Robert Faurisson, most likely an agent
Machine translation plus links by Rae West from Hexzane527's French to English by Google translate. Original pdf document appears to have been uploaded in January 2020—here's an identical copy on this site.
1.1) The Faurisson affair of 1979
1.2) The a posteriori explanation of the Journal Le Monde
1.3) The Faurisson affair actually went back much further
1.4) The interventions of Chomsky and Cohn-Bendit
1.5) Articles and interventions in the post-affair media of Le Monde
1.6) Faurisson had already been invited to television and quoted in the newspapers for his literary theories
1.7) The attitude of Faurisson and the revisionists towards conspiracy and the attitude of the conspirators towards revisionism between 1998 and 2009
1.8) The attitude of Soral and Dieudonné and other conspirators towards Faurisson in from 2009
1.9) Problems with Faurisson's revisionist journey
1.9.1) The unlikely fighter for truth
1.9.2) The oddities linked to the purchase of Bardèche's book in 1949
1.9.3) Why did the elite insist on his bio saying that he read Bardèche in 1949?
1.9.4) Why did Faurisson not read Rassinier before the 1960s? And why didn't he contacted Bardèche in 1950?
1.9.5) Faurisson married and father of 3 children
1.9.6) The relative political neutrality of Faurisson
1.9.7) Not licensed by his University
1.9.8) Faurisson and the problem of documents in German and Polish
1.9.9) The travel problem during the USSR era
1.10) Faurisson's attacks
1.10.1) The 1989 aggression
1.10.2) Other attacks
1.10.3) Details and reflections on assaults
1.11) Miscellaneous
2) The aftermath of the revisionist affair in France in the 1980s: the Henri Roques case
3) The aftermath of the revisionist affair in France: the period 87-90
3.1) Interview with Faurisson in April 1987
3.2) The retail business
3.3) The Durafour crematorium case
3.4) The Claude Autant-Lara affair
3.5) The Notin case
3.6) The Olivier Mathieu case
3.7) Carpentras
4) The Fabius-Gayssot law
5) The period 1990-2000: the cases of Garaudy and Ahmed Rami
6) Revisionism in the USA
7) Official contradictions and retreats as evidence of the plot
8) Same thing for all the obvious lies
Annex 1: the Pressac case
Annex 2: additions to the Clock Club
Annex 3: Gayssot or Fabius-Gayssot law?
Annex 4: the fact that the elite authorized the publication of Rassinier's book
Annex 5: more on Olivier Mathieu
Annex 6: Zundel
Annex 7: On Gerstein's testimony
Annex 8: why the revisionists 2.0 appeared in the 1970s?
The choice to have a 1.0 and 2.0 revisionism implied a time lag between the of them
Develop revisionism at the same time as the post-1968 mentality change
Develop revisionism at the same time as the rise of the extreme right in Europe
In the years 45-65, the Jews were not yet the stars of the 2nd World War
The 60s and Flower-Power
The problem of developing revisionism in the USA in the years 45-70
Finally
Annex 9: why did you choose France to launch revisionism 1.0?
Annex 10: miscellaneous
Robert Faurisson was most likely an agent
Machine translation from Hexzane527's French to English by Google translate. Original pdf document appears to have been uploaded in January 2020.What follows is an HTML version of Hexzane's work, machine translated from Hexzane527's French, and mostly making sense. Page numbering retained. Some news titles were translated - Le Monde may appear as the World, for example. Some French expressions were not translated. There are very occasional changes (adjective moved before noun; gender suppressed where English considers it neutral; some conventions modified, such as Why Something Happened? to Why Did Something Happen?)
I became interested in revisionism from the end of the 1980s. And especially from 1990, when the Fabius-Gayssot law, which prohibited revisionist opinions, was passed in France. Obviously, from that date, I was convinced that the revisionists were right. If a government forbids such a hysterical opinion, it is most certainly that it is true. But, finding books on the subject was next to impossible, because of the ban. Of suddenly, I was able to discover the revisionist writings only in 1996, by Internet, by going to the famous site of the Aaargh. And from the first articles, I received confirmation that the holocaust was pure invention.
Of course, that very quickly led me to take an interest in the journey of the most famous, including Faurisson. Right off the bat, two or three things made me wince a bit. At the time, not being in extreme conspiracy, I let this bizarre information pass. But in becoming more and more conspiratorial, and thinking back on this information there is a few years, I had more and more serious doubts. And this especially since I had discovered in the early 2000s that a good number of the new stars of revisionism were in fact agents.
For 3 or 4 years, I began to think that the first dissident movements had probably put in place by the government to launch conspiracy among the masses. There, I began to tell myself that revisionism was one of those movements.
But since I didn't really see what revisionism could have served for the masters of world outside of that, as I was thinking about other things and seeing the monument that was Faurisson in my mind, I had left it there; even if my doubts became more and more important.
But, since I realized, a few months ago, that the Israel project must be a racist project, pro-white and that a large part of the Jews in the diaspora would very likely be deported to Israel before and during the third world war, there, the role of revisionism, in addition to participating with the rise of the conspiracy movement, it became very clear to me. Its primary goal was to make mounting "anti-Semitism" in order to send the Jews of the Diaspora to Israel. It confirmed that the revisionism was indeed a project of the elite.
It was very difficult to understand for a very long time also because until about 10 years ago the revisionist movement has remained a niche trend, something well known only a few ultra-conspiracyists. Therefore, hard to think that it could serve as anyway to the elite. It is only in recent years that we feel that the revisionism begins to emerge from its ghetto and we can glimpse its role. [Page 2]
And of course, the Fabius-Gayssot law was made on purpose to advertise revisionism. She did not made to bury it, but to advance it. A law made to prohibit a historical research movement, it is a clear signal that it is this movement that is right and that the government seeks to hide the truth. Again, for 30 years, the objective of this law was not appeared, because it remained a small group. So the law didn't seem to have helped him at all. But he becomes clear, now that revisionism is becoming more widespread, that the goal was that. Simply, it took 20 years for this to become manifest. The trick was made to act late. So the goal was beyond suspicion.
That's why the evidence for the extermination is ridiculous on every level. Indeed, as Hitler was an agent of the elite, if the latter had wanted the holocaust to look true, it would not have had no trouble making it so. Hitler would then have produced thousands of fakes documents attesting to an extermination project in progress. German authorities could have put thousands of corpses of Germans and Russians killed in action in pits near concentration camps; and even civilians who died in hospitals and without families for bury them. They could have made Hitler shoot private videos where he would have declared his intentions of extermination to his trusted ministers. All this would then have been "discovered" by totally "independent" observers. And then no one could have doubted the reality of the Holocaust. If the elite didn't do this, it was because they wanted people to realize the deception as soon as they took a closer look at the evidence of the Holocaust. They wanted the lie of the Shoah is exposed and that many people end up believing it no longer.
It is like the Islamist attacks currently, they must be arranged and the deception is often completely grotesque so that many people understand that everything this is false and tilts on the conspiratorial side.
In fact, even under the assumption that Hitler was not an agent of the elite, it would have been possible for the winners to create false documents, to have apparently reliable, credible witnesses and neutral, and therefore, to produce evidence that appears irrefutable. If they haven't, it's because they wanted us to find out that this holocaust story is bogus. And of course, like that is not ordinary people who were going to dare to ask these questions, they put agents to do the job. Either way, the elite obviously wouldn't have wanted ordinary people to hand over involved the lie. It could have been dangerous, because they could have wondered annoying (as I do now). So, it was necessary that it be agents who perform this task.
Since revisionism is a movement created by the elite, Faurisson was necessarily an agent of
the elite, too. From then on, the oddities and illogisms of his career can be explained. [Page 3]
1.1) The Faurisson affair of 1979
We already have a very big illogicality at the very beginning of the affair. In fact, in 1978 and 1979, while the
revisionism belonged to the known small group of barely a few dozen people at best in
France, what is happening? We have no less than 2 newspaper newspapers of great audience that leave
Faurisson express himself on the gas chambers. Le Matin de Paris published on November 16, 1978, a
article entitled "the gas chambers, that does not exist" where Faurisson expresses himself. And Le Monde publishes 2
letters from Faurisson, December 29, 1978 and January 16, 1979. Two more left-wing newspapers! And
the first is run by a Jew: Claude Perdriel. Perdriel who was also the former right-hand man of
banker Edmond de Rothschild, in real estate affairs. Unbelievable!
And at the time, the two largest French newspapers are Le Figaro which is right-wing and Le Monde which is center left. This one prints about 450,000 copies (in this item, we even talk about prints up to 800,000). And of course, these two newspapers are under the entire control of the elite. So, Le Monde is not an obscure little unknown newspaper. He has a huge audience.
Le Matin de Paris is the daily newspaper of the weekly Le Nouvel Observateur. It is also a newspaper with a fairly large audience in France (even if less than Le Monde), since its circulation paid was at the time around 110,000 copies. It is then a newspaper very linked to the Party Socialist.
How is it then that one of the two most important newspapers in France and entirely controlled by the elite agrees to publish an opinion piece by an almost unknown professor, representing a tiny group and defending a totally "anti-Semitic" theory (for the people of the time) ? Theory which also apparently goes against the interests of the elite. And same question for the newspaper Le Matin de Paris, which is left-wing and owned by a Jew. It makes absolutely no sense.
Especially since, concerning the newspaper Le Monde, Faurisson was not at his first attempt. It made 29 times in the last 4 years that he had sent requests for publication concerning his revisionist ideas (see here ) . We cannot say that Le Monde was caught off guard. So it is evident that never the editor wouldn't have let that go.
The elite's strategy for this sort of thing is simple: don't talk about it . Someone who does not receiving publicity from the media is someone who does not exist. Even with the Internet, that remains true for the most part, so you can imagine what it was before. Someone without advertising remained an obscure stranger followed at best by a few hundred people, but most of the time, rather by a few dozen (or even per person). And it was all the more true as the thesis was sulphurous and considered despicable and contemptible by almost the whole of society.
Therefore, it is impossible that the publication of this letter in Le Monde was the result of an error. If it was done, it must be that the elite wanted it . She's the one who planned it. She did it for that Faurisson, and therefore the revisionist movement, receive publicity and become known. [Page 4]
And this is what happened. Suddenly, everyone French intellectual and a good part of the ordinary people became aware of the existence of Faurisson and of revisionism. In being presented as the very essence of evil, as a defender of Nazism under the guise of revisionism, Faurisson quickly became public enemy number 1. And gradually that we were moving into the 80s and the media continued to talk about it, bigger world among the French with a little culture was aware of the existence of scandalous revisionism and the infamous Faurisson.
Moreover, what one can notice, when one reads the biography of Faurisson, is that he had nothing yet published on revisionism at the end of 1978, when the newspapers began to mount its hairpin case. Apparently, he published his first two books only in the 80s:
1. " Memory in defense against those who accuse me of falsifying history ", La Vieille Taupe, 1980, 282 pages
2. " Response to Pierre Vidal-Naquet ", Paris, La Vieille taupe, 1982, 95 pages
In other words, in terms of the production of revisionist works, there was still no one in 1978. So there was absolutely no reason for the newspapers to fret over this guy who was nothing. It is as if an obscure provincial professor had written in 1999 a few letters to newspapers about the fact that we did not go to the moon, and that we suddenly did a pope of conspiracy. So, we can really say that at that point it was they who had created Faurisson. If still, he had already written a book, we could have said that he had a small autonomous existence before being put forward by Le Matin and Le Monde. But here, we can't even say that.
And we cannot say to ourselves that he published articles in the newspaper "la velle taupe", since this one no longer existed at that time (it was closed in 1972 and had no revisionist tendencies at that time). It was not recreated, this time with a purely revisionist orientation, until 1979. say that between 1972 and 1979, there was no revisionist newspaper to publish his writings.
So he hadn't published anything at the time, no book, no article. He was nothing in terms of revisionist literature. And then there was no reason for the papers to advertise it the same. They should have taken him for a lone nutcase and that's it. And of course, we don't give a forum for this kind of character. So, even without resorting to conspiracy, the fact that the Monde and Le Matin de Paris published Faurisson's letters is extremely suspicious.
1.2) The a posteriori explanation of the Journal Le Monde
34 years later (August 2012), Le Monde provided an explanation of the reasons that pushed the
officials at the time to publish Faurisson's letter. [Page 5]
Already, Faurisson would have harassed them with revisionist letters (29 in all) for about 4 years, all put in the trash.
In addition, two months before, there was the article in the weekly L'Express, where Louis Darquier from Pellepoix had said " In Auschwitz, we only gassed the lice ", which of course caused a scandal.
Then, the article in Le Matin de Paris of November 16, 1978 led the University of Lyon II to suspend Faurisson's classes for a few weeks. The fact that he questions the holocaust has then been discovered by students. And 4 days later, he was called a Nazi and especially beaten up by far-left students on his way to the faculty. Faurisson would have confided in the World (more precisely to Bruno Frappat, head of the "Education, youth and society" department, at phone), who reportedly reported on the event.
And it is because of this physical violence that the World would have finally agreed to publish the Faurisson tribune. The reason would have been to fight against intolerance and censorship. The editor in Deputy chief was then Jean Planchais, Catholic of the left. The article tells us that he watched over freedom expression of university professors in this period finally rid of the screed of lead Gaullist.
