Revisionismo

[Harm Wulf]

Robert FAURISSON October 11, 2009

At the European Parliament, during a conference against “Denial”,

Lady Renouf asks for proof, one single proof, of “the Holocaust”



From London, where she lives, Lady Michèle Renouf has recently been to Brussels and there, equipped with the necessary authorisations, on October 6, 2009 she was able to take part, inside the very building housing the European Parliament, in a conference on “Denial and Democracy in Europe”. Devoted to the preparation of a pan-European law criminalising revisionism (in the current jargon, “Holocaust denial”), the conference attracted about two hundred people, amongst whom a few members of the European Parliament; it was held under the patronage of the German Elmar Brok, a former journalist now himself an MEP. In a lengthy account in English, Lady Renouf has summed up the content of the various talks, naturally all antirevisionist, each one more pitiful than the rest.



Amongst the photos she includes in her account are a few of one Gilles Karmazyn; hitherto, in his long-running efforts on the Internet to track down revisionists and their writings, this petty Torquemada had succeeded in hiding his face, no image of which is to be found even with Google or Wikipedia.



But the most surprising thing is that, by luck, Lady Renouf, unknown to the person presiding over the conference, obtained permission to speak after the scheduled participants and she – who is neither a revisionist nor an antirevisionist – proceeded to deliver an out-and-out plea for a free debate on “the Holocaust”; she went so far as to ask that, in order to set off that debate, one proof, one single proof of the existence of the Nazi gas chambers be supplied.



In any case, the present days seem to bear out the impression that the exterminationist argument is, as the Americans say, running out of gas. One may indeed ask whether the lie of the alleged Nazi gas chambers is now in more or less the same state as Ariel Sharon. And, if it’s dead, isn’t it about time it was buried?


A brief and forceful address


Here is the text of Lady Renouf’s brief and forceful address. In it, the letters “WMD” designate the “weapons of mass destruction” attributed to Adolf Hitler, that is, those “gas chambers” and those “gas vans” allegedly conceived and used for killing the Jews of Europe, but of which no trace has ever been found and which, for obvious physical and technical reasons, are quite simply inconceivable.





Thank you, Madam Chairman,

Ladies and Gentlemen,





This conference is entitled “Denial and Democracy”. There is surely only one way to combat “denial” in a “democratic” context – by not instituting debate-denial across Europe but instead by providing documentary evidence to disprove the deniers’ case. Two weeks ago Benjamin Netanyahu based his address to the United Nations on evidence – so-called industrial WMD construction blueprints – which had been rejected as spurious by Jewish experts such as Prof. Van Pelt, who went so far as to say “the deniers are having great fun because it shows how people are gullible”. These same documents held up as proofs by Netanyahu were in fact first discovered and published in 1976 (as proof of the normality of gas chambers[*] thus labelled for disinfecting clothing) by the veteran revisionist Professor Robert Faurisson!



Can this expert conference succeed where Netanyahu failed? Can this conference send us away with one – just one – clear item of documentary proof which confounds source-critical Holocaust revisionists? Or must we merely silence such sceptical voices with threats, fines and prison sentences and teach our school children debate-denial of normal historical source criticism? Have you seen the “Guidelines for Teaching about the Holocaust”? [holding up the Handbook cover] If I may I’ll quote from it: “Care must be taken not to give a platform for deniers ... or seek to disprove the deniers’ position through normal historical debate and rational argument.”



As a former lecturer at a university (**) I ask, please: Can the EU do what the UN did not and give us today one document upon which school children and their teachers can rely? For even the denial law does not define what is the unique industrial WMD for which denial of proof condemns citizens of Europe and beyond to sit for years in prison.”





