|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Fritz!
Here's a blast for your contacts from Adriatische Küstenland:
Nuovo Ordine Europeo - Trieste
Prof. Faurisson, who knows no dogma, in his text on the new edition of his collected writings clearly intended to list those who were currently active in real H-hoax revisionism, "revisionism with gusto", ie. without compromise to the dogma. We still await Mr Irving's verification as to whether he stated his agreement with the article of the reigning faith according to which the Germans are naturally inclined to evil. Mr Hoffman, for his part -- apparently an adherent to Christian and democratic dogma (prattle about "rights" etc.) --, still sees fit to use the names of German patriots (Streicher, Dr Goebbels) as epithets of disgrace. He notably has the presumption to suggest that the Germans have no right but to accept the illegal snuffing out of their state (called formerly, in their language, Reich). These are plain examples of compromise to the dogma: not the way ahead.
PS With regard to the exchange of views (not a debate) that he mentions, Mr Hoffman, as far as I know, has given no reply to the following rebuttal:
Robert FAURISSON 25 November 2003
To Michael Hoffman, once again, on the subject of Horst Mahler’s founding of a league against the defamation of revisionists
I had told you “While reading some of your writings I have often thought: ‘The Jews should make Kamerad Hoffman Chief Rabbi honoris causa’ ”. You reply: “I am wondering which writings of mine have earned for me the ignominious title in your eyes of ‘honorary Chief Rabbi’, when all my life I have fought rabbis and written an entire book exposing them (Judaism’s Strange Gods).”
Your surprise takes me aback. For, like me, your are a Celinian. You have even devoted a work to the author we love. How is it, then, that you did not take in the ironic and Celinian tone of the phrase “Chief Rabbi honoris causa", especially when the choice of the word “Kamerad” laid it out? There are pages in Bagatelles pour un massacre [des Aryens] (1937) or in L’Ecole des cadavres [aryens] (1938) where Louis-Ferdinand Céline (1894-1961) already describes, keenly and with a gloomy, cheerful verve, exactly what I reproach in your attitude and what I shall now try to illustrate for you, with no further joking..
I have read the little book that you mention. As you’ll recall, I even ordered copies of it for friends. I do not possess your knowledge of theology. Then again, to put it frankly, the display of religious beliefs leaves me ill at ease. But I appreciate erudition when, as in your case, it is not abstruse. That said, I do not believe that your considerations on the Talmud explain for us much of the behaviour of today’s Jews. When reading you, one too often has the impression of attending one of those frenetic and acrimonious debates between liberal or ultra-orthodox rabbis, Zionists or anti-Zionists, à la Levinas or à la Wiesel; it’s a plodding through pilpuls and masoras. Most Jews today, in particular the atheist ones, could hardly care less about Jehovah and Moses. Their rallying point is the religion of the alleged “Holocaust” or “Shoah” and their true worship, undying, is the one that they render to Mammon or the Golden Calf. Their Holocaust museums are more alive than their synagogues. In Los Angeles, Marvin Hier with his “Simon Wiesenthal Centre” and the Hollywood moguls with their Holocaustorian fictions are far richer and more influential than the local rabbinate. And the goyim or Gentiles have, in their hundreds of millions, converted to the new religion; through the billions that they contribute — dollars, euros, Swiss francs or other coinage, including petrodollars — they also keep that religion of lies and hatred going strong.
The distinction between Jews and Israelis has, for its part, steadily become obsolete. The dissensions between Jewish activists for and against Sharon resemble family quarrels and, as you will notice, leave the new religion untouched. With certain Jews, pointed criticisms of “Shoah Business” or the “Holocaust Industry” resemble recriminations between shopkeepers claiming they haven’t had their fair share of the profits. With Norman Finkelstein this is blatant.
Today that which unites the Jews, whatever else they may assert, is the religion of the Great Swindle and the Great Slander. It is the religion of the alleged genocide of the Jews and the alleged Nazi gas chambers with, after the war, their millions of “miraculous” survivors so many of whom, whilst presenting themselves as true witnesses of the faith, are, in reality, spinning fables and making a fortune at it. When a Jew stops short of “Holocaust” worship, he at least respects the taboo. The examples of Jews who have consistently denounced the horrid lie in its entirety are laughably few. I know these altogether exceptional cases and am amused at seeing that, like you, some revisionists today continue to cite the names of “Jewish revisionists” who, in actual fact, were either not really Jews or not really revisionists.