Another explanation for the publication of the letter is inserted in the article accompanying this last: " Mr. Robert Faurisson has, to a certain extent, succeeded. No one is unaware, if we are to believe him, that there have never been gas chambers in the concentration camps. (...) As absurd as may seem [this] thesis, it has caused some confusion, in the younger generations in particular, unwilling to accept acquired ideas without inventory. For many of our readers it was essential to judge on documents . "
So, following the Express and Matin affair, the officials of Le Monde would have judged that the young people had been "troubled" and it was therefore necessary that Faurisson could express himself so that they could learn about the arguments of the revisionists.
In summary, there are two reasons for the publication of Faurisson's letters: the disapproval of violence against it (and therefore the fight for freedom of expression) and the fear that young people will doubt the official truth if they could not judge from the evidence .
Of course, if you are very naive, you can believe this kind of explanation. But if we have a minimum of knowledge of how things go, again this is totally ridiculous.
Already, it is obvious that the elite have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that an unknown professor has made himself beat up if the ideas he defends are subversive. On the contrary, she will say to herself that it is good for her interests, since that may deter the latter from speaking publicly.
Incidentally, now that we know that Faurisson was an agent, we can be sure that this beating story is a pure invention intended to give a reason for the publication of the letter.
Regarding the problem of freedom of expression, even if we approach the problem in a way that is not conspiratorial , it does not really hold. Already, if we invoke freedom of expression, why have [Page 6] refused to publish his letters in previous years? If the newspapers did not publish them, it was that they were happily sitting on freedom of expression.
So, we could also defend the idea that after May 68, the newspapers were very libertarian. But if this was true in the early and mid-1970s for some of the press, the closer we got to the 80s, and more this spirit of total freedom disappeared. At the end of 1978, we had been back from the ultra-libertarian deliriums of the early 1970s. And if Le Monde et le Matin de Paris had not published Faurisson in previous years, there was no reason for them to do so moment. So the interview and the publication of Faurisson's letter cannot come from there.
And anyway, the World was not run by young students from May 68. The director du Monde at the time was Jacques Fauvet, born in 1914. And the deputy editor-in-chief was Jean Planchais, born in 1922. Two apparatchiks of the system. And the world was already the equivalent of the French Pravda (with the Figaro on the right). Therefore, information disapproved by the authorities in place had no chance of being published.
For Le Matin de Paris, the CEO was Claude Perdriel, born in 1926, surrounded by Bernard Villeneuve (general administrator, qualified as a faithful right-hand man of Perdriel, therefore, probably of the same generation than him) and Gilles Martinet, born in 1916. So we can say the same thing as direction of the World concerning the side "libertarian spirit resulting from May 68".
And it should be remembered that in the young French socialist intelligentsia that emerged from May 68 (Desproges, Coluche, Bedos, Cavanna, Renaud, etc ...), the period 1978-1989 was the heyday of the "idiots". Anyone who didn't think like them was a jerk. And apart from the idiots, there were the bastards (the case of Faurisson for example). In short, a totally Manichean way of thinking. All the opposite of an open and tolerant state of mind. And it was a way of thinking that soaked up the whole young left generation of the time. So even on the part of young journalists, there was no reason to expect a very open mind and a very liberal and tolerant spirit.
In addition, the revisionists could publish books if they wanted. There was not yet the Fabius-Gayssot law. So their freedom to express themselves was not in danger at the time. Which means that the journalists of Le Monde should have thought that they could very well continue to refuse to publish their writings without affecting freedom of expression. And since the revisionists were already considered to be Hitler's reincarnation, the leadership of the World would obviously have used all arguments for refusing a forum for Faurisson (as she had been doing for years). Publish its letters was to help revisionism when it did not need it.
In short, the explanation for the defense of freedom of expression is not credible.
So, it is only his aggression that can possibly justify the publication of Faurisson. But, that was not enough. If these newspapers had absolutely refused to publish his letters, that is not an aggression which was going to be able to justify that they do it. It's a bit as if Le Monde had agreed to publish the writings of a Nazi professor because he was allegedly assaulted. Especially since it was not them who had attacked Faurisson, and not even people of their tendency Politics. They were communist students apparently. So they owed no reparation to the latter. They could very well publish an article disapproving of these methods without publishing its letter. [Page 7]
As for the idea that young people could have doubted the official truth if they had not been able to their opinion based on the writings of Faurisson is just as ridiculous.
Already, at the base, it is the newspapers, which informed the young people in question of the existence of this thesis. Without them, it would only have been known to a few dozen people. So invoke the fact that the theories were already too well known to be ignored, and that they had to be avoided spread more clandestinely, to justify the fact that they published the ideas of Faurisson is forgetting that they were responsible for all of this. It makes you think of the firefighter arsonist who says "luckily I was there, otherwise everything would have gone up in smoke".
But, at that time, even with the few articles in the newspapers on revisionism, very few people knew about the thing. So this story of the youth who risk adopting revisionist ideas is ridiculous. Only a few thousand young people had to have read the 2 or 3 articles on the subject (apart from a small part of the students in law or in human sciences, it is not so much the young people who read the World, but the adults). Among most of them must have considered this idea ridiculous and had forgotten it immediately. Alone a few hundred had to remember it. And of this number, the overwhelming majority must have said that this theory was grotesque, scandalous and the fact of one or two mentally ill. There was no have only a few dozen young people who could potentially have some doubts. And seen that no revisionist book was freely sold, without newspapers for information, it It was impossible for them to learn more about the subject. It was enough then not to speak about it anymore in the newspapers so that they quickly forget about it. So there was absolutely no danger to official theory.
Besides, it never bothered the official newspapers to distort the truth, to shout haro on such or some disturbing person or group of people, without citing their writings or giving them a right Answer. This is the practically constant rule (at 99.9%).
So the explanation given in 2012 by Le Monde is not credible for a second.
But hey, these considerations are not very important, since anyway, at the time as now, the newspapers were under the command of the elite and would never have published a theory putting it really in danger. And since the elite were bound to be aware of the extreme fragility of the official version, it is obvious that the instruction was to apply the most censorship extreme. So, libertarian spirit or not, beating Faurisson or not, they would never have him given the floor or even would have spoken of him.
But, what is interesting here is not only the explanation of the World itself, but
also why this newspaper insisted on giving this explanation. For that, we must be aware of
stages of the revisionist plan mounted by the elite.
We can roughly estimate that there were 5 phases in the revisionist project for the moment : [Page 8]
1) The first books on the subject around 1950 (Rassinier and Bardèche)
2) The Faurisson affair and the rise (thanks to the media) of the revisionism of
second generation between 1979 and 1990
3) The Fabius-Gayssot law in 1990 and its variations in other European countries
4) The arrival of the Internet and the first revisionist sites around 1996, which allowed a
first increase in the number of supporters of revisionism
5) The expansion of conspiratorial ideas in the 2010s, the promotion of these ideas by
agents of influence and the exit of revisionism from its ghetto
However, during the first 4 phases of this elite project, it was practically impossible to say it was a (project), both from the 5 th stage, the plan starts to become visible. In Indeed, we feel that revisionism is starting to take off in certain countries. It's no longer a movement which only a few thousand people adhere to. Now there are dozens, hundreds of thousands of people who believe in a country like France. It is of course still quite a few compared to the total population (60 million). But it's already huge. And the number is only growing. People are more and more uninhibited about this subject. They don't go not yet talk about it in public, but they no longer have mental barriers preventing them from getting out of the official theory. And many now post their support anonymously, on forums and blog comments. At this stage, we can still think that it is a natural progression. But, since most of the successful ideas movements are organized by the elite, it is already very probable that it is she who is behind this take-off of revisionism.
Moreover, not only is revisionism spreading, but agents of influence are beginning to promote it. And that is a huge red flag. It is then clear that if revisionism is starting to take off, is that the elite want it to be.
And suddenly, in the minds of a handful of people (in fact, only one at the moment) can begin to emerge the idea that, if revisionism begins to spread strongly, if agents of the elite promote it, if there are these illogisms concerning certain figures of the revisionism, it may well be that it was from the start a project of the elite.
And we can think that the elite were aware that from this phase, all that could end up sound weird to people who think. So they had to prevent these ideas preventively. subversive This is why in August 2012, the newspaper Le Monde suddenly felt the need to justify this enormous oddity that is the publication of Faurisson's letter with this article. It was preventative damage control.
1.3) The Faurisson affair actually went back much further [Page 9]
By digging deeper into the Faurisson affair, we see that it dated back much longer than late 1978. In fact, it dates from at least 1974 , four and a half years before the letters published in the World.
Indeed, on this site dedicated to Faurisson, there are letters sent by the latter to various newspapers and correspondents, as well as articles on him. And we discover on this page and this page , that in early 1974 he had sent a revisionist letter (with the letterhead of his university) to various recipients, historians and known specialists, throughout the world. One of them was Dr Aryeh Leon Kubovy, director of the Tel Aviv Jewish Documentation Center (in fact, he was apparently director of the Yad Vashem International Center for Research on the Shoah in Jerusalem) also founder (1936) and former secretary general of the World Jewish Congress (1945-1948) (see here ). This said in essence:
"Sir,
May I allow myself to ask you for your feeling, your personal feeling, on a point of contemporary history: do the Hitler gas chambers seem to you to have been a myth or reality? Could you please specify me in your answer what credit do you think should be given to the "Gerstein document", to the confession of R. Höss, to the testimony Nyiszli (should we say Nyiszli-Kremer?) and, in general, to what has been written about this point of view on Auschwitz, on Zyklon B gas, on the acronym "NN" ("Nacht und Nebel" or "Nomen Nescio "?) And on the formula of" final solution "?
Has your opinion on the possibility of the existence of these chambers changed since 1945 or has it remained she today what she was twenty-nine years ago?
Until now I have not been able to discover photographs of gas chambers which appear to present some guarantee of authenticity. Neither the Center de documentation juive de Paris, nor the Institut für Zeitgeschichte of Munich could not provide me. Would you have any knowledge of photographs to be included in the file of the question?
Thanks in advance for your response and maybe for your help. Please receive, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration.
PS Did you personally have access to the originals of the Gerstein, Höss or Nyiszli documents? Do you know someone who you are sure has had access to these originals? "
Only, it turns out that Dr. Kubovy had been dead for 8 years (May 16, 1966). His heirs then entrusted his letter to the Israeli daily Yediot Aharouot [Aharonot]. And the latter published it in his Number 26 May 1974, in a truncated form. On June 14, 1974 , it was the Tribune juive- Weekly which publishes the letter (see here ). Quickly, the daily Le Canard Enchainé got wind of this published in this Israeli newspaper and edited a small article on July 17, 1974 , citing the letter. The article is of course completely dependent and tries to ridicule Faurisson. On this other page, we learn that the newspaper Le Monde also published an article (written by Charlotte Delbo), where is resumed the circular letter in question.
Obviously, the article is also dependent, as we can see in this letter from Faurisson August 2012: " From August 11, 1974, with the publication of a testimony by Charlotte Delbo entitled "[Page 10] Demystify or falsify? », Le Monde had expressed its hostility to revisionism in general and to my positions in particular. "
A priori, the publication date must be August 11, since it says in this letter of 1977: " Le Monde owes me reparation. He insulted me on August 11, 1974 and denied me any right of reply.
Faurisson has also sent a letter to the World the 1 st August 1974 , without it being published.
In his letter to Mrs Olga Wormser-Migot dated August 18, 1977, we learn that it has been cited by others during this period.
" You were not mistaken. Here is a short list of the troubles I encountered:
Press campaign that started from Israel in 1974, Tribune juive-Hebdo, Le Canard enchaîné, Le Monde , Le Right to Live , L'Humanité (it seems), Chief Rabbi Kaplan on television ; they name me; I am designates; my personal address is published; I receive a flood of threatening letters, sometimes signed their authors and on letterhead; offensive registration at my home; name calling; my daughter insulted; my wife insulted. "
So we would have talked about him also in the Right to Live, perhaps Humanity, and on television, in plus the 4 other journals already cited.
In the newspaper "the story", we also learn that a letter from him was published in November 1975
in the journal Historama and another in Historia in August 1977 :
" He succeeded in having two letters published in the letters of the readers of magazines intended for the great public Historama (November 1975) and Historia (August 1977, about the gas chamber of the Struthof). "
On Wikipedia, we learn that Historia titled 300,000 copies in the 60s. 1975, it should still sell at least 150,000 copies, maybe 200,000.
We have confirmation on this blog for the letter published in the newspaper Historia in August 1977 (page ).
In the 2012 article in Le Monde, we learn in passing that this is not the first article in the World that deals with the subject of revisionism. There had already been a year and a half before ( July 17 1977 ), written by Pierre Viansson-Ponté. This is an article on a 45-page booklet of a English scholar (Richard E. Harwood), titled: " Did Six Million Really Die? ". [I recall the Zundelsite being mentioned, with its URL address, in the British Mensa magazine. And comments that the piece was repeated on many sites, for free speech reasons, not necessarily because they believed it. -RW 11.feb.2021] Apparently Richard E. Harwood is the pseudonym of Richard Verrall, a member of the British National Front. But the BNF denied it at the time. It is obviously a dependent article (it is called "the lie"). We have the following extracts: " It all seems so stupid, so fantastic, if monstrous with stupidity as much as with ignominy, that we are tempted to throw away this so-called brochure (...) and not to think about it anymore. Well ! We would be wrong! ";" if fathers of families who were not born in 1945 are questioned by their children about this kind of writing, will they know how to immediately set the record straight ?