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(*) Note by RF: Here there is some slight confusion. It was indeed on March 19, 1976 that I discovered the building plans of the Auschwitz and Birkenau crematoria; it was precisely in the Archives section of the Auschwitz State Museum, which had been keeping them hidden since the war, that I’d had the chance to make that discovery. But only nearly three years later was it that, after considerable difficulties, I finally found the way to show copies of a few of my 116 Auschwitz documents to the press, in this case a reporter and a photographer from the Spanish magazine Interviu. In issue n° 145 of that weekly (February 22-28, 1979, p. 64-66), I am seen pointing at a part of Krematorium II; I’m showing the plan of a vast room which, given the layout of the area and the room’s situation, dimensions, structure, ventilation system and other physical features, cannot have been an execution gas chamber but indeed was, as was clearly written on the plan, a simple “basement depository” (Leichenkeller) meant to hold corpses awaiting cremation. Besides, there were other drawings indicating, in plain lettering, the existence here or there of one or several small “gas chambers” for “delousing” (Gaskammer / Entlausung).



(**) Note by RF: In reply to one conference speaker who, in a tone of disdain, had asked her: “What subject did you lecture in and where?”, Lady Renouf, Australian by birth, said: “I lectured in Fine Arts and pioneered Media Studies at the Queensland University of Technology, because I took a professional interest in source scepticism versus mirage advertising. I am now an independent documentary film-maker from London.”

[Harm Wulf]

Dal blog: Andrea Carancini

lunedì 12 ottobre 2009
Una rivista per revisionisti anglofoni



Non abbiamo ancora segnalato l’esistenza, negli Stati Uniti, d’una rivista revisionista trimestrale in rete, “Inconvenient History” [Storia scomoda]:

Inconvenient History | A Quarterly Journal for Free Historical Inquiry

La nascita di questa rivista è parte di un’idea venuta all’intrepido Bradley Smith (foto), che ha cercato di compensare la perdita della rivista “The Revisionist” (The Revisionist - Journal for Critical Historical Inquiry ), del chimico tedesco Germar Rudolf (estradato in Germania nel 2005 per esservi imprigionato, fino al recente rilascio). L’ambizione di questa rivista è di poter uscire, nel 2010, anche in edizione cartacea.

Ecco i componenti del comitato editoriale:

Redattore capo: Richard Widmann

Consiglieri:

Joseph P. Bellinger
Arthur Butz
Robert Faurisson
Jürgen Graf
Fred A. Leuchter
Carlo Mattogno

A tutti vadano i nostri più cordiali auguri!!!

[Harm Wulf]

Crimini mai perseguiti - I professionisti della vendetta

YouTube - I CRIMINI DELLE BRIGATE EBREE

[Harm Wulf]

"La Storia sepolta - Il revisionismo dell'Olocausto"

YouTube - La Storia sepolta - Il revisionismo dell'Olocausto - by sunarota4ever

[Harm Wulf]

El sustituto de Costa negó el Holocausto en 1979 · ELPAÍS.com

[Harm Wulf]

Non c'è crisi per la "Memoria"...

[Harm Wulf]

Dieudonné / Faurisson allo Zénith (Parigi), 26 dicembre 2008



YouTube - Dieudonné / Faurisson allo Zénith (Parigi), 26 dicembre 2008

[Harm Wulf]

"I have a dream..." (15 octobre 2009)


ROBERT FAURISSON: I have a dream...

[Harm Wulf]

L’arma spuntata dell’«Olocausto palestinese»: rafforzamento del dogma
olocaustico e vicolo cieco dell’antifascismo

di Enrico Galoppini e Antonio Grego

CpEurAsia

[Harm Wulf]

Robert Faurisson is a Humanist



Under the title En confidence, the publisher Pierre Marteau in Milan has recently issued, in booklet form, a long interview with Robert Faurisson by an “Inconnue” (distributed by Akribeia, 45/3, Route de Vourles, 69230 Saint Genis Laval, France). By several of its aspects, this interview is sure to sow confusion among those who’ve thought it necessary to condemn the man in question without having, beforehand, really read or heard him. In my view, his replies to the “Unkown Woman’s” questions bear out the fact that the public figure persistently described to us as a diabolical being is, in reality, a humanist in the dual sense of the word: his training is that of an intellectual well versed in the classical and modern humanities and his mental disposition inclines him to doubt, to scientific research, to the examination of that which risks leading people into the realms of politics, religion, war, the crusader spirit or of simple mass-media propaganda.