One day, Noam Chomsky took up the defence of my right to dispute the existence of the alleged Nazi gas chambers. Then, he quickly sought to retract the piece in which he had so compromised himself. Too late. Thereafter he gallantly maintained his position. But, since that time, he has never quit repeating that the “Holocaust” is a historical reality, adding that the revisionists are only crackpots. I, for my part, hold that whoever adopts a similar stance is, deny it though he may, pouring cement into Sharon’s “Wall of Shame”. In effect, to endorse the “Holocaust” lie amounts, de facto, to financing “the Jewish state” and to justifying the delivery to “the Jewish army” of, for instance, helicopters whose Israeli crews, chewing their kosher chewing gum, may comfortably machine-gun Palestinian civilians.
To uphold the lie of the alleged Shoah is also to crucify Germany, as the Jews and their servants, one more time, are currently preparing to do in the heart of Berlin, into which 2,751 stone slabs (2,751 spikes?) are to be planted in order to remind the Germans, on the vast expanse of yet another museum of the “Holocaust”, that they, who have been slaughtered, pillaged, insulted, humiliated, must keep on doing penance and paying out billions for a crime that they in fact did not commit.
Horst Mahler is a son of that Germany. He has stood up to defend his country, his Vaterland. It is his right. You yourself recently wrote that “Germany today is an Israeli satrapy”. Horst Mahler’s right is thus also his duty. But you describe the man as a Nazi or as being nostalgic for Hitler. What of it? If Hitler had been as the Jews go on about him ad nauseam, without offering evidence to support their mad accusations, I might perhaps understand you. But, in regard to the Jews, Hitler, often in accord with Zionists of that period, had in mind nothing other than a “TERRITORIAL final solution of the Jewish question”. (The same perhaps applies to Mahler). If that Zionist idea was criminal, then in what way was Hitler more of a criminal than Churchill, Stalin and, especially, Roosevelt? Do you suggest that the victors of the First and Second World Wars were less criminal in their behaviour than the Germans? For my part, I have already written that “every war is a butchery […]; at the end of it, the winner turns out to have been nothing more than a good butcher, and the loser a bad butcher […]; the victor should perhaps be entitled to give the vanquished a lesson in butchery but certainly not in Right and Justice.”
You defend the victors’ right to express their opinions even if you disapprove of them. You should therefore do the same for the vanquished. You are wrong to state: “Like Chomsky, I will defend the rights of anyone persecuted for their [sic] ideas, and this includes the human rights of Horst Mahler, in so far as he [Mahler] does not advocate the abridgment of the human rights of others.” That “in so far as” constitutes a disquieting reservation, a dubious stab at evading the issue. I therefore invite you to join this league against the defamation of revisionists, “a splendid idea”, as you tell me. Do so, like me, for better or for worse and without any illusions.
The “Holocaust” religion feeds the Jews’ and their henchmen’s spirit of lucre, of conquest, of crusade. It has become the ferment of American-Israeli imperialism and colonialism: it is leading us to the abyss. Reread Céline who, in 1937-1938, with his “Trifles for a Massacre” and its “School for Corpses”, forecast Democracies’1939-1945 crusade and its array of true abominations.
Fraternal wishes, as you put it.
PS: What do you think of the quotation of David Irving that I included in my last letter, words to the effect that he agrees somewhat with Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, known for contending that there is, amongst the Germans, an inborn propensity to evil?
Adelaide Institute wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Hoffman
To: FAURISSON (Wanadoo)
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2004 1:28 AM
Subject: Faurisson Suppresses Record of Revisionist Activists
Faurisson Suppresses Record of Revisionist Activists
According to information in an e-mail of Aug. 12, 2004 from the Adelaide Institute, Dr. Robert Faurisson, in his "Foreword (May 2004)" lists "...mainly Walter Mueller, Ingrid Rimland, Germar Rudolf (helped by his friend Jurgen Graf in Russia), Michael Santomauro and Bradley Smith in the United States..." as active U.S. revisionists.
Michael A. Hoffman II, author of "The Great Holocaust Trial", publisher of "Revisionist History" Newsletter and operator of the RevisionistHistory.org website, is excluded from Dr. Faurisson's list, along with such American revisionist notables as Dr. Arthur R. Butz, author of "The Hoax of the 20th Century," Hans Schmidt, publisher of Ganpac newsletter, and Mark Weber of the IHR.