Faurisson also wrote a few letters to Le Monde in 1977, including this one in which he mentions this article. [Page 11]
And even at the time of the publication of the letters in Le Matin de Paris and Le Monde, the affair had already started some time before. In fact, in the book "Histoire du negationnisme en France", from Valérie Igounet, we also learn that the newspaper " Defense of the West " of June 1978 (n ° 158) would have published an article of (or on) Robert Faurisson entitled " the problem of the gas chambers ". The newspaper in question was that edited by Maurice Bardèche. One might think that the thing was not unknown to the major newspapers, which were to make newspapers of the extreme right.
And we learn here that the affair of revisionism had begun on October 28, 1978 in the weekly L'Express , 17 days before publication in Le Matin de Paris and 1 and a half months before that of the World. There was interviewed on 15 pages a certain Louis Darquier de Pellepoix , one of the responsible for the Vel d'Hiv raid and former head of Jewish affairs for Marshal Pétain (who ruled France during the German occupation). Regarding the massacre of six million Jews by the Nazis, he said, " This figure," he wrote, "is an outright invention of Jewish propaganda. " AT Speaking of Auschwitz, he declares: " We gassed, yes, that's true, but we gassed lice ... to disinfect clothes " . Finally, he considers that the photos showing piles of corpses are " Faked photos ". L'Express was also a major title at the time among the weekly newspapers.
And, for the Express, we are in the same situation as that of the Morning, but even more marked. Indeed, since 1977, the newspaper belongs to James Goldsmith , half-Jewish by his father (but who asserts that he occasionally attends Jewish services "not as a religious act, but by memory and respect for my father "). Jean-François Revel became its director the same year. However, he has been married since 1967 to Claude Sarraute, a Jewish woman, with whom he had two children in 1966 and 1968. Olivier Todd is appointed editor-in-chief. And this one was half a Jew since he was the son of Julius Oblatt, an Austro-Hungarian Jewish architect (that said, he was supposedly abandoned in his birth by the latter and raised by his mother; but it is possible that this one had origins Jewish). He married Anne-Marie Nizan in 1948, a Jewish woman, with whom he had two children, Emmanuel and Camille, who are therefore technically Jewish. Finally, Raymond Aron , a well-known Jew, joins the editorial staff as a columnist then chairman of the editorial committee.
In short, we had CEO James Goldsmith who was half-Jewish. Jean-François Revel, married to a Jewish woman for 10 years and father of two Jews. Olivier Todd, son of a Jew, and a mother possibly of Jewish origin, married to a Jewess and therefore having two Jewish children. And Raymond Aron, a Jew. So there, not only the CEO was Jewish, but downright the director, editor and chairman of the editorial board are either Jewish, half-Jewish, or married to a Jewess and with Jewish children.
And, as Jews or involved in the Jewish community, it doesn't bother them in the least. to advertise the revisionist ideas of a type of extreme right, which is more old Vichy government commissioner general for Jewish questions. There is not even the excuse indulgence towards someone on the left or apolitical like Faurisson. We have a fascist, party responsible for the Vel d'Hiv roundup, which says that the holocaust never existed. But no, no problem, they publish the revisionist passage. Especially that they could have censored this [Page 12] part. It wouldn't have been a problem for them. Le Matin did invent details in Faurisson's interview and cut large chunks of his interview. So we don't see why the Express would not have done it for Darquier.
And even assuming these officials were not made aware of the article (which would be extremely surprising), anyway, the journalists working for them would have been terrified to the idea of publishing such ideas without having told them before. They would have known that their career could stop overnight because of it.
So, it is clear that, again, such words would never have been published if it had not part of an elite plan.
And then we learn that this publication has not remained without a follow-up, as we can imagine. It immediately created a national controversy, with the intervention of many politicians, journalists and intellectuals. For example, again in the book "Histoire du negationnisme en France", we learn that there was also a broadcast on radio Europe 1 on October 30, 1978 , dealing with the case Darquier de Pellepoix or Ivan Levaï would have received Simone Veil. The show was reportedly quoted in the Express of 4-11 November 1978 , which would have returned to the case (testimony section). In the same book, we have a reference saying that the Express would have spoken about the case again in the issue of 11-18 November 1978 ("Postscript to the Affair" by Raymond Aron).
As for Faurisson, there were also reactions in the newspaper Liberation and on radio Europe 1 following his interview in Le Matin de Paris. This is what we can see in the book " Nursing body- cared for bodies: towards an overhaul of ethics ?: The trial of major war criminals and the trial doctors in Nuremberg 1946-2006, educational questions raised by these events ", Anne-Marie Bégué-Simon, Editions Publibook, 2008 - 165 pages, page 55:
"His letter will not be a dead letter and, on November 16, 1978 ," Le Matin de Paris "title in its page" the event ":" The gas chambers: that does not exist ". This publication quickly evokes the life and the "far-right tendencies" of the Lyon teacher to then reproduce extracts from his interview.
The next day , the newspaper " Liberation " publishes an article " Anti-Semitism: after the Darquier, Legitay, Bousquet, the Faurisson affair, a university chair to deny the gas chambers ". This inaugurates a series of publications and the following days, "Liberation" publishes three new articles : "The teaching of anti-Semitism", "Anti-Semitic works from a college professor "," Robert Faurisson's lessons, the anti-Semitic teacher, temporarily suspended " . Finally, the radio station Europe n ° 1 , reached by telephone the academic Lyonnais whose voice "passes on the air for a brief moment ".
In other words, it created a real scandal. It makes things even worse for the World (and in to a lesser extent, for the Morning), because we cannot say that they were taken by surprise. The, there had been a strong current of disapproval of these ideas for the past few months. So these logs had even less reason to publish Faurisson's theories. [Page 13]
And at the end of 1978, Faurisson had not been unknown to these newspapers for no less than 4 and a half years. We try to make us believe that it was someone that Le Monde and the other newspapers do not did not know outside the literature and that, suddenly, it would have been below the detection threshold censorship radars. And that's why we would have made the mistake of publishing his letters. But if he was known for so long, this argument collapses. It then becomes inexplicable that these newspapers published these letters from Faurisson. If they did, it is necessarily because the elite told them to make.
And in general, since 1974, the elite would have had plenty of time to organize the counterattack and by blacklisting Faurisson from all media. If she didn't do anything, it was because it was wanted.
Well, obviously, this argument of the publication of the letters because Faurisson was an unknown is ridiculous anyway. Whether it was known or not, it would never have been published. Censorship would have it constantly sidelined. He could have sent 10,000 letters to the World, been the most perfect anonymous and being beaten up twenty times for his opinions wouldn't have changed a thing. But there, in addition, it was not not at all unknown to major newspapers. So even this fallacious argument does not hold water.
So, one could say that he was known anyway, since he had written 29 revisionist letters to the
newspaper Le Monde (and probably others to other newspapers) and that, suddenly, the argument
that I am developing here has only a small range and is more or less useless. But, it is not there at all
same thing. To justify the publication of the letter of December 1978, one can defend the idea that
Faurisson's letters were only known to a small circle of people in the newspapers concerned
(and therefore, probably not even management staff) and that he was therefore below the detection threshold
the elite (the people in charge of the readers' mail were not going to warn them or even
only the direction of the newspaper of the existence of all the "nuts" who defend theories
dissenters). Suddenly, the hypothesis that the elite and their subordinates were taken by surprise by this
type out of nowhere is possibly possible. But there with the information I have
presented, this means that all the newspaper management and all the journalists
were aware of Faurisson's existence. This means that it is impossible for the elite and their
agents were not notified of the problem and did not take appropriate action to
blacklist Faurisson from all media.
And then, if we say that the letters were sufficient in themselves for it to be detected by the nomenklatura obedient to the elite, anyway, the problem is ultimately the same. The elite would have had to do everything possible so that it did not receive any publicity. In fact, the elite wouldn't even have had need to decide and act; his agents would have done it for him.
1.4) The interventions of Chomsky and Cohn-Bendit
In addition, Faurisson very quickly received the support of two intellectuals: Noam Chomsky (an American) and Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit (a German, but having lived mainly in France). And [Page 14]
once again, these are left-wing Jews! And one (Chomsky) is the son of two teachers
Hebrew. Obviously, neither of them recognized that his theses were correct. They only have
said he had the right to defend them freely.
About Cohn-Bendit, we can read on Wikipedia :
" Gabriel Cohn-Bendit, who had the opportunity to meet Faurisson in November 1978 by the intermediary of Pierre Guillaume, takes his defense in an article entitled "Question of principle "of the newspaper Liberation of March 5, 1979 , writing thus:" What I refuse to do, y understood to the neo-Nazis, I am not ready to accept that we do it to men like Rassinier or Faurisson, who I know has nothing to do with them, and the lawsuit against him reminds me more the Inquisition than a fight against the return of the worst ". "
" In December 1980 , he intervened in the lawsuit brought by LICRA against Faurisson to express his reluctance to solve a history problem by legal means and to clarify its involvement in the case Faurisson. "
" Finally, in the spring of 1981 , Gabriel Cohn-Bendit publicly announced his separation from the clan Faurissonian. "
Regarding Noam Chomsky , he too defended Faurisson's right to defend his theses.
His role began at the end of 1979 with the signing of a petition co-signed by around 600 others. people (see here ) in favor of Faurisson's freedom of expression.
Of course, the petition also served to give weight to Faurisson's work. So much intellectuals supported him, including some prominent ones like Chomsky, is that it was someone. He wasn't an insignificant guy.
Then Chomsky wrote an essay titled " Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression " and authorizes to use it for any purpose. That's what Serge Thion and Pierre do Guillaume in 1980 as a preface to a book by Faurisson.
The affair continued in December 1980, since Chomsky first dissociated himself from Faurisson by sending a letter to the French writer Jean-Pierre Faye that he reveals in the broadcast of the French television channel "Antenne 2" on December 18, 1980 . Then he goes back on that statement the same day in an interview with the United States correspondent of the Italian daily La Stampa, M. Furio Colombo (see here ) .
The important part of his role ends more or less on this date.
However, it has been a long time since the conspirators understood that Chomsky is an agent of the system, a
Basic gatekeeper intended to guide people to theories that are safe for the system. And seen
his career and his notoriety, he is very probably a member of the elite. [Page 15]
As for Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit, even if he seems to have done nothing extraordinary in his life, he you should know that it is the brother of Daniel Cohn-Bendit, who clearly belongs to the elite (the most known to the French protest movement of May 68, environmental politician since the 80s in Germany, MEP, darling of the French media). And if Daniel Cohn-Bendit is part of the elite, it is obviously the case of all his family. Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit is therefore not anybody ; he is a member of the elite.
Again, it is impossible that two agents of influence and a member of the elite decided to support Faurisson on their own. If they did, it is inevitably that the elite ordered them to do so. make.
Why did the latter order them that? What was his interest? Here the dates are important. It can be seen that the role of Cohn-Bendit and Chomsky lasted until about the half of 1981. In my opinion, with the trials, it enabled the Faurisson affair to go beyond the two articles in Le Matin and du Monde and to continue to advertise revisionism. If not, Faurisson would have fallen almost immediately into oblivion. There, in part thanks to Cohn-Bendit and Chomsky, we talked about it for two and a half years in the newspapers, on the radio and on television, which made it possible to introduce revisionism to all people with a little culture.
Another important element was that they were people on the left. Cohn-Bendit was downright extreme left. And Chomsky was on the left. It is true that the American left was more to the right than the French left. But at the time, she was still quite left. And he was an intellectual admired by French leftists at that time. Why choose two agents of influence from left rather than right to defend Faurisson? Well quite simply to justify that their opinions were published in left-wing newspapers and, in fact, published at all. If it had been right-wing figures, they could have been suspected of sympathy with Nazism and therefore, it would have been difficult to justify publishing their opinions, even in right-wing newspapers (since then, the right-wing newspapers still all claimed to be part of the resistance legacy). So that there, the left-wing newspapers that published their opinions on the affair could say that they had done because these people were unsuspected of sympathy with Nazism. And in addition, they were Jews, so even less suspected of having links with the extreme right.
Of course, the multiple trials that Faurisson had in the 1980s have further contributed to making talk about him. Every time he was convicted or appealed, we talked about him.
This intervention by Chomsky and Cohn-Bendit also served to partly explain that the media
did not organize a blackout on Faurisson. The support of left-wing intellectuals (one known, and
the other less, but who was the brother of the famous archi Daniel Cohn-Bendit), led to a debate on the
freedom of expression between great intellectuals, journalists, etc ..., as well as a kind of floating
in the media regarding the Faurisson case. It justified for a time that instead of organizing
the omerta against him, we continue to talk about him. Without this support it would have been more difficult
to explain later that the media did not immediately stop talking about him. [Page 16]
1.5) Articles and interventions in the post-affair media of Le Monde
As you might expect, the case does not end there.
Apparently, another letter was published, this time in the Nouvel Observateur of April 15 1979 (see the book " Histoire du negationnisme en France ", by Valérie Igounet). So after that the Faurisson affair broke out.
There is also an interview with Robert Faurisson in " Storia Illustrata " (Italy) in August 1979 (n ° 261, see here ) , directed by Antonio Pitamitz. Again, the interview took place after Faurisson had done scandal in France and became a man to be killed in Europe.