Marcel Proust’s Contre Sainte-Beuve illustrates the idea that a work may be the product of another inner self than the one we show in normal life. Taking this idea as our inspiration, let’s make the effort, if just for a moment, to approach the man Robert Faurisson without delving into what we know or believe we know about the author, his literary research or his historical inquiries.



The essential body of Robert Faurisson’s historical work proper is contained in the 2,500 pages of his Ecrits révisionnistes, in five volumes, also available from Akribeia. One may reject his work and decry it, just as, on the contrary, one has the right to endorse and defend it. History will decide sooner or later, but that judgment will still have to be preceded by a public debate. Robert Faurisson, at his end, has never ceased calling for such a debate. His detractors have, unhappily, declined his proposal as, according to some of them, “there can be discussion on revisionism but not with the revisionists”, the latter being, apparently, only “falsifiers of history”, “gangsters of history” or even “assassins of memory”. It seems to me, though, just as it’s seemed in the past to Noam Chomsky, Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit, Claude Karnoouh, Jacob Assous and others still, that Faurisson ought to have the right to defend himself elsewhere than in the courtrooms of the Republic, that is, without being under constant threat of the sword of justice. Why deny him a right that’s granted to those who attack him? Why refuse him access to the media devices that his opponents can use whenever they want?



The law of July 13, 1990, called the “Gayssot Act”, “Fabius-Gayssot Act” or “Faurisson law” forbids all public debate on one page, and one page alone, of second world war history. That page concerns exactly what may have been the fate of Europe’s Jews from 1941/1942 and up to the beginning of 1945. No one doubts – and the revisionists are no exception – that from 1933 till the war’s end the Jews had to endure large-scale persecution, but the historical controversy involves subjects going well beyond that undeniable persecution.



Many would have it that Robert Faurisson’s revisionist works are of neo-Nazi inspiration or, at the very least, that they draw on certain ideas dear to the extreme right. For my part, leaving aside the fact that, according to what Robert Faurisson maintains, there were, during the second world war, no homicidal gas chambers and no genocide of the Jews, I set out in search of the man, and what I’ve discovered invalidates the impression some may get at the mere mention of a historical argument they deem revolting. Better yet: it’s a long way indeed between that unfortunate impression and the singular man that Robert Faurisson is in the flesh, in his heart and spirit.



Is Robert Faurisson a disciple of Hitler?



Those harbouring the notion that Robert Faurisson is someone who looks back nostalgically at the 3rd Reich and professes neo-Nazi ideas would do well to seek the revelations he’s been able to make, either in En confidence or elsewhere, when questioned about his childhood, his home environment, professional activities, private life and the side aspects of his public life.



Born near London in 1929 of a French father and a Scottish mother, thus both British subject and French citizen, he was ten years old in 1939 and sixteen in 1945. He lived through the various episodes of the war intensely, with hatred for Germany set firmly in his heart. In En confidence he can be heard saying: “Steeped in the reports of Radio-London, which I listened to religiously with my father, I hated the Germans and wished for even more bombings on my own country [France] and on Germany”.



In June 1942, when a pupil at the Jesuit school in Marseille, young Robert etched onto his desk with a knife the words “Death to Laval”, which would earn him some trouble. Today, he rebukes himself for that “call to murder” and condemns the abominations of the “special justice” meted out to the defeated at the hour of “Liberation”.



