In France
and in the rest of the world historians and specialists of “the Holocaust” no
longer know what to answer to the revisionists’ arguments. And to speak only of
my own case, which has been going on since 1978 (that is, for some thirty-seven
years), never has my country’s justice system, despite the tireless requests by
self-righteous associations to rule against me on the substance of my writings
or statements, been able to note therein the least trace of any rashness, negligence, deliberate
ignorance, falsehood, falsification or lying. My adversaries, rich and powerful though they may be, have
never succeeded in getting our judges to convict me on the merits of the
conclusions reached through my research work which, for over half a century,
has focused on what is commonly called “the genocide of the Jews”, “the Nazi
gas chambers” and “the six million (or nearly)” Jewish victims of the Third
Reich. At most, at the end countless cases I have lost suits (whether as
plaintiff or defendant) or been found guilty mainly 1) for a malevolence, supposed
but not demonstrated, towards the Jews, 2) for breaking the gayssotine (the Fabius-Gayssot or
Faurisson Act, legislation of convenience specifically targeting the findings
of my research) or 3) by virtue of the “good
faith” (sic) of individuals like Léon Poliakov or Robert Badinter, even though
found to be at fault by the judges themselves.
For
years Poliakov had well and truly manipulated the writings of SS officer Kurt
Gerstein (who, having “repented” (?), then committed suicide (?)), when not fabricating
outright fragments of text to attribute to him. But the judges granted the presumption
of good faith to Poliakov. He had been, we were told, “animated by the passionate
and legitimate desire to inform the public about a period and about facts of
contemporary history that were particularly tragic”. It was therefore
appropriate to forgive him for having “perhaps, on minor points [sic!!!], broken scientific standards of rigour
without, however, it being permissible to state that he is a manipulator or
fabricator of texts”. As for Badinter, in 2006 he claimed that in 1981, when he
was still barrister for the LICRA and just before becoming Minister of Justice,
he had got a court to rule against me “for being a falsifier of history”. A decision
of 2007 restored the truth and held that Badinter had “failed in his evidence” to
demonstrate my alleged dishonesty; but, the court hastened to add, he had been in good faith. For want of both money
and a lawyer (Eric Delcroix having retired – not without being refused honorary
membership of the bar), I did not appeal and was forced to pay the Socialist
millionaire the sum of €5,000. But at least since then I have had the
satisfaction of being able to speak of “Robert
Badinter, my liar, my slanderer... in good faith”.
An
astute observer will have noted that the more our opponents sense the game is
getting away from them on the historical or scientific level, the more they
feel the need to increase their propagandistic drum beating, and the repression
as well. In France, at this very moment, they are putting all their hopes in having
Parliament pass a supergayssotine.
Good for them! A few weeks short of my 87th birthday, I have six cases
pending, four against me and two others that I have had to instigate, albeit quite
unwillingly. Will my judges finally decide, in 2016, to leave us, my wife and me,
destitute? Or are they getting ready simply to throw me into a prison of the République?
It is understood beforehand, is it not?, that if they were to carry things to such
extremes it would only be on the grounds of the noblest républicain principles and in the name of human rights.