Then, he was invited to the radio " Europe 1 " on September 17, 1980 , by Ivan Levaï (a Jew and obviously an elite agent given his career), as we can see here .
It is also on Wikipedia :
" Faurisson is condemned again, this time to three months suspended prison sentence and a 5,000 F fine, for having declared on Europe 1, December 17, 1980 : "The alleged Hitler gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which gigantic politico-financial fraud whose main beneficiaries are the State of Israel and the international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people, but not its leaders, and the entire Palestinian people. "."
For foreign readers, Europe 1 was at the time the radio with the most audience in France, with RTL (at worst, it was 2nd in some years).
But there, Faurisson had already become public enemy number 1. We have seen that he should have already been before the Le Monde affair at the end of 1978, since it had been known to newspapers since 1974. But in 1981, it was downright become the man to be officially killed. So it was even more inconceivable that he be invited to Europe 1 (and that we talk about him in the Nouvel Observateur and in Storia Illustrata).
By the way, Ivan Levai is apparently a Zionist. He published in 2006 a book entitled " Israel my love ". The caption of the book says: "The more you judge, the less you love. In fifty years of trips to the "Middle East", Ivan Levaï saw his love for the Jewish people grow and lost all desire to participate in the systematic denunciation of Israel's policy " In addition, it is necessary to know that Ivan Levaï was at the time the husband of Anne Sinclair, also a Jewess (and obviously a member of the elite given his career). However, this one is known to have declared in 1979 " I do not believe that I would have married a non-Jew " (see here ) . So we had a nice couple of Zionists. So it says that it was Anne Sinclair who would have made him return to Jewishness. Which means that at the base, he was not interested not to the Jewish religion. But hey, in 1981 he had been married to her for 5 years (1976). He had already had time to come back to it. So at the time Levai was most likely already a Jewish communitarian. And anyway, he was clearly a member of the elite, given his entire professional background. This makes Faurisson's interview even more illogical.
Another thing, the interview with Faurisson should have led the elite to sack Ivan Levaï after the fact (if that had been a simple ordinary guy). It should have been seen as a huge misstep. But, no, he received no sanction. On the contrary, he wrote a few months later the speech of [Page 17] François Mitterrand after his victory in the presidential election in June 1981. In September 1981, he was appointed special advisor to the deputy president of Europe 1 (Jean-Luc Lagardère) for the development of station programs. He created the daily program (8 pm to 11 pm) " Radio Libre à ... " in June 1981. He then took charge of the editorial staff of Europe 1 (1983-1985). So instead of being criticized for having played the game of revisionism, no one holds it against him and his career continues to grow progress. And that's the case quite simply because he did what the elite asked him to do.
Moreover, concerning the argument that we were in a time of great freedom expression, questioning of authority, and delusions of all kinds, we cannot say that direction of Europe 1 swam in fantasy and rebellion, very far from it. Europe 1 was a radio serious in all that was political, historical, social, etc ... And it was particularly the case of Ivan Levaï and his political broadcasts. So, if Faurisson went to the latter, it is not because young libertarians of May 68 would have decided for the sake of freedom of expression. it is once again that we wanted to make it known.
Faurisson is again quoted in the media during the years 1981 and 1982. This is the case on the French TV channel " Antenne 2 ". At the time, Antenne 2 was the 2 nd most watched chain France, just behind TF1.
We have for example the chief rabbi René Samuel Sirat, who is invited to the program "Cartes sur table" (see here ) on January 12, 1981 . He speaks, among other things, even if in a veiled way, of Faurisson and revisionism (one of the questions is in fact: " What to answer to an academic who calls into question the existence of concentration camps? ").
He is quoted in the newspaper 20h 1 st June 1981 , by journalist Paul Lefevre (see here) about his trial for incitement to racial hatred brought by Licra and associations of former deportees.
This is also the case on June 25, 1981 , again in the 8 p.m. newspaper of Antenne 2 ( here ) , for the same reason.
Then, on July 3, 1981 , in the late night newspaper of Antenne 2 (see here ). It says on the summary of the show: " Robert Faurisson has just been sentenced for incitement to racial hatred and defamation racial. In his books and statements, this history teacher maintains that the gas chambers and the Jewish genocide during World War II did not exist ".
We are still talking about revisionism and Faurisson on Antenne 2, on the Apostrophe program, on March 12 1982 ("Watch out for the march of history", here ) . The intellectual Alain Finkielkraut talks about his book " The future of a negation: reflection on the question of genocide ", which deals with the subject of revisionism and Faurisson. Apostrophe was an extremely popular literary program at this time (and in 1982-83, it was at its peak, with a 12% market share). It was in the 2nd part of the evening (9:30 p.m.).
And of course, both for the conviction during his 1981 trial, and for the book by Finkielkraut, most other media must have talked about it at the time. [Page 18]
The fact that one speaks regularly about Faurisson and revisionism at this time is confirmed in the book " History of negationnism in France " by Valérie Igounet, it is said that " the years of the affair Faurisson correspond to an unprecedented media coverage of the negationist discourse ".
These articles, interviews, reports, etc., are even more illogical than those of the end of 1978, seen the extent of the Faurisson affair. At least, before the affair, we could say that Faurisson was still relatively unknown to the general public. But this was no longer the case. So continue to talking about it clearly gave him huge publicity. Each article, each report in the newspapers, television or radio, it was hundreds of thousands more people, even millions, who were aware of the existence of revisionism. The media should have close the Pandora's box immediately. But they obviously did not, since the plan of the elite was in fact to propagate revisionist theory.
And the reason for these articles and reports is the same as for the case of the petition in support of Faurisson. He had to continue to be talked about for years to come, so that he, no only does not fall back into oblivion, but even becomes even more famous. Advertising for a product or individual needs to be repeated over and over again for people to remember it exists and others are finding out.
1.6) Faurisson had already been invited to television and quoted in the newspapers for his literary theories
It's more anecdotal, but reading Faurisson's biography, we realize that he had already been
guest on television. And we had also talked about him in the newspapers. Moreover, the media
present as an avid type of recognition, which allows them to justify that he wrote if
often to newspapers to publish his revisionist theses.
Sure Wikipedia , it is said that in 1961 , at the age of 32, Robert Faurisson published in the journal Bizarre, edited by Jean-Jacques Pauvert, a study of the work of Arthur Rimbaud, under the title "A-t-on lu Rimbaud? ".
We learn in this article from Le Monde that on February 3, 1962 , a linguist analyzed the text of Faurisson on Rimbaud.
Again on Wikipedia: " Robert Faurisson published in January 1971 a first article devoted to Lautréamont in La Nouvelle Revue française , entitled "Les divertissements d'Isidore". There is presents his thesis on Lautréamont. The Chants of Maldoror and the Poems would be a parody, there still unsuspected until this demystification. The article is hailed in Rivarol. Invited by Michel Polac on the Post-scriptum literary program on April 24, 1971 , Robert Faurisson is notably there confronted with Gérard Legrand. He provocatively argues that it is enough to study the text "flush daisies "to see" the most beautiful literary mystification "that we have ever seen. " [Page 19]
Here , we speak of La Nouvelle Revue Française as being a prestigious Gallimard review.
It is also published again by Gallimard for his book "A-t-on lu Lautréamont?", On the 16th November 1972.
And as we can read in the excerpt above, he was invited by Michel Polac to his show of television "Postscript", April 27, 1971, to discuss the controversy he introduced on songs of Maldoror.
Moreover, in the article in Le Monde of 2012, it is said that this controversy over the songs of Maldoror was treated in the literary pages of the newspaper Le Monde at this time (around 1971 or 72). Apparently, several response letters from Faurisson have been published.
What you might think is that he was quoted and invited in the media to make sure he could
then explain why the newspapers agreed to talk about his revisionist theories. If it
had been a complete stranger, it would have been really very bizarre for Le Matin de Paris, le Monde and
other newspapers have spoken of him. But if he already had a little notoriety in addition to being a teacher
university, it was becoming more normal.
The fact that he defended heretical theories already in matters of literature also allowed to explain that it came to revisionist ideas. Otherwise, we might have wondered how a such a thing had been possible.
1.7) The attitude of Faurisson and the revisionists towards conspiracy and the attitude of the conspirators towards revisionism between 1998 and 2009
The attitude of Faurisson and the supporters of revisionism at the time of the arrival of conspiracy is
weird too. Faurisson and the other revisionists should have been seduced by this news
theories. All the more so as indirectly, they went in the direction of revisionism. Indeed, the
conspiracy is a bloc, if governments lie about 9/11 then they could
lie about the holocaust. This is also why the elite rejects conspiracy in their
together. If any conspiracy turns out to be true, then that's the whole block of official truth
that collapses. It is therefore appropriate for the authorities not to let anything go.
Suddenly, Faurisson and the other great figures of revisionism could have used the news conspiratorial theories as elements going in the direction of their ideas. But no, like it's a shame they didn't do any such thing. This while others were doing it without hesitation.
In addition, the official media present Faurisson to us as a type very attracted by what could be talked about. However, it had become impossible for him to express himself in public on the subject of revisionism after the Gayssot law in 1990. This meant that it was all the same in decline [Page 20] at the media level. So, if what had really motivated him was to get attention, the conspiracy would have been a perfect opportunity to talk about him again.
And there, the revisionists did not have to fear any prohibition, any censorship law. So they could give it to their heart's content. Those who were too exposed to be able to speak again in countries practicing censorship could have found a derivative and could thus have made a snubbing the authorities. But no, nothing at all. They hardly spoke about it.
So they should have rushed to these new theories. They should have wanted to make the connection with revisionism. He would have benefited from this openness of historical figures of the revisionism to new conspiratorial ideas.
And in general, even without the objective of taking advantage of new theories to make publicity to revisionism, the "historical" revisionists should have defended these ideas by solidarity and intellectual interest, out of love for the truth.
That they did not do so is very suspicious. It goes completely in the direction of the idea that they were not what they appeared to be and that they were in fact agents.
For their part, at least initially, most of the conspirators dealt very little with the
revisionism. The anti-Illuminati didn't talk about it at all. And the conspiratorial nationalists
spoke very little about it. Some do; but this tendency remained in the minority. And she was
located mainly in the USA.
So it is true that revisionism was banned in many countries. But it was not at USA. So it was quite possible to set up a website in this country and be untouchable. By elsewhere, even English-language sites created by Americans spoke relatively little of it. Yet they feared nothing of justice.
It is also true that there was the anti-Semitic label put on the revisionists. But that's not the sort of thing that could have stopped the anti-Illuminati conspiracies. And it should have stopped even less the nationalists.
So the anti-Illuminati were supposed not to care about this. But still, it was a conspiracy like any other. And besides, many of them ended up coming there.
So, it's weird that the conspirators talked about it so little. It's weird for the anti-illuminatis and it is for the nationalists.
I think the reason for this is that while revisionism had been successful as early as the late 1990s (in investing in new conspiracy tendencies or even doing nothing), it could have contaminate conspiratorial tendencies for which revisionism was not intended. So he revisionism had to remain confidential at that time.
The tendency that should not be contaminated is the nationalist . Indeed, it seems clear that eventually, the nationalists will make an alliance with the Jews and the Democrats, at least in Europe. And that, that [Page 21] excludes anti-Semitism, since Jews are untouchable among Democrats. So the revisionism was to spread as little as possible in this circle. There had to be a few to maintain a certain coherence, since, traditionally, nationalists were supposed to be anti-Semitic. But it had to be very minority tendencies and considered generally as extremists.
On the other hand, it was necessary that it spread among the anti-illuminatis , since, during the 3 rd world war, a good part will be on the Muslim side, against the democrats, the nationalists and the Jews. But the problem is that at the start of conspiracy in the early 2000s, it was rather the nationalists who leaned towards revisionism and the anti-conspiracy Illuminati who were against anti-Semitism and revisionism.
So, it was necessary to achieve a shift of anti-Semitism from the nationalist tendency towards the anti-illuminati trend. And it obviously took time to achieve such a thing. Elite had to work the minds of the nationalists to keep them as far as possible from anti-Semitism, then that the Jews become outright their friends. And on the contrary, it was necessary to work the minds of the anti- illuminatis so that they become more and more Judeo-critical. During this period of time (say between 1998 and 2009), revisionist ideas had to be kept very confidential. Otherwise this could have thwarted the work of abandoning anti-Semitism in the nationalist tendency. And it would have been able to hold up a lot of people starting to take an interest in anti-Illuminati ideas. Then once minds well reoriented in the two tendencies, it became possible to democratize the revisionism. There the minds of the anti-Illuminati were ready to accept these ideas, and the minds of the nationalists were ready to reject them en bloc in a hysterical fashion. This is why the democratization of revisionism happened during the 2010s. There, most of the nationalists Europeans had become totally anti-Muslim and very pro-Jewish. And for their part, the anti- Illuminati had become very open to Judeo-critical ideas. And it's in this anti- circle Illuminati that we made sure to democratize revisionism.
And that is why, on the one hand, the revisionists have remained outside this explosion of conspiracy theories during the years 1998-2009 and that, on the other hand, the nationalists and after all, conspirators have spoken very little about revisionist theories.