When asked how he would have found things after a victory by Nazi Germany, he replies that he would most likely have taken up the defence of the vanquished, for experience teaches that the victor nearly always goes too far afterwards, especially if, in the course of the war, he ever happened to come close to defeat. In such a case, the loser stirs Robert Faurisson’s compassion. The mere fact that the victor, in any case, is almost necessarily going to impose his side of the story will incite our man to mistrust the thereafter official version.



In this regard, a key date commands the destiny of Robert Faurisson: May 8, 1945. I’ll let him explain.



“… I was in Paris, where we were living close by the Luxembourg Gardens. The Victory bells were chiming. To hear them better, I opened the window of the bedroom I shared with my younger brother. My father came in and asked whether I was ‘happy’. I answered yes, but mainly just to unburden myself of a question I felt was too personal, and there, for the first time in my life I suddenly found myself thinking of the Germans, the ‘Boches’, the Nazis as of flesh-and-blood beings for whom, on reflection, that day of May 8, 1945 had to be much more horrible still than November 11, 1918. It was, I think, from that day that doubts began to gnaw at me. Still, as regards the times thereafter, ‘seventeen-year-olds aren’t very serious!’ (as the French say). School and life’s pleasures continued to take up all my attention. However the big post-war Purge was at full tilt, with people being put before firing squads every day. Gaullists and communists were vying in oppressive fervour. The victors were possessed of a criminal frenzy. After Hiroshima, Nagasaki, there were, in the very heart of Europe, the ethnic cleansings, massacres and systematic deportations of the German minorities, in proportions and conditions more horrible indeed than those that could be blamed on the vanquished. Whatever prey the Soviet Moloch demanded was being delivered to it. Eyes were closed to the slaughters perpetrated by Tito. Those crimes, which no longer had the excuse of war, were accompanied by the masquerades of the Nuremberg trial, the Tokyo trial and a flood of like proceedings”.



If Robert Faurisson happens to take up the defence of Nazi dignitaries it’s that, at the risk of being called a Nazi, he means “to undertake the defence of any of the conquered who finds himself subjected to the law of his conqueror”. He denounces Nuremberg and rejects its judgment. Going even further and facing the danger of appearing as an anti-semite, he calls into question those Jewish or Zionist organisations “which accuse nearly the whole world as they attack not only Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Goebbels, but also Germany, Austria and all their allies, not forgetting the Collaborators and then the Moslems who sided with Hitler; they incriminate as well Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, Pope Pius XII, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the countries that stayed neutral during the conflict; in other words those organisations denounce, so to speak, the whole human race or just about. They make an exception only for a few thousand ‘Righteous among the nations’, the better to damn the rest of humanity, accused either of having followed Hitler or of having let him commit unspeakable crimes.”



In the early 1980’s, in Los Angeles, Robert Faurisson was struck by his visit to the Museum of Tolerance, then under the direction of rabbi Marvin Hier. Every museologist knows from experience that it is in the last room of an exhibition that the visitor’s mind is most influenced; it’s from there that the visitor will take away his or her final impression, final emotion. Evoking the now distant memory of his own visit and, in particular, his impressions from that museum’s first and last rooms, Robert Faurisson gives us the following commentary: “In the first room the accused are, as one might expect, Adolf Hitler, Hermann Goering, Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Goebbels and other 3rd Reich dignitaries; the photos are in black and white and the room is dark. On the other hand, in the last room, brightly lighted, the visitor is surprised at coming suddenly upon a big visual piece in colour showing, six times, a man in deportee’s dress who, with an accusing gesture, now designates Roosevelt, Churchill, Pope Pius XII (maybe also the International Committee of the Red Cross and maybe Stalin; I don’t remember, I’d have to consult my notes). Thus the first room is that of the murderers and the last, that of those who made themselves their accomplices, by inaction or indifference, in history’s greatest crime. Such an accusation put forth against the Allies is all the more impudent in that it targets countries which, in their struggle against Hitler, lost millions of soldiers and civilians.”



Is Robert Faurisson a key figure of the extreme right?