Let’s
consider our current Prime Minister. One day, Manuel Valls, in full pomposity, his
mouth, heart and left hand clenched, let fly: “I am, by my wife, eternally
linked to the Jewish community and Israel”. He saw himself as “eternal”: a vast
programme! But fervour was leading him astray. He ought to come back down to
earth, reconnect with the ground, get treatment and stop deluding himself: the revisionists have, already as of now,
won the match. As early as in 1983-1985, Raul Hilberg, surrendering to the
arguments of “Faurisson and others...” had to drop the pretention of explaining,
on the basis of valid arguments and documents of his own, that the Third Reich
had, with proper Germanic efficiency, designed, prepared, developed, organised
and financed the killing of millions of European Jews. The eminent Jewish American
historian ended up finding himself reduced to trying to have us believe that
this gigantic massacre had come about by the operation of the Holy Spirit or,
in his words, by “an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus-mind reading within a large bureaucracy” that
had, on its own, spontaneously decided, it seemed, gradually to abandon written
communication in favour of verbal or indeed telepathic exchange to such an extent that
no written or material evidence bespoke the six million Jews’ (or, in Hilberg’s
case, a bit fewer) having been systematically killed either on the Eastern Front
or in the gas chambers, mainly at Auschwitz. A number of historians or
researchers, such as Arno Mayer, Jean-Claude Pressac and Robert Jan van Pelt,
have also capitulated, in a more frank and direct manner. The first has had to
admit, among other bitter observations, that “Sources
for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable”. The
second, a protégé of the Klarsfeld couple, came to understand that the dossier
of the official story of the Jews’ extermination, “rotten” with too many lies, was
bound for “the
rubbish bins of history”. The third has concluded that “Ninety-nine
per cent of what we know [about Auschwitz] we do not actually have the physical
evidence to prove”; despite this, millions of visitors there have been
and continue to be shown a “gas chamber” said to be in its “original state”, as
well as ruins of other alleged “gas chambers”. As for the figure of “six
million”, never subjected to the least scientific verification, it is rooted in
the most sordid of realities: an old American
publicity slogan used already before 1900 and up to the end of the
Second World War to collect a windfall of cash especially from the Jewish
community. The searing words amounted to the cry “Six million of our brothers
are dying in Europe [by the acts, according to circumstance, of Poland, the
Balkan countries, Tsarist Russia, National-Socialist Germany...]; we await your
money for the victims of this holocaust [sic already in 1919]!”
Manuel
Valls, our Prime Minister, and François Hollande, President of our Republic, devote
themselves to launching, in several foreign countries, warlike crusades of the
kind that have backfired horribly for us French this year. On top of their foreign wars, conducted in the most cowardly as well as the
most comfortable conditions, they instil an atmosphere of internecine war at
home. They call “cowards” certain enemies who, after all, are inspired on a grand
scale by the practices of our glorious Résistants:
“Hey, killers with the bullet and the knife, kill quickly!” If François
Hollande has the stature of a pedalo admiral, Mr Valls resembles Picrochole, that
character in Rabelais whose Greek name means “bitter bile” and who regularly
gets all excited at the prospect of going off to war. Mr Valls began with a
crusade against the Saracens of today and against the real or supposed enemies
of Israel but he is also on a campaign against the revisionists, against “Dieudonné
in peace”, against Marine Le Pen – even though she has pushed her own father down
the stairs – and even against his friends of the Socialist clan. A good suggestion
for him would be to calm down, take care of himself, try to laugh with
Dieudonné, reflect for a moment with the revisionists, allow historians or researchers
to work as they wish and, at long last, spare us the flag-waving frenzy, the bugle-blowing,
the verse and chorus of the Marseillaise
on the “day of glory”, the “impure blood” and the “ferocious soldiers”. As we
know, it is, unhappily, all too easy to take the French in with that sort of
thing.
Such,
today, are the modest New Year wishes for 2016 that I allow myself to make for that
person, for his victims, for the French and for the rest of the world. But is
it perhaps already asking too much?
For
their part, the revisionists know what awaits them: the confirmation in the
mainstream media, sooner or later, that they have already won a total victory on
the historical and scientific level. The political and media powers will indeed
have to resign themselves to the facts: persistence in gunboat policies abroad
and in those of gagging and censorship at home will only dishonour them a bit
more. For nothing.
The rising
flood, particularly on the Internet, that is bringing to the world’s knowledge
the spectacular achievements of historical revisionism is not suddenly going to
halt its advance or return towards its source.
The
lies of “the Holocaust” are modelled on those of the First World War. All those
“Nazi death-works”, like the ones at Auschwitz, are but a reprise of the myth
of German “corpse factories” of 1914-1918. They were merely modernised by the adding
of gas (Jewish-American version of November 1944) and sometimes of electricity
(Jewish-Soviet version of February 1945). The good people, already generally not
well disposed towards the practice of cremating the dead, were led to believe
that Germany, a nation considered modern and known for having an abundance of
engineers and chemists, had built structures containing, in addition to a
cremation space, others called “gas chambers” (in reality, the “depositories”, Leichenhalle or Leichenkeller, technically designed to hold bodies awaiting
cremation). Thus a certain propaganda
has managed to persuade us that those Germans devils were dumb enough to house
under the same roof, on one side, spaces full of a highly inflammable and
explosive gas (the hydrocyanic acid or hydrogen cyanide contained in the pesticide
Zyklon B, created in the 1920s) and, on the other side, crematory ovens that
had to be laboriously brought to a temperature of 900° C.