So there are still Judeo-critical nationalists. But now, they are very much in the minority nationalist parties. And they are there persona non grata. The slightest negative allusion to the Jews can their exclusion.
An ancillary interest in the fact that all the revisionists of that time remained persecuted by
elite and very little followed by the people (even by their intellectual elite) is that it allowed
no one ever thinks that revisionism is an elite project. Then nothing prevented that
revisionist ideas are not taken up by new generations. But by having this
generation of revisionists martyred until the end by the whole of society, that established the authenticity
of this movement. When people become martyrs, who can dare to doubt their sincerity?
Beings who have become legends, heroes, saints, are above all criticism and
any doubt about their honesty. [Page 22]
However, if the revisionists had started to adopt the new conspiracy theories (anti-illuminatis), given the success of the latter from the 2000s, they could have been seen under a positive angle. As allies of the anti-Illuminati movement, they would have been considered friends of the truth, like good people. They would have received much more support than the few hundred or thousands of people who supported them around the world. So they would have been less in the position of the accursed, of the crucified on the altar of truth.
Suppose that Faurisson suddenly began to say that the lunar missions, the terrorist attacks 2001, atomic bombs, etc., were bogus. Since it was the elite's plan to make the promoting these ideas, he could have surfed the wave. It could have been seen somehow as the father of conspiracy, or at least as a traveling companion. In itself recycling into conspiracy, he could have been in the limelight again.
But in this case, if his new speech had been appreciated, he would have been less of a martyr. Now, for elite, it was more interesting that he remained hated and isolated practically until the end (same the other revisionists), to keep this aura of victimhood as much as possible. By maintaining the revisionist movement in the underground, therefore in the martyr, the idea that it was created by the elite continued to be unthinkable.
So, of course, the elite could have solved this problem by having the stars of the
conspiracy reject Faurisson for anti-Semitism during the period 1998-2009. In
in this case, he would have continued to be isolated and therefore to be a martyr. But then it would have been harder
to explain that, a few years later, it is celebrated. So it was better that he stayed in the shadows
(as well as the other revisionists) during all the period 1998-2009, the time that the ideas
Judeo-critics make their way into the heads of the followers of anti-conspiracy theories.
illuminatis, then that he became a sort of conspiratorial companion towards the end of
his life (from around 2009).
The elite could also have made the pro-conspiracy revisionists only ignored by other conspirators. But that would have been difficult to explain, since it was still huge celebrities.
So, to avoid complications, the elite preferred to keep them out of the new movements, so that they are kept at the margin. They had to remain isolated, not to have no junction with the other conspirators, before the overthrow of the anti-Illuminati towards "anti-Semitism" is not realized.
Moreover, it then made it possible to spread these ideas in a much more important way than with a movement of people who would have started to be successful. Of course, for 35 years it has kept revisionism in a ghetto of a few hundred or thousand people. But, strong of its status as an unjustly and completely hysterical oppressed movement, that then made it possible to spread it all the better to people who think a minimum. [Page 23]
1.8) The attitude of Soral and Dieudonné and other conspirators towards Faurisson in from 2009
Another problem arises concerning the attitude of the conspirators towards the revisionists: the
almost all of the celebrities of conspiracy are agents of power. Then arises the
next question: how is it that many agents of influence supported the
revisionists from the 2010s if the latter are real dissidents?
We can analyze the French case, which is particularly telling, since France is one of the where anti-Semitism will make its most important comeback.
In France as elsewhere in the world, conspiracy movements flourished during the 2000s. And, here too, new personalities have emerged. This is the case of Alain Soral and Dieudonne. Alain Soral is a sort of pamphleteer, polemicist, having gone from criticizing the feminism to those of the Jews. Dieudonné is a stage humorist who has gone from harmless humor to humor criticizing the Jews, the Shoah, etc., in short, the prohibited subjects.
But, of course, Alain Soral like Dieudonné are agents of the elite who are there to make advance "anti-Semitism" and the anti-Illuminati movement and to unite the forces conspiracy and Islamists. It's a bit like Alex Jones in the USA, but a lot more subtle and with a different mission.
And it turns out that at the end of the 2000s, Faurisson began to receive support from Soral and Dieudonne. This support first manifested itself when Faurisson was invited to ride on scene at a Dieudonné show, December 26, 2008, dressed as a German camp convict. The latter made Faurisson applaud by the room. Dieudonné reoffended in March 2009, making downright a sketch with Faurisson wearing a kipa and publishing it on Dailymotion. In November 2009 he released the song "Shoananas" (which must have been invented by elite think tanks).
On October 8, 2011, the website of Equality and Reconciliation ( E&R ), an association created by Soral, published the article: "Blanrue:" I have never caught Faurisson in the act of fraud or lying! "". On October 20, 2011, official ERTV, TV channel of the Egalité et Réconciliation association, published a video titled: Alain Soral "Faurisson oozes the truth". On March 2, 2013, the E&R site published a paper with the title "Interview with Robert Faurisson" (here) . And it continues :
3. August 12, 2014: "It's official, Faurisson was right! ... about the purification by the maquisards" (here)
4. August 19, 2014: "Gregory Chelli attacks Professor Robert Faurisson" (here)
5. January 21, 2015: "Gilad Atzmon meets Robert Faurisson" (here)
6. April 24, 2015: "The revisionist method explained by Professor Faurisson" (here)
7. June 19, 2015: "Interview with Robert Faurisson, persecuted historian" (here)
8. September 22, 2015: "Memorial pornography: the expertise of Professor Faurisson" (here)
9. October 3, 2016: "The ERTV reports - Faurisson trial: a historian pursued by the LICRA " (here)
10. May 23, 2017: "Faurisson counter-attack - ERTV reports" (here) [Page 24]
In short, from 2009, Faurisson received very strong support from Soral and Dieudonné.
However, if Faurisson was a real enemy of the elite, then Soral and Dieudonné would never have supported him. (and through it revisionism) since they are agents. If they did, it confirms once more than in reality Faurisson is also an agent, and that the whole of revisionism is a project of the elite.
And if they supported it, it was to promote the launch of phase 5 of revisionism, which is a
phase of junction with conspiracy.
This period when Faurisson was invited on stage at Dieudonné's, where the latter launched Shoananas, where there have been many articles on Faurisson in the dissident media, served to really launch the revisionism among the masses. With the support of Soral and Dieudonné in Faurisson, all at once, revisionism has been adopted by a lot of ordinary people seduced by conspiracy. From dissidents, he left his ghetto.
This all fits into the elite's plan to escalate " anti-Semitism " in order to force the Jews to go in Israel during World War III. All these dissidents who have become "jew aware" and believe from now on to revisionism see that it is persecuted. They see that those who have a speech Judeo-criticism like Soral and Dieudonné are also. And they become more and more hostile to the Jews.
Of course, the thinking heads of dissent make it clear that it is the Jewish leaders who are to blame and not ordinary Jews. And that's what pretty much all grassroots dissidents think currently. But, when the Muslim / conspiratorial group takes power in France and in a few other European countries it will turn people up against grassroots Jews. And on the other side, the elite will make sure to recruit the grassroots Jews against the Muslim / conspiratorial group. AT because of this, the Muslim / conspiratorial rulers will seem to be right when they say that ordinary Jews are also a problem. So hatred will rise between these communities. And of in any case, the power in question will be of the dictatorial and hysterical kind, which will make the people will have nothing to say. Suddenly, when the time comes, the power in place (pro-Muslim and pro dissident) expel grassroots Jews; or will be so hostile to them that they will almost be forced to go to Israel to assume the role of settlers that the elite want them to play. And there, part of the people will be convinced that it is good. And the other party will have nothing to say anyway.
But, it is likely that even before there are specific measures against the Jews, the laws Muslim institutions are already sufficiently painful, discriminating and disturbing to that a good part of the Jews go to Israel. Insofar as it will be necessary to mount the whites (no believers or Christians) against Arabs and blacks (Muslims), the Muslims / conspirators will probably make laws of dhimmitude, partly enforce sharia, the veil for women, teaching the Koran at school, etc ...
In short, the elite want to promote the rise of anti-Semitism during the period 2010-2040. And the fact to free the word on revisionism is part of that. [Page 25]
And it is moreover this fifth phase of the revisionist project that all of a sudden allows understand that in fact, revisionism was a project of the masters of the world. The fact that agents influence support revisionism makes this clear. If we add to that the behavior illogicality of the media during the 1978-1983 period, and the understanding that the elite actually wanted fostering anti-Semitism to force the rest of the Jews in the diaspora to move to Israel, things become clear.
1.9) Problems with Faurisson's revisionist journey
At a time when there was no Internet and when hardly anyone was a revisionist, we can
wonder how Faurisson could have become so?
So, it is true that in France, Bardèche, but especially Rassinier had already established milestones important by asserting that there had been no homicidal gassings in Buchenwald. So, it is a priori by reading them he was led to question the existence of the gas chambers. And to the extent where he was a literary, it seems possible that he read Bardèche and Rassinier.
And indeed, this is what we can read in the review History. It says there that he first read " Nuremberg or the Promised Land " by Maurice Bardèche in the post-war years, therefore probably around 1948 (date of publication) or one or two years later. Then he reads " Letter to François Mauriac "(1947) and then " Nuremberg II or the counterfeiters "(1952), both more from Bardèche. In 1960, he became aware of the article " No gassing in Dachau " by Martin Broszat, published in Die Zeit, where it is said that ultimately there was no gassing on German soil. Probably shortly after, he discovers " Le Mensonge d'Ulysse " by Paul Rassinier. He starts to correspond with him and the latter becomes his advisor until 1967, when he dies suddenly. In 1967, he attended the library of the Center for Contemporary Jewish Documentation (CDJC), located in Paris. And it was in 1976, by going to the Auschwitz archives, that he made a definitive contribution to revisionism by understanding that, if we were based on official data, the gas chambers could not work.
This is what we can read in the newspaper Le Point .
" In 1976, he went to the Auschwitz archives and spoke of a " revelation . " According to him, the gas chambers could never work based on the plans. Faurisson, compared to his predecessors negationists, brings a technical, pseudo-scientific aspect, and in addition, it has a guarantee university. "
So why not ? With the version presented by the magazine l'Histoire, this revisionist itinerary is possible.
But we will see that there are still some problems. [Page 26]
1.9.1) The unlikely fighter for truth
Already, it is still extraordinary that, of the tens of thousands of people who have read
Bardèche and Rassinier, he found himself a valiant fighter for the truth. And that this one is not
not content to repeat what Rassinier said, but to extend the revision himself to the
entire holocaust. Indeed, of the tens of thousands of people who have read them, most have
must have read them curiously, or must have disapproved more or less strongly. Those who approved them
slightly or moderately in this climate of hysteria against the two authors, and in an era
where war was still very near, must have been a few hundred. And those who
strongly approved had to be barely a few dozen.
So, already, we can say that he was damn strong the Faurisson. At the present time, when we doubt all because we have access to the truth through the Internet, believing lies of this magnitude becomes normal. But at that time, we had no doubts. And suddenly imagining such a lie was quite extraordinary for the time.
But above all, the problem is that we can see that, on the Internet, with tens of millions of people who are interested in conspiracy from near or far, one should hardly have a few dozen real bloggers in the middle of hundreds of fake ones. And that, while on the Internet, we is anonymous, which greatly reduces the danger. And besides, the vast majority of these real bloggers are just picking up things seen elsewhere. Counting large, we must barely have about twenty or thirty of these bloggers who produce original work. And of course the most would not be ready to reveal their true identity, even though conspiracy not illegal and is becoming more and more common. The risk they would take by doing this would be would therefore be situated essentially at the social and professional level (possible disapproval of their superiors, and a small part of their colleagues, acquaintances, friends, family), but not at the legal level. So, out of the initial tens of millions of people, we come to only 4 or 5 people who would be ready to express themselves under their true identity and producing original work.
But there, incredible! Of barely a few dozen readers convinced of Bardèche's thesis, we has a paladin of truth who is ready to screw up his career and possibly his situation financial and his freedom for the sole love of it. He was also in danger of losing most of his friends and being rejected by family, colleagues and all other social connections. Without counting the risk of being beaten by young Jewish or far-left fanatics, which could involve ending up disabled or even being killed. And not only that, but it's also somebody who doesn't just repeat what he's already seen. It innovates and extends the field of analysis of revisionism. Fantastic !
And besides, he does it under his real name. He could have contented himself with writing under a pseudonym, given the certain dangers to which he exposed himself. But no ; not only does he take up revisionist ideas, not only is he able to develop them, he is also an extremely courageous type. who is willing to expose themselves to extreme dangers. Out of a few dozen revisionists, at one a time when these people were hated by all of society, and when it was certain that prosecutions judicial proceedings would be engaged, miracle, we have one who sees no problem in giving his name. [Page 27]
So, we could say that at the time, there was not yet the Fabius-Gayssot law, therefore, there was no risk of legal action. But it's wrong. Indeed, Rassinier and Bardèche had already been condemned in the 1950s for their revisionist writings: Bardèche for apologizing for crimes of war, Rassinier for insults and defamation. Furthermore, before the Gayssot law, Faurisson will be convicted of racial defamation and incitement to racial hatred; defamation; and damage to others. Moreover, in the article " Negationist theses and freedom of expression in France ", Régine Dhoquois, French Ethnology, 2006, it is said concerning the necessity of the Fabius-Gayssot law:
" Apology for crime, defamation, liability for fault, incitement to discrimination, the arsenal legal system seemed sufficient to prosecute and convict the authors of denial writings. "
So the difference between today's conspirators who give their real names and Faurisson is even more startling when it comes to the risks taken. On the one hand, we have no legal risks, relatively few problems with friends, acquaintances, and family if we don't bother them directly with that, and no risk of getting beaten up. Regarding risk of being made redundant or sidelined in their work, it is possible, but not certain. Of the other, all these dangers are present. So, given the low number of people with knowledge of revisionism at the time, the case of Faurisson becomes a little too extraordinary to be true. It is not impossible, but it is extremely unlikely.