If Robert Faurisson cannot be charged with neo-Nazism, may he not nonetheless be an extreme right-winger?



Robert Faurisson defines himself as apolitical. He has a tendency to recognise the legitimacy of democratic regimes in place and, in line with the well-known saying, he considers politics to be above all the art of the possible. He feels aversion for the clichés of both right and left. He has had communist friends. Doubtless this comes of his having belonged to the SNES (Syndicat national de l’enseignement secondaire) when a professor of literature and languages in the French secondary school system, at a time where that union was run by communists. He was even secretary of his section for some years, and the meetings he chaired were appreciated for being brief and concrete; they dealt with precise topics; generalities and palaver were banned. Had Robert Faurisson been a rightist, then he would have joined the SNALC (Syndicat national autonome des lycées et collèges). Afterwards, in higher education, he was to join the SNESUP (Syndicat national de l’enseignement supérieur), markedly left-wing and, when the Sorbonne broke up into several universities it was not at “Paris IV”, reputedly right-wing, that he chose to teach but at “Paris III”, known as left-leaning.


Previously, when still a professor at the lycée “Blaise Pascal” in Clermont-Ferrand, he’d been noticed for his active participation in the events of May and June 1968. There, in the Place de Jaude, he could be seen marching alongside those whom the communists called “the revolutionaries” (sic) and joining in the chant of “ We are all German Jews”. For a mind today attacked for a supposed obsessive anti-semitism one might imagine some altogether different slogans. Robert Faurisson has us know that, had he lived at the time of the Dreyfus affair, he’d have fully supported the cause of the army officer accused and convicted without any evidence.



It is true that extreme right-wing publishers have put out his writings, but this was when the doors were closed everywhere else. When the libertarian left, notably in the person of Pierre Guillaume or Serge Thion, opened its doors, he went straight in. He has never backed the political or religious opinions of those who publish him. He has maintained his independence and stayed reserved. One day a left-wing colleague wrote that Faurisson was neither of the right nor the left but of an English-style pragmatism coupled with distrust of abstraction. Robert Faurisson has been heard saying, with a smile: “My ideas are summed up in the make of car I’ve owned for some time. It’s a Renault Mégane ‘Classic’. I believe I’ve been shaped somewhat by what used to be called the classical humanities and it so happens that, by birth, I’m half-British; hence the spelling ‘Classic’, you see?”



In certain circumstances, his reserve can do him disservice. He has stood accused of indulgence for extreme-right ideologies but hasn’t always felt obliged to explain that, if he did in fact once come to the aid of a far-right friend thrown into prison for having supported the French rebels in Algeria, he had, for his part, paid membership dues to the Comité Maurice Audin against alleged torture by the French army in that country. Afterwards, he would barely make mention, unless in passing, of his actual anti-colonialism or his concrete help in favour of a Palestinian village.



To me Robert Faurisson appears as a man who is open-spirited but who doesn’t much care to enlarge on his personal or civic life with public statements. At the end of the various interviews he granted me, I was struck, most generally, with his traits of academic instruction – nourished by sound studies in French, Latin and Greek (humanities, precisely) – and his “Scottish” turn of mind, as he likes to say, that is, one of independence and boldness. I found him warm despite his reserve, generous, unassuming, intolerant of lying and cowardice.



If I had to risk a comparison with a character from classical French drama, I might, by reason of his pessimism, his uprightness, his love of exactitude, and a certain inflexibility, liken him to Alceste in Molière’s Le Misanthrope. As for his ideas – and our latest conversations have confirmed it – they are those of a humanist.



It’s time an end was put to the disgraceful treatment inflicted on him since 1974.



Pierre PANET, Paris, August 30, 2009


[P. Panet, aged 62, runs the "Scène libre" (Free Stage) programme at Dieudonné's theatre in Paris. "La Scène libre" is open to all artistic genres and methods of expression.]