Robert Faurisson is a giant in the history of revisionist scholarship who has suffered horribly for revisionist convictions which, to his credit, he has never recanted. In view of this, it is most unfortunate that he has chosen to invalidate other revisionists' contribution to revisionism. In my own case, Dr. Faurisson's deliberate omission compounds a boycott against this writer exacerbated by Walter Mueller, a petty intriguer who launched a vicious, public campaign of libel merely because I asked his associate to have the courtesy not to distribute their newspaper inside our Coeur d'Alene post office. For that "mortal sin," I was publicly libeled by Mueller. My defense against the libel was censored by Mueller, who has never dared to publish anything I have written in its entirety. Now Mr. Mueller, whose claim to fame is the circulation of an Internet gossip column which practices censorship and character assassination, has been promoted to the status of leading American revisionist by Dr. Faurisson.
Last Fall I debated my long-time colleague Dr. Faurisson in an exchange of letters - "Human Rights, not Reich" online at http://www.revisionisthistory.org/revisionist13.html . It's obvious--at least to me anyway--that Robert is now anointing revisionist leaders on the personal basis of where they stand with regard to the dogmas of Robert Faurisson. By this ecclesiastical criterion, if you assent to Faurisson's dogma, you are "active in revisionist research and diffusion," if not, then you are persona non grata. Carlo Mattogno and Henri Roques, two eminent revisionist scholars, found this out the hard way.
Dr. Faurisson writes a "sombre appraisal" of revisionism. What is truly sombre and what must give us pause, is the ad hominem nature of Prof. Faurisson's characterization of the revisionist movement. He seems to have completely lost his objectivity. For example, I have not failed to list Mark Weber as a revisionist historian who has been excluded from Robert's list of active American revisionists, in spite of the fact that Mr. Weber is no friend of mine. By the same token, if Walter Mueller ran a genuine revisionist news service that included rather than excluded revisionists, I would cite him for that accomplishment. Instead, Mr. Mueller behaves as does Faurisson---one obtains cachet as a revisionist in Mr. Mueller's gossip column by being a friend of Mr. Mueller, not on the basis of one's achievements as a revisionist. This is a ruinous standard of measurement which, if allowed to spread, will reduce the revisionist movement to a personality cult.
I am confident that a new revisionist movement will eventually emerge from the tired, stale, personality-driven version we are saddled with today. Re/Vision is a method, not an "ism." It was developed by Harry Elmer Barnes and Paul Rassinier among others, but pioneered in terms of epistemology, by Charles Hoy Fort. The revisionist epistemology cannot be contained within the perimeters of homicidal gas chamber revision, for it encompasses the whole field of human endeavor. For example, after having authored "The Great Holocaust Trial" (the only revisionist book about the first Zundel trial in 1985), I turned my sights on bonded labor in early America, after I apprehended that the notion that blacks were the only chattel slaves in American history was also a hoax. My revisionist history book, "They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America" was the result. I am the author of six books, including a revisionist study of Judaism ("Judaism's Strange Gods") and my seventh will be a revisionist history of Islam.
I don't know how many books my detractors have written or what they have done besides live off the fat of their mouths, but it is somewhat outrageous that this writer's ongoing contribution to revisionist activism has been sent down the memory hole. Furthermore, Robert has been very harsh and intemperate over the years in his estimation of David Irving, Charles Provan, Mattogno and any others who he believes have failed his de facto Jesuit criterion that error has no rights. If Dr. Faurisson regards a researcher as having erred by dissenting from a plank of the Faurisson Dogma, then even if that person is the author of dozens of seminal revisionist histories such as David Irving, or operates revisionist websites, publishes revisionist newsletters, loses a livelihood and the ability to support a family by refusing to recant his revisionist principles, then, nonetheless, that person's status as a revisionist will be suppressed by Robert Faurisson. Is this not a type of falsification?
Do we remain silent in the face of such falsification because it emanates from one of our own, someone who has become, in his own mind, the grand arbiter of who is and who is not a revisionist? Can one imagine the "Encyclopedia of Revisionists" as edited by Faurisson? It would be a slim volume indeed, bearing some resemblance to the quondam, constantly redacted Soviet encyclopedia, where activists and colleagues disappeared with alarming alacrity.