1.9.2) The oddities linked to the purchase of Bardèche's book in 1949
Regarding Bardèche's book, since it was not prohibited, we said to ourselves that it had to be available at the sale free and therefore easy to find. And since the ban only arrived March 1952, Faurisson had plenty of time to buy it. But in fact, in François' book Brigneau "Who is Professor Faurisson?", It says on page 52:
" As soon as Nuremberg was announced, the counter-offensive was launched. Trial, ban on posting, advertising prohibited, prosecution, poor Bardèche, who had already served six or seven months in prison for two articles written during the Occupation: one on Stendhal, the other on Flaubert, was in the center of a maelstrom-shaped scandal. Very quickly, Nuremberg was only under the cloak , like pornographic novels (which Faurisson and Guillaume were also going to know, forty years later: there is a spirit of continuation in repression!) and at black market prices . "
So, contrary to what official history suggests, the book was already nowhere to be found in 1949, at about as much as if it had been banned. It changes a lot of things.
Since the book was published in October 1948 (25,000 copies printed), one can assume that Faurisson obtained it in 1949, before it became completely impossible to obtain it. This is also confirmed on page 56: " Everything I say today about Nuremberg or the Promised Land - and you see how I have the perennial digression ... - it is not sure that Robert Faurisson saw it in 1949. "[Page 28]
So, problem. How is it that Faurisson, who was barely 20 years old and was apparently in contact with any political movement, managed to get hold of this book which has become not found? Added to that was the problem of the price of the book.
Regarding this last point, Brigneau explains that:
" With the Faurisson, pocket money was replaced by a long whistle. Thanks to generosity from one of his aunts, young Robert was able to acquire the cursed book. It was like a kind of revelation. "
It's hard to imagine that one of his aunts agreed to finance him to buy a book banned and marked on the far right. But OK...
But in any case, the problem of how to get it remains. Brigneau talks about the fact that Faurisson's books were hidden away, like those of Bardèche in his time. I have personally experienced this in the early 90s. I would have liked to get some revisionist books to judge on the piece. But it was almost impossible. Indeed, it does found nowhere and I never managed to get hold of it. It is only thanks to the Internet and the the Aaargh [Note: Aaargh was/is a website of Association des anciens amateurs de récits de guerre et d'holocauste hosting documents on WW2, founded 1996—RW] that I was finally able to get them in 1996.
So it is difficult to see how Faurisson could have obtained this book. For that, it would have been necessary be in contact with activists from far-right political parties. But we are told he was apolitical. So he had no way to find it.
And it wasn't his buddies that he could count on. At the time, political opinions were shared between communism, socialism and the right wing claiming resistance, all totally anti-Nazis. So, already, it was out of the question to tell a comrade that we were interested in such a work. It was a bit like declaring that we wanted to read Mein Kampf. It would have classified you immediately in the category "friends of Nazism". In 1949 it was like being the representative of devil on earth. His friends would have considered him either crazy or filthy junk and would have stopped attending. It would have social death for him. It's not for nothing that the nationalists were razing the walls at the time. So it was obviously out of the question of their talk about it.
But even though he would have been crazy enough to tell them he wanted to read it, not only they couldn't have helped it because neither they nor anyone around them would have bought it, but besides, they wouldn't have wanted to help him. So, it is very difficult to see how he could have found this book.
We are talking about the black market. But we can hardly imagine a black market for this kind of thing. There are had at the time for food and various other necessary commodities. But there was very probably not for banned books. In France, the latter had to be counted on the fingers with one hand. So this is too small a market and where it must be too difficult for buyers and sellers to find each other to make it interesting. And anyway, even though there is would have had a black market for this sort of thing, where to buy it? Unless you already have acquaintances with shady people who would have also been aware of this micromarket, it was like looking for a needle in a haystack. [Page 29]
Moreover, intellectuals are rarely very resourceful. They are mostly sons of good family living in a protected universe where they do not have to show any tricks or resourcefulness to get what they want. They have a well-regulated, essentially rhythmic life through studying and reading. She's not the type to be able to go to dodgy places or hang out with shady guys to get a book.
So, it is clear that this story of Faurisson procuring the Bardèche book on the black market or via friends is a lie. But why lie about it? What was the point?
Well, the problem was that if Faurisson discovered revisionism only in the years 60, it kind of gave the impression that he had become a revisionist overnight instead of gradually become. It was better if he had a fairly long revisionist course and had started reading revisionist books early. With this in mind, it was preferable that he read Bardèche to explain that he read Rassinier at the beginning of the Sixties. It was not completely essential. The elite could have done without. But it was still better. And then it was better that he began its journey at a time when there was much talk of the two authors in question, that is, when they released their books. Afterwards, it was less logical that he had heard of it. And it was better that he had started to be interested in the subject when he was a student, in his years training and intellectual ferment. After that, it was still possible of course. But, people tend to change their mind less after their twenties.
Only, if he had read Bardeche, he had to read it before he was totally banned. Otherwise, seen that we do not see how we could get this book already in 1949, it would have been even more incomprehensible the following years.
So the elite decided to include in their intellectual journey the reading of "Nuremberg or the promised land" in 1949. As people must have been totally polarized one way or another (totally for or totally against) vis-à-vis Faurisson, that should prevent them from asking embarrassing questions about it.
In addition, this detail concerning the rarity of Bardèche's book before its outright ban is only found in Brigneau apparently, and perhaps in certain writings of Faurisson himself. even. So, to find it, you really have to look. It is only personally in digging a lot, and with luck, that I came across Brigneau's work. Now it is this detail which leads to ask questions about the ability of Faurisson to have obtained the book of Bardèche. And having the information is not enough; you have to be suspicious enough to be able to tell himself that, under the circumstances, he had extremely little chance of obtaining it. Suddenly, the probability that an average person will come across Brigneau's book, and that this detail will make them tick is tiny. So, it concerns so few people that it is not too embarrassing for the elite.
But why did the elite, via Brigneau (who is clearly an agent), get bored giving these details concerning the rarity of Bardèche's book before the ban, and the way in which Faurisson is procured? This is probably because the information that he was quickly not found is available in other books and in newspapers of the time. We can think that the elite organized the shortage of books so that in reality very few copies were available, this to get people talking about it, but hardly anyone has read it. And suddenly, in the newspapers of the time, it was necessary to explain this difficulty in finding this book. Which means that, [Page 30] somewhere, in some articles of the time, even if it is not related to the Faurisson affair, must exist this information on the rarity of this book since 1949. And that introduces an inconsistency. So, even if this was to be noticed by extremely few people, it had to be explained.
Corollary to this problem, the elite must explain to us why Faurisson absolutely wanted to read the book of Bardèche. And suddenly, she makes up a story that he felt sorry for them. Germans and the victims of the purification and would have started to consider that the justice of victors of World War II was iniquitous. But that is not convincing. We do not see not why a young man of the time would have had special compassion towards them, while the propaganda to make believe that the Germans had been bastards (Holocaust, Oradour Sur Glane, Katyn, etc ...) was in full swing, that the war had just ended, that it had caused tens of millions of deaths and that the Germans were considered responsible by practically everyone. That he eventually had pity for some French lynched unfairly or totally disproportionately punished on release, that is one thing. But that he had pity for the Germans is quite another.
And then, to jump from certain exactions of the resistance during the purification, to the injustice of Nuremberg (subject of Bardèche's book), there was nevertheless an important conceptual leap. We do not see why Faurisson would have been especially against the judgment of Nuremberg. That violence and abuses were committed by some excited or by communists during the purification, it remained of limited scope. The Nuremberg Tribunal had a completely different credibility. And he was Anglo Saxon for the most part, therefore infinitely less suspect of partisanship. And the popularity and US confidence was at its peak. On the other hand, the Germans were presented as the absolute villains. So, for a naive young student of the time, there was no reason to suspect the Nuremberg tribunal to make a fully dependent procedure, worthy of the Stalinist trials.
In addition, the abuses that allegedly took place during the purification and the infamous treatment inflicted on some Germans and Bardèche's ideas about the holocaust are unrelated. Faurisson could very well have been shocked by this, and therefore approve of Bardèche's book in its component relating to inhuman treatment inflicted on Germans. But he could quite refuse to follow him in his views on the death camps. They want us to think that two were necessarily linked. But it was not. And like Bardèche's theory on the holocaust seemed incredible at the time, and in addition, it brought much less arguments that Rassinier, Faurisson had no reason to follow him down that road.
And Faurisson was supposed to be more or less apolitical. Now it is these kinds of people who are generally the most naive and conformist about official history. Someone who is on a political side opposite to that of the winners will of course tend to be critical towards the justice of the latter (this is what makes Bardèche's ideas logical in relation to to the character officially presented to us). Someone who is political victorious will of course swallow everything without the slightest problem (unless he has experienced things live and that he is mentally strong enough to dare to oppose the dominant doxa, the case of Rassinier). And the one who is only apolitical will not question anything either; simply because that he's not interested in politics. So he doesn't dig and sticks to the official narrative. he remains on the surface of things in political matters and in contemporary history. But not [Page 31] Faurisson. He, despite his apolitism, was not naive or conformist and suddenly, followed Bardèche in his revisionist theories. Astonishing once again.
And even if he had considered that the justice of the victors could tend in certain cases to to be partisan, oriented, arbitrary, etc., he had no reason to generalize to all justice winners of the day. So there was no reason that Faurisson should have been so outraged by certain abuses that he was extremely motivated by this book and that he wanted to obtain it, even bought at full price.
Moreover, if it had still been someone politically passionate, it would eventually have could understand each other. But he was apparently very neutral on that level. So here there is a contrast between Faurisson's political blandness and his strong motivation to obtain this book.
1.9.3) Why did the elite insist on his bio saying that he read Bardèche in 1949?
So why did the elite want him to read Bardèche in 1949, despite the quirks that introduced?
In my opinion, the problem is that he did not really convert to revisionism until the beginning of the years 60, by reading Rassinier (since Bardèche went nevertheless less far than Rassinier and presented much less detail and reflections). However, a conversion to revisionism, in white at the age of about 35 (in 1964), when beliefs already tend to be frozen, that might sound weird. So in the script that the elite want to sell us, it was better that he already had been made aware of the problem with Bardèche, that he was for 15 years as a pre-revisionist only waiting for Rassinier's discovery to transform himself into a complete revisionist.
And then, by making him discover the subject in 1949, it fit well with the spirit of discovery of a young 20-year-old intellectual. And then he discovered the subject while it was receiving publicity huge. So, it seemed logical that he learned of the existence of this theory at that time.
Conversely, in the 1960s, we no longer really spoke of Bardèche and Rassinier. The era of scandal had taken place at the time of the publication of their books, respectively in 1948 and 1950. As of then in the 1960s, without repeated articles in the newspapers, there was not much reason to that Faurisson does not discover them. And he could even less discover Bardèche, since there, his book had been banned for a long time; so that this time it must have been practically impossible to get. Strictly speaking, for Rassinier's book, Faurisson could have read it in 1955, year of its reauthorization and suddenly, of its reissue. There, the newspapers may have talked about it. But in the 1960s, that was no longer the case. So it was better that he had already read about the books de Bardèche to justify his discovery of Rassinier's books in the early 1960s.
The elite agents who worked on this case could have started its journey revisionist in the 60s with Rassinier, without going through the Bardèche hut. And the story would be passed to the general public as well. But out of conscience, and also because they aim [Page 32] the intellectual public for these kinds of details, they preferred to do it like that. Sometimes they botch more or less the details, but often, like here, they polish them.
1.9.4) Why did Faurisson not read Rassinier before the 1960s? And why didn't he contact Bardèche in 1950?
We can notice that in Brigneau's version as in that of the review L'histoire, he
would not have read Rassinier until quite late, in the early 1960s.
So, it's true that "The Lie of Ulysses" was only available in bookstores for a while. rather short. Indeed it was published in October 1950 (see at the beginning of the book "Céline, la race, le Juif", of Pierre-André Taguieff and Annick Durafour). Almost immediately he was put on trial. The first judgment was rendered on May 9, 1951. Rassinier was then released. But there was an immediate appeal. And there, the book was banned on November 2, 1951. Suddenly, that did not extend the period of availability than 6 months. So the book could only have been on the shelves for 7 months plus 6 months, or 13 months.
Then the book was re-authorized in the cassation trial in 1955 (it was republished almost immediately). But, it was therefore banned for 4 years. So the idea is apparently that Faurisson missed the period when the book was still available for sale.
The problem here is that Rassinier caused as much scandal as Bardèche. So Faurisson was
necessarily aware of its existence. And all the more so since he was interested in the subject. It is therefore
not the ignorance of the existence of this book which could have made him miss the purchase.
