Tuesday, March 27, 2001

Beirut: the Impossible Revisionist Conference

I never really believed that we would be allowed to hold a revisionist conference in Beirut but I acted as though that gathering were going to take place.



My sole precaution was in confirming my air journey only at the last minute. And quite luckily, as it turned out: in so doing I was able to avoid any expense at that end.



One can understand Rafik Harari, the Lebanese Prime Minister. His country’s national debt “amounts today to $24 billion for a population of four million” (Agnès Levallois, "Le Liban s'efforce de relancer la croissance et s'attaque à la dette publique", [“Lebanon strives to relaunch growth and attacks its public debt”] Le Monde-Economie, 27 février 2001, p. V). Moreover, he could not reasonably allow, right next to the State of Israel, what I call “the poor man’s atomic bomb” to explode. This bomb, perfected by the revisionists, kills no-one but, if set off on the international scene, it may, through a succession of chain reactions, lead to a steady disintegration of the “Holocaust” imposture. The said imposture permitted the creation of Israel and is both the sword and shield of that State.



The leaders of all States on the planet need big money and thus must get on and stay on good terms with the Jews. The Jews, ever groaning and threatening, know how to make themselves feared. They can, at will, cut off your supplies, launch a boycott, have an embargo imposed on you. In the present international situation, no leader can tolerate the holding of a revisionist conference in his country. Japan is totally subservient (see the case of Marco Polo magazine). China, for its part, is playing the Jewish card for all it is worth: keen to see the fiction of the Jewish “Holocaust” maintained, it hopes to be able to claim that the Chinese were victims of a comparable “holocaust” perpetrated by the Japanese; the Chinese present themselves as the “Jews” of the Japanese and, taking their example from the Jews, demand substantial financial reparations of Tokyo. Furthermore, as Serge Thion reminds me in a most timely manner, China maintains good relations with a Jewish State that sells it important military and technological secrets originating, in part, from the United States. As concerns the Iranian leaders, they too are afraid of these Jews whom they hate; they have recently cut short the publication in the Teheran Times of a series of revisionist articles, refusing to state their grounds for this decision.



I see but three possibilities for the holding, in the near future, of an international revisionist conference:



1: It will be held in the United States with a strengthening of the ordinary precautions;



2: It will be held in another country but with no prior publicity, a limited number of participants and over a period of no longer than two days (thus, of two days and one night); only at the very end of the gathering, or even afterwards, will a communiqué announce that such a conference has in fact taken place;



3: The situation of the Palestinians will worsen considerably, the indignation of the Arab, Muslim and other populations of the Near East and Middle East will grow in proportion and, at a given moment, the leader of one of the States in the region will decide to take the leap or, as the saying goes, cross the Rubicon: in reply to a complete Sharonisation of Israeli policy he then will summon the courage to announce the holding of a revisionist conference in his country and decide to resist, come what may, the formidable pressure brought to bear by the SKKK (Serial Kosher Kid Killers: those who regularly and continually kill children according to kosher ritual).



For the time being, this project of a conference in Beirut, run by publicity-keen Americans and slightly too naïve Swiss, does not seem to have ended in complete failure. The repercussions of the affair, although not of much magnitude up until now, have perhaps opened many eyes to the inherent worth and world-wide import of historical revisionism. That is something, at least, for the future.


March 27, 2001