Michael A. Hoffman II
Copyright (c) 2004
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/news.html
----- Original Message -----From: Adelaide InstituteSent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 8:50 PMSubject: "Why must I believe in the things that I believe did not happen?""Why must I believe in the things that I believe did not happen?"A re-run of Professor Faurisson on Holocaust Myths: A vital issue for RevisionistsDr Robert Faurisson, one of the world's most fearless Revisionists has consistently claimed that the homicidal gassing claim is a lie. Any Revisionist who cannot follow him into making such a statement is challenged to provide the evidence: "Show me or draw me the gas chamber!"Friendships have fractured on this vital issue, and any individual who has claimed that a limited number of gassings may have occurred, has to date not delivered the goods to Faurisson.David Irving claims there were limited gassings in the two farm houses outside of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp perimeter, of which Fritjof Meyer speaks in his controversial article. For Faurisson such a belief is tantamount to believing in the Devil!Horst Mahler in his current Berlin court case fearlessly points out that the gassing claims are a lie.Any Revisionist who is soft on the homicidal gassing libel is thereby also soft on asking for evidence from those who claim gassings occurred. There is no escaping Faurisson's challenge, to show or to draw the alleged murder weapon - the homicidal gas chambers.Fredrick Töben's comment:I agree with Professor Faurisson's stance and share his conviction, but am prevented from openly repeating his statement, and even in discussing such matters on account of a Federal Court of Australia Order that prohibits me from repeating Faurisson's statement in my own words. Were I to assert that the gassing story is a lie, then I would be in contempt of court and a prison sentence would await me. Hence I am relegated to quoting other individuals on this matter.I do, however, state this: "Why must I believe in the things that I believe did not happen?"A while ago the Australian Jewish News, in a front-page headline stated "Is Toben at it again!", where this 13-word sentence is to be considered actionable or not, i.e. is it in breach of the gag order or is it actionable only through new court proceedings.======Exactitude: Festschrift For Robert Faurisson - Germar Rudolf edited the first-ever Festschrift for a Revisionist, obtainable from..............and now over to Dr Robert Faurisson..........Ecrits révisionnistes (1974-1998), 1st ed. in 1999, 2d ed. in December 2004
In 1999 I published in France, with my own means, a four-volume collection
of essays entitled Écrits révisionnistes (1974-1998). That semi-clandestine
publication caused me some serious trouble at the time. I have decided
nonetheless to publish soon a second edition, revised and corrected.
To that purpose I have drafted both a new piece for the dust jacket and a
foreword. Attached you will find these two texts in their English version.
Should you see fit to distribute them, please take care to indicate in their
headings the date of composition, that is, May 2004.
The possibility of there appearing, in 2005, two supplementary volumes
entitled Écrits révisionnistes (1999-2004) is not altogether ruled out.
Robert Faurisson
****Dust Jacket Piece (May 2004)
Robert Faurisson has concluded from his research that the alleged Hitlerite
gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same
historical lie, which has made possible a gigantic political-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.
He has demonstrated that, for physical and chemical reasons, the alleged
Hitlerite gas chambers could not have existed. He has emphasised that the
Germans had wanted not to exterminate the Jews but to expel them from Europe
towards a Jewish national home elsewhere than in Palestine; that was what
they called "a territorial final solution to the Jewish question" (die
territoriale Endlösung der Judenfrage).
Many European Jews, civilians or soldiers, died as a result of wartime
actions and notably in the typhus epidemics, but many Jews survived and, in
their millions, dispersed throughout the world, going so far as to create
and people a new State, that of Israel.
Recently R. Faurisson has written that Adolf Hitler's weapons of mass
destruction (gas chambers and gas vans) existed no more at that time than do
those of Saddam Hussein today. The first lie received official endorsement
in November 1944 from an agency called the War Refugee Board, created by
president Roosevelt at the instigation of Henry Morgenthau, Junior. The
second lie was launched by another Washington agency, the Office of Special
Plans, which president Bush Junior created in 2002 at the instigation of
Paul Wolfowitz. The world is witness, at nearly sixty years' distance, to
the same type of lie and the same type of liars.
Born in 1929 of a French father and a Scottish mother, R. Faurisson holds
the agrégation des lettres (highest competitive examination) and a doctorate
in "literature and the social sciences". He was professor at the University
of Lyon-II where, in particular, he taught the "criticism of texts and
documents (literature, history, media)". Divested of his chair by an
unexplained ministerial ruling, he has suffered numerous physical assaults
and incurred many convictions in the French courts for disputing the myth of
the "Holocaust". He has published seven works: three of literary revisionism
and four of historical revisionism. His four volumes of Écrits
révisionnistes (1974-1998) bring together in more than two thousand pages
articles, studies and critical revisions of texts in which the upholders of
an official history, increasingly religious and repressive in character, are
seen to yield step by step, on the plane of reason, before the arguments and
discoveries of historical revisionism initiated, in France, by Paul
Rassinier, author of Le Mensonge d'Ulysse (1950).