This is not the motivation that could have failed him either, since he was apparently in his phase of discovery of revisionism and that he had been very motivated to obtain the book of Bardèche. Being already sensitized to the revisionist cause thanks to the work of Bardèche, he should have had very want to supplement their knowledge on the subject with a new book. So he should have jumped on the opportunity to buy Rassinier's book when it was still available for sale (which still lasted a year).
And in addition, Faurisson had succeeded in obtaining the book of Bardèche in 1949, whereas this one was supposed to be almost nowhere to be found. So we do not see why he would not have succeeded in get that one, while it was a priori available for sale in bookstores for no less 13 months. And even if he had been as untraceable as Bardèche's, he had succeeded in get the latter. So he should have been able to get this one. He could play his connections. It had worked well in 1949. So why not in 1950 or 1951?
And since he had so much audacity and energy, he could very well have contacted Rassinier to have a exemplary, or at least discuss with him his theories. Especially that we learn in "Céline, the [Page 33] race, the Jew ", that Rassinier had given a non-commercial copy of his book to Celine. must have had some in front of him.
So the fact that he didn't get the Rassinier book the year it was released or even a little after is very suspicious.
Finally, the book was back on sale in 1955. So why did he only get it? early sixties?
However, if he had read Rassinier when it was published in 1950, he should have contacted
the latter much earlier. And he should have made his trip to Auschwitz and other camps 10 or 15 years
before.
And if Faurisson had communicated with Rassinier in the early 1950s, it would have been difficult to explain why he stayed in the shadows for so long. Apparently not having afraid to write to newspapers to defend his point of view, and having completed his training revisionist, he should have sent letters to newspapers as early as 1964 or 1965, or even before.
But that's not what the elite wanted. Faurisson had to not reveal himself so early as revisionist. It was mainly related to the fact that the elite did not want to see the movement Revisionist 2.0 appeared before the 1970s (something I analyze in appendix 8). But there was a few reasons specific to Faurisson's career.
Already, if it had been revealed in the 60s or 50s, it would have lasted 20 or 30 years before the law Gayssot. The problem is that we should logically have silenced him quickly, through a trial. So in 1990, it should have been a long time since he no longer presented a threat. So how justify the Fabius-Gayssot law then? We could have introduced new figures, making a passage temporary as was the case with Roques, Notin, etc ... But over 30 years, it would have been necessary to have a lot. And it would have been strange that it would take 30 years to come to the Fabius-Gayssot law.
And if we hadn't been, then there would have been a problem. He was expected to be silenced with the Fabius-Gayssot law around 1990. But if he had not been banned from speaking for 20 or 30 years, that would have been very weird if he was suddenly silenced after letting him talk freely for 20 or 30 years.
In addition, there should not be free access documents (books, articles, brochures, broadcast audio or video) which would have allowed the public to know what the revisionists were saying. Otherwise the revisionism could have spread much more easily. That was only supposed to happen in the middle of the 90s with the Internet. Which implies that Faurisson had to be prohibited from speaking at once. So this second possibility of letting him speak for 20 or 30 was not possible anyway. But then, we fall back on the problem of prohibiting it from the 50s or 60s.
It was therefore necessary that Faurisson especially not read Rassinier's book in 1950. There, we could explain that he did nothing between 1949 and 1964 saying that he was still only a proto-revisionist. And for [Page 34] period 1964-1974, we could say that he was forming and that he was not yet sure enough of himself to intervene publicly.
It introduced the oddities of the fact that he was not aware of the existence of Rassinier's book in the early 1950s, that he didn't get it in 1955, just as he didn't say anything publicly on the subject of revisionism between say 1969 and 1974, and has not written any books or libretto between 1974 and 1979. But with an unsuspecting public, and therefore not very attentive to this kind of details, it had to pass without problem.
Otherwise, in the same vein, one can wonder why he did not contact Bardèche in the
1950s. So, it is true that Bardèche made a less detailed and profound criticism than the one
by Rassinier. But still, as it was the only one that Faurisson seemed to know at the time, he
should have made contact with him, as he did with Rassinier 14 or 15 years later.
It is also true that Bardèche was marked on the extreme right. But, we don't see why that would have embarrassed Faurisson. As he was not yet a public figure, he had nothing to fear from it. Especially since it could remain in the domain of simple written or telephone correspondence in first. Moreover, he saw no problem in attending a revisionist meeting where there had extreme right-wing people in the USA in the 1980s.
Yes, but for the elite, the fact that Bardèche was far-right was a problem. It would have immediately marked Faurisson politically and that would have made it much more difficult explainable that he was allowed to speak during the 70s and 80s. As we have seen, it is the fact that his detractors were initially sure that he had nothing to do with the far-right which justified the fact that he was allowed to speak for a while. So for the consistency of the elite plan it was out of the question that he would become close to Bardèche.
1.9.5) Faurisson married and father of 3 children
In addition, we learn here and here as Faurisson, was married and father of 3 children (2 sons and a daughter). Usually, this is a big problem for a man engaged in dangerous activities (sports, policies, etc...), and even more so when they can also endanger his family. he must make a choice between the latter and its activity. And most give up activities dangerous for the simple fact that their children could end up without a father (because they would be in prison, or dead or that their wife would have divorced), or that he could no longer support their needs (if he found himself unemployed or ruined by the lawsuits). So when in addition it can endanger their family directly (physical, social or professional reprisals), case of conscience is even more important.
In 1974, when he started sending his first letters to newspapers, Faurisson was 45 years old. However, we can see here that her three children had already been born (since the article dates from 1982 and says that the first, Isabelle, was a biologist, the second, Gabriel was doing his military service, and the [Page 35] third, Marc, was a horticultural student). Which means that he was not in the event that he would be engaged in this fight before the birth of his children and where he would then have been too invested inside to give it up. So he could have given up so as not to endanger his family. But no, Faurisson is one of the rare men who has not been stopped by this kind of conscience. Of course, it is possible. But it still does a lot of things that are out of the ordinary.
And it is all the more unusual with Faurisson since, until then, he had apparently never been a political fighter, a man taking risks. He had defended ideas well iconoclasts on Rimbaud (in 1961) and on Lautréamont (in 1972). But that's all. And frankly, it was just a storm in a tiny glass of water. It only interested a few academics and lovers of literature. And within the university, he took no risks. In fact, the time being free to think, it was on the contrary a good thing to be a little iconoclastic. So it could help him climb the academic ladder. Especially since these original ideas had made him know newspapers, which could be excellent for the advancement of his career. In short, he had not taken until then no risk. And all of a sudden, at 45, when he was a father of 3 children, he fearlessly chose to scuttling his career, probably his financial situation, maybe his freedom, and seeing himself and his family ostracized from good society (i.e. losing a good part of their social and friendly, as well as those of his wife, and generally to be hated by all). Suddenly, the guy without history, having always stayed in the nails, proved to be a real lion, the ultimate rebel. Extraordinary.
Especially since, for his children, to present himself as the French champion of revisionism was run a great risk of damaging their studies and, subsequently, their nascent career. They all risked not to obtain their diplomas or not to be caught up in this or that company, or to see their career stagnate.
And he could have used a pseudonym for his revisionist writings. He could thus have expressed himself without danger to his family. And we cannot say that it was contrary to his convictions, since, on Wikipedia , he said he used twice a pseudonym (Jessie Aitken and Robert Figeac).
So, for "Jessie Aitken", it was apparently in 1983, for the book called " Judicial Epilogue of the Faurisson affair ". So, one can defend the idea that being threatened judicially, he was obliged to go through it to be able to express oneself. But, having seen the treatment reserved for Bardèche and Rassinier, he knew from the start what awaited him if he declared himself openly revisionist. And he had practically 50 years old in 1978, and therefore was not a young fool ready to brave all dangers, but a mature man perfectly aware of the terrible galley in which he was embarking. He would have had to apprehend as much the consequences of the public unveiling of his revisionism, as those of his 1983 paper. So if he wanted to avoid the consequences of his revisionist writings, he could use a pseudonym as early as 1978. There was no more reason for him to use a pseudonym in 1983 than in 1978. In fact, there were less. Because in '83 he was already public enemy number 1. So that in 1978, he could still avoid all this persecution. So if he used that nickname in 1983, he should have used one in 1978.
Besides, he could have feared losing his wife during his fight. This is the kind of thing incoming. The spouse does not necessarily want to assume the consequences of the struggle in question. And in that case, she would probably have left with the children. He would then have lost his wife and his [Page 36] children (while continuing to endanger them). It was an additional element that could push him back.
1.9.6) The relative political neutrality of Faurisson
Apparently, Faurisson sometimes presented himself as more or less apolitical, sometimes as
someone on the left (that's also what I remember).
This is what we can read in the newspaper L'Express of April 4, 2012: "" Man of the left " , as he said. let believe? False ".
This is what we can also see here : " We can therefore see that this one, contrary to what he asserts, is far from apolitical " " Valérie Igounet does indeed demonstrate that Robert Faurisson is extreme right-wing and anti-Semitic, that he totally immersed in anti-Semitism. We are therefore far from the "man of the left" that he sought to promote . "
And in the newspaper, the Parisian : " " By presenting himself as an apolitical or leftist professor who moreover went to Auschwitz, he hoped to make his negationist opinions more credible ", explains historian Valérie Igounet, author of a portrait of Faurisson published by Denoël. "
He was also enrolled in SNES when he was teaching in college, and in SNESUP when he was at university. He was even a section secretary at SNES. In 1974, Faurisson said he had been there ever since over 20 years. So he enrolled in SNES around 1953 (at a time when Communists had to dominate). However, these are two leftist unions. And at the time, the communists and other tendencies of the extreme left were very numerous.
And he was the friend of Serge Thion and Pierre Guillaume, two far-left personalities, which reinforced the idea that he was more of a socialist. And its political orientation has not been changed. question at the start of the Faurisson affair.
Why did the elite make sure he was presented as someone on the left at the start? Eh well for the same reasons as in the case of Cohn-Bendit and Chomsky. It was necessary that the personalities supporting revisionist ideas were left at that time. If they had been right-wing or far-right, it would have been difficult to justify allowing them to express themselves in France. But with people from the left and the far left, it was possible. We could say that the left-wing newspapers had had a temporary weakness in talking about them (and therefore in making them advertisement) because these ideas came from people of the same ideological tendency, which one could not not suspect sympathy with Nazism.
So, according to official sources, the media would eventually find out long after Faurisson was not really on the left. He would have lied about it. But whatever. Which is [Page 37] important is that at the time, he passed for such and that it is for this reason that he was allowed to speak in various leftist newspapers at the very beginning of the affair.
Moreover, in the case of Faurisson, it ultimately served to make revisionism more convincing. Why would an apolitical or leftist type have started to have revisionist ideas, in the 60s or 70s? As much, for a guy on the extreme right, it would have seemed logical. But for someone on the left seemed inconceivable, especially at the time. Of course, people were going to think that if this was the case, it was because there were strong arguments for the revisionist thesis. So, it could make people take the plunge and start reading revisionist literature.
That said, he never really explained how he was left. And the male left side has
quickly disappeared to make way for almost total neutrality.
The problem with this neutrality is that this fearless, fight-loving kind of character ideas generally go with a strong commitment to political, societal, philosophical etc ... In this paragraph I am not talking about taking risks, but simply commitment. The love of truth goes with an elevated mind which is interested in the great subjects of society. But no, Faurisson is someone who is almost completely neutral on that side. And it continued until the end of his life. So weird.
For example, Rassinier's revisionist commitment does not work on the whole, since was also involved in the political debate (communism). Rassinier hadn't taken any risked up to his book "The Lie of Odysseus", but at least he was intellectually engaged. The same goes for Bardèche. But here we have a totally neutral type; and that, in a period when everyone was involved in politics. Again, it is very surprising.
But it is clear that its neutral stance was decided by the elite. It had to be, in order not to not be divisive. In this way he could attract to revisionist ideas as well people from left than right or center. Most of the other revisionists being politically oriented, the pope of revisionism in France had to not be.
So of course, we are told that he was in relation at certain times with this or that type of extreme right (but still within the framework of revisionism, which greatly diminishes the scope of thing). But he was never involved in a political party. He never wrote any articles or books policies. And then, he was also in contact with various people of the extreme left (again, in the framework of revisionism), which neutralizes the significance of his links with certain revisionists far-right.
And the move from a left to neutral positioning was therefore logical. At first, he He had to present himself as being on the left for the fact that he was allowed to express himself appears more or less normal. And in a second step, it was necessary that the left man side fades so that it is as unifying as possible. [Page 38]
1.9.7) Not licensed by his University
What is also astonishing is that Faurisson was not dismissed from his university. As we can
see it on Wikipedia , he was only suspended from his post. In October 1979 he was assigned to
distance education, but without effective teaching activity.
" He is finally assigned to distance education (without effective teaching activity) by October 1979 with his agreement "
" However, it was not until 1990 that his post was definitively transferred to the National Center. distance education despite his protests and that he will be deprived of his academic position. he therefore remained formally assigned to Lyon II and holder of his chair for nearly a decade and will have been in total employed by the State without fulfilling any public service from 1979 until his retirement in January 1995 . "
So he was not fired and continued to receive his salary until his retirement. In fact, it was at On the contrary, a chance for him, since instead of having to work, he could now devote himself entirely to revisionism.