In
1943 some of the men in charge of British war propaganda deplored “this gas
chambers story”. For his part, the revisionist Germar Rudolf sums up the
subject rather well in his Lectures on the Holocaust (Chicago,
Theses & Dissertations Press, 2005, 566 p., p. 82-85). Even Victor
Cavendish-Bentinck, a senior official of the Intelligence Service in London
ready to believe just about any nonsense said against the Germans, was to
write: “I feel certain that we are making a mistake in publicly giving credence
to this gas chambers story” (p. 83). The trouble was that the British,
undisputed champions of lying propaganda during the two world wars, needed those
fables. On February 29, 1944 their Ministry of Information sent the BBC and the
Church of England a circular
letter of the greatest cynicism, requesting their respective
cooperation for the spreading of propaganda on the basis of atrocity stories either
already in circulation or currently being concocted. It was a matter of forestalling the disastrous effect that the Red
Army, an ally, was inevitably to bring about in Central Europe by real atrocities (p. 84)! On these
inventions, these fabrications and the wide-scale dissemination of enormous tall
tales, two books remain of great interest: Edward J. Rozek’s Allied
Wartime Diplomacy: A Pattern in Poland, New York, Wiley, 1958 and, especially,
by Walter Laqueur (a Jew born in Breslau in 1921): The Terrible Secret,
London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1980, 262 p., wherein we see
Cavendish-Bentinck, him again, “Chairman of the British Intelligence Committee”,
writing in July 1943 that “The Poles and, to a far greater extent the Jews,
tend to exaggerate German atrocities in order to stoke us up” (p. 83).
Fifteen
months ago, referring to the crisis that the historians of “the Holocaust” were
experiencing, I
wrote that there was “more and more water in their gas, and slack in their knotted
rope”. Since January 2015 and the anniversary of the “liberation”
of Auschwitz I have noted a sudden acceleration of the phenomenon. I have a
whole file and a whole demonstration on the subject but the continuing judicial
repression has not yet left me time to publish this information. In any case,
for the historian, it has become captivating to observe the never-ending agony
of the “magical gas chamber” (Céline in 1950). This agony is accompanied, as we
have seen, by a redoubling of the repression of revisionism and a turning up of
the volume of holocaustic propaganda. May our Picrochole refrain, then, from
going on the stage and into a trance! He would have a stroke. He might even be
cruelly snatched away from us. Who knows? He could precede in death a man who
will be 87 years of age on January 25, 2016 and whom some have, thus far in
vain, so often sought to kill, not for his ideas (he has hardly any) but for having
wanted to publish the result of his research, which is summed up in a phrase of
about sixty words. I repeat it here for memory, and to have done with it:
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
whose main beneficiaries 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.
Note:
For sources or references especially regarding certain points of this text one
may consult the indices of the seven volumes of my Ecrits
révisionnistes thus far published. On the Internet,
for “The Victories of Revisionism” (11 December 2006), see robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2006/12/victories-of-revisionism.html and
for “The Victories of Revisionism (continued)” (September 11, 2011), see robertfaurisson.blogspot.it/2011/09/victories-of-revisionism-continued.html.
Aficionados
of court rulings by imbeciles are invited to refer to pages 152-155 of the
first volume, where there are some titbits from a decision handed down in 1979
by Dame Baluze-Frachet, judge of a Lyon police court. The good lady decreed
back then that simply asking the question of the existence of the gas chambers was
an affront not only to “good morals” but also to “the moral order”. The amusing
bit of it is that by invoking “the moral order” she was advocating – although
probably unawares – a value dear to count MacMahon, Marshal of France,
President of the French Republic and perennial model of reactionary
conservatism. “The moral order” was to return seventy years later on with...
Marshal Pétain. As for the aficionados of behavioural curiosities, there is
fare for them in the following two videos featuring the current head of the
French government: “The
left hand of Manuel Valls” and “Rally of March
19, 2014 – speech by Manuel Valls, Minister of the Interior”.
In preparation: 1) an article about an embarrassing
secret of Serge Klarsfeld; 2) a study of the highly inflammable and explosive nature
of hydrogen cyanide.
December 31, 2015