Foreword (May 2004)
The first edition of the present work dates from March 1999. I was indebted
for its production to Serge Thion and his lady friend, who had been willing
to compile, with a view to publication, articles and studies which, in
addition to some books or other revisionist writings, I had drafted between
1974 and 1998. The present edition reproduces the contents of the first but
not without abundant corrections of detail. I owe this revised and corrected
edition to Jean Plantin and, especially, to Yvonne Schleiter. The index of
names has been reworked. In the absence of an index of subjects, there is a
"reader's guide" which I owe to Jean-Marie Boisdefeu. This second edition
was supposed to appear in 2001 but we have until now been constantly forced
to postpone it. I had promised in addition to these four volumes a volume of
illustrations; I regret not being able to keep that promise all the more as
my work, essentially concrete, would have benefited from the accompaniment
of documents and photographs of which, moreover, I possess a great number.
On 2 February of this year, I devoted an article to my "Sombre Appraisal of
Historical Revisionism". Since that date, the situation has worsened. The
conference that was to have assembled more than two hundred sympathisers of
the revisionist cause on the 24th and 25th of April in Sacramento, the
capital of California, was cancelled and, in Toronto, the worst is to be
feared for Ernst Zündel, who has been kept languishing for fifteen months in
solitary confinement without charge. His cruel detention has recently been
endorsed by a superior court in its refusal to issue a writ of habeas
corpus.
Today those active in revisionist research or diffusion are very few. We may
cite mainly Walter Mueller, Ingrid Rimland, Germar Rudolf (helped by his
friend Jürgen Graf in Russia), Michael Santomauro and Bradley Smith in the
United States, Heinz Koppe in Canada, Fredrick Toben in Australia, Carlo
Mattogno in Italy, Jean Plantin in France, Vincent Reynouard in Belgium,
Ahmed Rami and Serge Thion on the Internet.
On the scientific plane, revisionism has achieved total victory. It no
longer has a single adversary. The Hilbergs, the Vidal-Naquets, the
Klarsfelds, the Berenbaums, the Deborah Lipstadts and one van Pelt, happy
with repeating as his own the flimsy arguments of one Jean-Claude Pressac,
have been reduced to nothing. The revisionists find themselves opposed only
by Spielberg-style films, Yad Vashem ceremonies, Disneyland-inspired
museums, pilgrimages to Auschwitz, continuous media ballyhoo, brainwashing
at school and at university and, finally, a State propaganda buttressed by
legislative repression. Our foes have bowed to our strength in the field but
practically no one knows it, for the losers, what with their power in the
mass media and their virtuoso bluffing, go on blowing their trumpets or
shofars as if they had won the battle.
Their historians claimed that Hitler had carried out a policy of
extermination against the Jews, notably using weapons of mass destruction
called execution gas chambers or gas vans. Besides, they assured us that, on
the Eastern front, the Einsatzgruppen had indulged in gigantic massacres of
Jews. In sum, they would have us believe that nearly the entire community of
Jews in Europe had thus been exterminated.
Such a vast crime would have presupposed an order from on high, a project, a
plan, overall directives, comprehensive instructions, financing, checks of
operations and expenditures, a multitude of specific or general assessments,
research into and development of weapons the like of which humanity had
never known, along with the involvement of large numbers of military men,
scientists, engineers, labourers and employees. An undertaking of the sort,
especially if conducted in tightest secrecy, would also have called for an
array of draconian measures. The whole project would have left numerous
pieces of irrefutable evidence, both material and documentary. At first, the
official historians had the nerve to assert that such evidence indeed
existed, and "in abundance". But to the challenge to produce "one bit of
proof, just one" of their choosing, they beat a retreat and since then,
following the example of J.-C. Pressac, have invoked only the existence of
"criminal traces" or "beginnings of proof". Pursuing their withdrawal still
further, they have invented an account telling that the great massacre
happened without an order, without a directive, spontaneously (like
"spontaneous generation", in a way). The most prestigious of them, Raul
Hilberg, falling back from his original affirmation that there had been two
orders from the Führer to kill the Jews, has been reduced to maintaining
that in fact it all came about without an order, without a plan, and only
thanks to "an incredible meeting of minds" within the vast German
bureaucracy, and by "a consensus mind-reading" amongst Nazi bureaucrats!
