tends to cast doubt on the magical gas chamber! no small
matter! A whole world of hatreds is going to be compelled
to yelp at the Iconoclast! It was everything, the gas
chamber! It permitted EVERYTHING!
In our turn, let us admire this lucid and scintillating
vision of things, this foresight.
Yes, the gas chamber is really "magical". As I have said,
no-one, in the end, has proved capable of showing or even
of drawing one for us in reply to my challenge "Show me or
draw me a Nazi gas chamber!" No-one has been able to
explain its operation to us. No-one has been able to tell
us how, at Auschwitz, the Germans could pour pellets of
Zyklon B, a powerful hydrogen cyanide-based insecticide,
into alleged orifices made in the roof of the "gas
chamber", considering that this alleged gas chamber (in
reality, a cold room for the storage of corpses awaiting
cremation) has, as a careful eye may note amidst the ruins,
never possessed even a single one of those orifices, a fact
which has permitted me to state the four-word
conclusion "No holes, no 'Holocaust'!" No-one has been able
to reveal to us the mystery, implied by the standard
version, which allowed the squads of Jews under the orders
of the Germans (the Sonderkommando) to enter that great gas
chamber with impunity, so soon after the alleged mass
killings, to remove energetically, day after day, the
thousands of corpses lying in tangled heaps. Hydrogen
cyanide gas is difficult to remove by ventilation, a time-
consuming process; it penetrates and lingers within
plaster, brick, concrete, wood, paint and, above all, the
skin and the mucous of humans; thus one could not enter,
move about and work in such a manner in what would
effectively be an ocean of deadly poison, handling corpses
which, infused with that poison, would poison whoever
touched them. It is, furthermore, well known to specialists
in the field of disinfection (or disinfestation) that it is
essential, in such an atmosphere, to avoid physical effort
for, if such effort is made, the breathing quickens and the
gasmask filter will then allow the poison to pass through,
killing the wearer. Finally, no-one has been able to
instruct us as to how those amazing Jews of the
Sonderkommando, ever dragging out the corpses of their co-
religionists, could perform such exploits whilst eating and
smoking (in the version of the "confession" ascribed to
Rudolf Höss, the best known of the successive Auschwitz
commandants); for, if one understands correctly, they did
not even wear gasmasks and smoked amidst the noxious fumes
of an explosive gas. Like the imaginary flower dreamt of by
the French symbolist poet StÈphane Mallarmè (1842-1898),
who wrote of "the one missing from every bouquet", the Nazi
gas chamber, capable of astounding works, is "missing from
all reality"; it remains truly magical, but of a sinister
and nauseating magic; it is nothing other than a nightmare
that dwells in Jewish brains whilst, for their part, the
high priests of the "Holocaust" work to make this gruesome
illusion come to haunt the world for eternity, and to hold
it in a state of near-hypnosis; their livelihood depends on
it.
Cèline is right again to add, on the subject of the
magical gas chamber, that it is "no small matter!" In
reality, as he says further on, it is everything and it
permits everything. Without it, the holocaustic edifice
would collapse totally. Pierre Vidal-Naquet, sorry herald
of the antirevisionist struggle, has himself acknowledged
as much when, remarking that some of his friends, grown
weary of the campaign, were decidedly tempted to dump these
cumbersome gas chambers without further ado, he entreated
them not to do so and voiced this cry of alarm: "I beg
their pardon: that would be to surrender in open country"
("Le Secret partagÈ", Le Nouvel Observateur, 21 September
1984, p. 80). The Nazi gas chamber is said to be the only
tangible - but, in fact, impossible to find - evidence
of a physical extermination that never took place and that
is, moreover, brazenly described to us as being concerted,
planned, and of a monstrously industrial nature, with
production yields worthy of veritable "death
factories".
Cèline, finally, is right to conclude "A whole world of
hatreds is going to be compelled to yelp at the
Iconoclast!" For my part, I should add, more than half a
century after that prognosis or prophecy, that the yelps,
now more and more deafening, have not ceased for an instant
against the iconoclasts who are the revisionists. In France
the latter are today christened with the barbarous
term "nÈgationnistes" whereas they "negate" or deny nothing
but, at the end of their research, affirm that a gigantic
historical imposture holds sway.
Conclusion
The revisionists haunt the days and nights of the
upholders of Jewish law and of those who CÈline - again -
called "the martyrs'trust". Against the revisionists who
seek to protect themselves from it, the said trust is
merciless. It drives some to suicide, causes physical
injury and disfigurement, it kills or forces others into
exile. It sets fire to houses and burns books. It has the
police, the judges, the prison authorities do its bidding.
It applies pressure, it extorts and steals. It sets the
dogs of the press on us, it throws us out of our jobs, it
heaps insults upon us. On our side, not one amongst us, to
my knowledge, has ever struck one of these perpetual law
enforcers. On 25 April 1995, in Munich, a German
revisionist ended up killing himself, burning himself
alive. He meant this act to be a protest against "the
Niagara of lies" showered upon his people. In his suicide
letter, he stated his hope that the flames which consumed
his body would burn as a beacon for the generations to
come. The German police proceeded to arrest the persons who
soon afterwards came to leave a bouquet at the spot where
Reinhold Elstner had immolated himself. On 13 May 2000, the
German political science professor Werner Pfeiffenberger,
aged 58, ended his own life after having long endured a
legal persecution launched against him by a Jewish
journalist in Vienna, one Karl Pfeifer, who had detected a
whiff of revisionism (called, of course, neo-Nazism) in the
academic's writings.
The revisionists live a life of hardship and the
Palestinians are living a tragedy. In particular, many
Palestinian children are destined for a sorrowful fate.
Their Israeli killers are, on a modest scale, the worthy
successors of the US Air Force, the military corps which,
in all of a cruel human history, has contributed to
killing, mutilating, disfiguring or starving more children
than any other, first in Germany and elsewhere in Europe,
then in Japan, in Vietnam and in much of the rest of Asia,
then in the Near- and Middle East and, finally, in still
many other places in the world whenever the American
soldier receives from his masters the order to hunt down a
new "Hitler" and to prevent a new "genocide".
May the leaders of the Muslim states hear the
Palestinians'and the revisionists'appeals! Our ordeals are
similar and our Intifadas identical.
May those leaders finally quit their silence on the
biggest imposture of modern times: that of the "Holocaust"!
May they, especially, denounce the lie of the
alleged Nazi gas chambers! After all, not one of the
leaders on the winning side of the Second World War,
despite their hatred of Hitler's Germany, stooped so low as
to claim that such gas chambers had existed. During that
war, in their speeches, as afterwards, in their memoirs,
never did Churchill, or de Gaulle, or Eisenhower once
mention this demonic horror which they well saw to have
been laboriously peddled during the war by propaganda
agencies. Already a quarter of a century ago, in a masterly
book, the American professor Arthur Robert Butz called the
grand imposture "the Hoax of the Twentieth Century". That
century is over and as for its hoax, it must vanish into
the rubbish bins of history.
The tragedy of the Palestinians demands it, the
ordeal of the revisionists makes it essential and the cause
of humanity as a whole makes it our historical, political
and moral duty: the Grand Imposture must be denounced. It
is a fomenter of hatred and war. It is in the interest of
all that the leaders of the Muslim states quit their
silence on the imposture of the "Holocaust".
The English translation of Dr. Faurisson's
paper appeared first in Ingrid Rimland's Z-Gram;
subscriptions via her Website at:
http://www.zundelsite.org
|