No one has been able to find any premises that might have been a genuine
execution gas chamber. Nor a single execution gas van. In respect to the
greatest crime in the world the accusation cannot provide any forensic study
of the crime weapon. Amongst the post-mortems there is not one that
establishes gassing as the cause of death. Those alleged witnesses to
"gassings" who have been put under precise cross-examination in public court
proceedings have been unmasked. The "execution gas chambers" shown to
tourists have revealed themselves to be Potemkin village contrivances. The
massacres imputed to the Einsatzgruppen have left behind no common burial
sites approaching the mass graves of the Katyn forest slaughter (4,255
corpses counted), an acknowledged crime whose perpetrators were our very own
Soviet allies.
On the other hand, there is no lack of facts to prove that the 3rd Reich
never had a policy of physical extermination of the Jews. Even on the
Eastern front, the killing of an innocent Jewish civilian was punishable by
heavy sanctions, including the death penalty. Those soldiers who engaged in
any form of excess with regard to Jews were liable to sentence by a German
court martial. There are countless examples of measures taken, even in the
camps, for the protection of the Jews against the excesses inherent to all
forms of detention, as well as against the ravages caused by the epidemics.
The Germans had an obsessive fear of disorder, of contagion, of the loss of
manpower; even at Auschwitz there were training centres for young Jews to
learn various manual trades. Millions of Jews survived the war, in spite of
the great carnage throughout Europe at the time, and in spite of the
apocalypse of a Germany pulverised by the Allied bombardments. Calling
themselves "survivors" or "miraculous escapees", many still today make up
the membership of organisations craving financial reparations. Now,
fifty-nine years after the war, the number of these "survivors" has recently
been estimated at 687,900 (the figure given by New York based demographer
Jacob Ukeles, cited in the article by Amiran Barkat "US Court to discuss
question of who is a Holocaust survivor", Haaretz, 18 April 2004). During
the war, Jewish leaders uttered alarming words about an extermination of the
Jews, but their conduct showed that they did not really believe in it. The
Allied governments saw that they were dealing with "Jews trying to stoke us
up". And then, the "brown Jews" of the "international Jewish collaboration"
were not wanting. Zionists and National-Socialists shared, to a certain
degree, a particular worldview; hence, in 1941, the Stern Group's offer of
military collaboration with Germany against the British. As late as 21 April
1945 a member of the World Jewish Congress, Norbert Masur, was received by
Himmler to discuss the matter of Jews to be delivered to the Allies.
The Germans sought to expel the Jews from Europe, if possible with the
accord of the rest of the world. They had in mind "a territorial final
solution of the Jewish question" ("eine territoriale Endlösung der
Judenfrage", as written in a foreign ministry memorandum of 21 August 1942
bearing the signature of an official called Martin Luther).
In France on 6 March 2004, during Thierry Ardisson's television discussion
programme "Tout le monde en parle" ("Everyone's talking about it"), admiral
Philippe de Gaulle was heard to state, regarding the Jews: "The Germans
wanted, if not to exterminate them, at least to get them out [of Europe]".
That reflection, hardly lacking in soundness, met only with silence in the
media. Also hidden from the general public is the fact that neither
Churchill, nor Eden, nor Roosevelt, nor Truman, nor Eisenhower, nor de
Gaulle, nor Stalin ever cared to mention the "gas chambers" or the "gas
vans". Those amongst them who, years after the conflict had ended, wrote
their wartime memoirs also persisted in keeping quiet on the subject, as did
Pius XII, although he was yet more hostile to Hitler than to Stalin (see
Robert Faurisson, Le Révisionnisme de Pie XII, 2003, 120 p.). Adolf Hitler's
"weapons of mass destruction", his alleged execution gas chambers and gas
vans, existed no more than the "weapons of mass destruction" of Saddam
Hussein. In the two instances the lie and the liars have been of identical
origin: in 1944, under the aegis of Franklin Roosevelt, the War Refugee
Board spawned by Henry Morgenthau Jr and, in 2002, under the aegis of George
Bush Jr, the Office of Special Plans spawned by Paul Wolfowitz.
Unhappily, today, intoxicated by holocaustic propaganda, people are not of a
mind to call their beliefs into question. The "Shoah" has become a religious
superstition inspiring reverence or fear. Conscious both of its own
fragility and of the precarious standing of the State of Israel, of which it
is the sword and the shield, this religion has erected daunting walls of
defence, and harshly suppresses any who seek to stand up to it. In the past,
it took courage and sacrifices to be a truly active revisionist; to remain
one in future will require the heroism of Antigone and an uncommon
self-abnegation.
© free 2002 Adelaide Institute