Precisely, on the elite side, it is illogical. It was not at all in his best interests to let him the opportunity to be able to focus solely on revisionism while maintaining its salary. They should have fired him outright.
And since the elite control everything, if they had wanted him fired, he would have been in the week. And this, for any reason (kind of apology for a crime against humanity). And no one would have found fault with it. The 95% of people who sleep would have continued to sleep. And among the 5% of people with a minimum of conscience, the 2.5% on the left would have applauded the layoff of the infamous anti-Semite, and the 2.5% on the right would have said to themselves that he was there anyway went too far and was indefensible. So again, if he wasn't fired, it's because the elite didn't want it to be.
What we can think is that he had to continue to receive his salary, in order to explain that he did not have not been totally ruined by his lawsuits. And he had to continue to be seen as professor, and not ex-professor, to continue to have credibility with the media.
The fact that he was deprived of his university position in 1990 is due to the fact that, like the Fabius law-Gayssot had just been voted, it was necessary to mark the occasion a minimum. Otherwise it would have seemed a bit too much astonishing. So, he was taken away from his university position (while keeping a salary paid by state, still doing nothing).
And anyway, the part of his role where it was important for him to be a university professor had already been played. It was only until the Gayssot law that he had to keep this title. But after, it wasn't really necessary anymore. On the contrary, it reinforced the role of martyr.
So, according to official information, the University of Lyon was a haunt of fascists at the time.
Various French revisionists came from it or benefited from help from professors of this [Page 39] faculty. This is how some might partly explain that Faurisson kept his
post. He would have benefited from indulgences on the part of the administration of this university. Except that it doesn't
not hold for a moment. It is obvious that at the head of each French university, there is an elite agent.
The latter will not fully control the world and France and leave one or two
French public universities escape its control. So if a faculty leaves
personalities of the extreme right or revisionists to continue to teach within it, it is inevitably
that it is wanted at the highest level.
For the extreme right, it helps to have executives who have intellectual backing. And for the revisionism, it served the same thing. Another interest was to give the idea that the university was gangrenous at the highest level; in other words that the intellectual elite of France was contaminated by revisionist theories and therefore that revisionism represented a real danger for democracy.
Besides, here , we can read that:
" " It was a big deal that an academic could challenge the Shoah ", regrets Serge Klarsfled, founder of the association of Sons and Daughters of Jewish Deportees from France. "
Moreover, at a lower level of conspiracy, one can note that the direction of the faculty de Lyon still put Faurisson in the closet. So that means she gave in to the pressures political and that she was not so free, or so intransigent about the independence of Higher Education. It also means that if she agreed to do that, she could have too well go further with greater political pressure. Maybe not right away; but one or two years later. Especially since, two years later, it was the left that was in power. And there it was over for the sympathetic liberal side of the Giscard d'Estaing era (1974-1981). Terror intellectual reigned supreme. So the management of the University of Lyon had to come under political pressure much more important at that time.
1.9.8) Faurisson and the problem of documents in German and Polish
In the extract from the newspaper Le Point, it is also said that Faurisson would have understood that the holocaust
had not been possible by reading the Auschwitz archives. This means either that Faurisson was speaking
German or that he had the texts translated by an assistant.
In the first case, he would therefore have spoken English, French and German. And as he had made university studies of letters, including Latin and Greek, that means he mastered 5 languages. Why not ? There are others who are able to master as much. But as at the time, we did not have as much opportunity as now to speak foreign languages, when would that be? even been particularly remarkable.
Only in the review "the story", we learn that : [Page 40]
" Robert Faurisson was born in Shepperton (England) on January 25, 1929. His mother is Scottish; his father, employed at the Messageries maritimes, is French. Due to the profession of the head of the family, Faurisson often move. The child starts school in Singapore. He arrives in France in the years 1936-1937. He then entered a religious school in Chatou, in the Parisian suburbs. In 1940, after the exodus, Robert Faurisson was in Marseille, where he studied in a Jesuit college.
During the Occupation, in the family, we do not play politics, but, according to Robert Faurisson, we are "fiercely anti-German" [1]. A few years later, the young man is admitted in higher letters at the Lycée Henri-IV in Paris. "
So they were fiercely anti-German. Not really the state of mind that leads to wanting learn this language. And if he didn't do it during his studies, he didn't have to do it afterwards either.
So, maybe he studied it in high school. But, he did not have to keep learning it during his studies higher, since he was in letters (where, in addition to French, he studied Latin and Greek), and not in foreign languages. However, I remember very well that almost all those who had done German first language in college and high school and who had not practiced afterwards told me that they had almost everything forgotten after only a few years. However, in France, high school students who were of German were generally the best. Which means that not only did they have to work well with this material, but in addition, they have a good memory. And despite that, they had practically nothing retained.
So how did Faurisson manage to decipher the Auschwitz archives? Here we come to the second hypothesis, namely that he was perhaps helped by his guide. But that would have introduced a high risk that the guide understands the purpose of the search and reports it to the police. In fact, it is very probable that whatever the purpose of his research, the guide would have been obliged to report to the police of what was going on. It must be seen that at the time, Poland was a satellite of the Soviet bloc. Any foreigner who came alone for something other than tourism was under surveillance. And obviously, on the subject of the holocaust, a private individual coming from nowhere would have been power 10. Probably even that he would have been assigned by authority an "official" guide, that is to say, a guide working for the police.
And then, the curator of Auschwitz and his assistants were Polish a priori (the curator was called Tadeusz Iwaszko). So, Faurisson also had to speak Polish. It was two languages ??to master. So, maybe he managed to find a Polish translator who understood the French and German. It's possible. But otherwise, it would have required two translators, which doubled the risk of being denounced.
Or the manager also spoke German. But, we have no information on that. And all way, his assistants were not supposed to speak it. However, the director was not going to take care of Faurisson permanently. So the latter should have largely communicated with his assistants. Of suddenly, there too, he should have had two translators or a translator mastering both languages.
So on this blog on Faurisson, we have a letter from him suggesting that the archives or at least some were in Polish:
" Personally, I can no longer go to Auschwitz but, if I could, I would proceed as I did it in 1975 and, above all, in 1976 , in full communist regime, when I succeeded in obtaining [Page 41] responsible for the Camp Archives, Tadeusz Iwaszko, communication of documents in Polish where I discovered the plans for the crematoria ; these plans had been kept hidden since the war; they allowed me to prove that the alleged "gas chambers" (homicides) were only harmless "Leichenhalle" or "Leichenkeller", that is to say simple repositories, either on the surface, or semi-buried. I was unaware then of the existence of these mentioned Leichenhallenbücher, for example, in 1989 (Danuta Czech, Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau 1939- 1945, Reinbek bei Hamburg, 1989, p. 10, 127). "
But, since the words he gives are German, it means that in documents in Polish, there were documents in German. We can assume that part was in Polish to describe what German documents it was. Or maybe we had the same documents in Polish version and German version so that the Poles can decipher them.
However, the problem remains the same for Faurisson. If he did not master German, and probably not Polish either, he should have relied on his guide. And in this case he risked to be denounced quickly. And maybe the guide would have quickly refused to participate in this job.
Moreover, in the book "Histoire du negationnisme en France", by Valérie Igounet, about Jean- Claude Pressac:
" Back in France in September 1980, Jean-Claude Pressac shared his discoveries with Robert Faurisson. He then reveals pieces to her that seem to contradict her assertions. Jean-Claude Pressac twice returned to Auschwitz and spoke, during "tense" discussions, with Tadeusz Iwaszko. His doubts persist. He studies as many plans as possible relating to crematoria. The pharmacist does not know German. He works by searching for keywords like Gas / gaz, Gaskammer / gas chamber, etc . Then, he came across the first traces of criminal planning of the crematorium IV. No one before him had discovered them. "
It confirms that these documents were at least partly in German, as we could expect.
So either Faurisson spoke German. But that is quite in contradiction with the anti-German side of his family and with the fact that he then did a master's degree in letters at the Sorbonne where he did not have to practice this language. Either he didn't speak it. And so, he should have had this translation problem. he would have had to get help. And for Polish, there, the question did not even arise. It does certainly did not master and had to use a translator. So, in addition to the possible refusal of collaboration on the part of the curator and the risk of being reported to the political police, there had the one coming from the translator.
1.9.9) The travel problem during the USSR era
We have another problem with these trips to Auschwitz in 1975 and 1976. Poland was a
satellite of the USSR at the time. So it was difficult to get there. It was not done like that. All [Page 42] was very closed. There were many tourist trips possible. But, for individuals, everything
was very supervised and controlled. The overwhelming majority came on an organized trip; so in groups
supervised by guides following a marked route. It was possible to travel alone. But, again,
most of those who did this used a guide who also offered them a
marked route. We could, as a single person, think outside the box with the help
of the guide. But it had to concern an extremely small number of people. And obviously,
these people must have been under much more surveillance than the others. As soon as we left the trips
supervised and in groups, we became suspect, leading to reinforced controls.
And besides, this only concerned tourists. As soon as we came for other reasons, the controls were even more important. However, Faurisson had told the head of the Auschwitz museum that he came for university work. So, either he had initially told the authorities (visa application and customs) that he was coming for tourism, or he had said that he was coming for university work.
In the first case , he would have lied, and he could have avoided the initial checks (before the trip and at the border). But, once his research at Auschwitz began, the Polish authorities in would have been immediately informed. Indeed, the person in charge of the museum would immediately have told his superiors and the police that there was an unannounced individual who presented himself as searcher. So, because of the initial lie about the reason for his trip, he would probably have been expelled by the Polish police. And before that, this one could have questioned him. And be questioned by the Communist police was not to be a very fun experience.
In the second case , he would have told the truth. But it would have been necessary to present documents proving the official character of his research. Therefore, it would have required supporting documents signed by the his university. He would have been obliged to describe the subject of his research and what he planned there to prove. He should have presented his titles. All this should have been validated by various authorities Communists long before his trip. On such a sulphurous subject, the Soviets would have asked him certainly many questions. And of course, they would have inquired about him. They would have then soon learned that he was a revisionist and reportedly refused to give him a visa. And when well even they wouldn't have known who it was, he would certainly have been watched by a working guide for the political police and by a museum official ready to refuse him access to such and such archive (or even all archives) at the slightest suspicion of questioning the official truth.
Moreover, even in democratic countries, it was necessary and must always present references. Imagine an average professor going to the Louvre or the National Gallery in London and asking to consult archives under the pretext of research. If it has not been announced and has not official recommendations to show, we will laugh at him. So in a communist country in the 1970s, you can imagine the reaction.
Moreover, once Polish officials realized that it was a professor of literature and not history, and that all his research had been done until then in literature, they would obviously have been particularly suspicious and would have posed even more of questions. And they could very well have refused him the visa, thinking that such research coming from a professor of literature were necessarily very suspicious. All of a sudden he would have no longer someone from the seraglio, but a free electron. However, the authorities are still extremely suspicious of free electrons. And the communist police institutions were hyper suspicious. So, we can imagine the degree of paranoia that Faurisson would have generated once [Page 43] that the Polish authorities would have understood that he was an independent researcher and what his research subject. And then, there again, by searching his biography, they would certainly have learned that he was a revisionist. He was already known in the journalistic world as such. So there is very unlikely that he was unknown to the Russian secret services (which obviously communicated their information to the Polish secret service).
And then, we learn in the same article in the magazine the history that he had visited camps located in
Poland from 1974:
" At the start of the 1974 academic year , he was a lecturer in 20th century French literature at Lyon-II University. He makes no secret of his favorite subject, the "criticism of texts and documents "and the" search for meaning and misinterpretation, for true and false ". He goes to the concentration camp in Struthof, in Alsace, and in that of Maïdanek, in Poland, which was also a extermination camp. In 1975, he spent a day in Auschwitz.
A year later, he returned and stayed there for ten days . The Auschwitz camp, which was the heart of the machine to exterminate the Nazis, then took on all its symbolic significance in public opinion. It is this camp that will become the object of predilection of Robert Faurisson. On the pretext of university research, he asks to consult numerous documents at the Auschwitz museum . The curator, Tadeusz Iwaszko , provides various papers to the one he considers to be a researcher. Robert Faurisson spotted a disparity between the current state of crematorium I and its representation on two established period plans by the SS and is not convinced by the explanations of the curator. He concludes that the rooms at gas cannot have worked. "
So he went to Poland 3 times to visit camps. Now, if already, for the first time, he had extremely little chance of getting through the cracks, subsequent times it would have been almost impossible.
And anyway, we saw above that in 1974, he had already been identified as a revisionist by widely distributed French newspapers, including far-left newspapers (le canard enchainé and humanity). However, the Soviet secret services obviously read the French press. So, as the affair had already made quite a stir, they had to know who he was. And since they were part of the lie of the holocaust, they obviously were not going to let him lead research on the subject.
And beyond Poland and the USSR, if we adopt a level of conspiracy a little more
advanced, it is evident that the elite would have known as early as 1974 that he was a revisionist and would have
placed under enhanced surveillance. Suddenly, she would have immediately known about her travel plans
in Poland and would never have granted him a visa.
And beyond Faurisson, since the holocaust is a lie, we can imagine that the elite were very be careful that nobody comes to stick their nose in compromising archives. So, everything should have been very closed and accessible only to people dubbed by the system. [Page 44]
Also, we can say that the elite had had plenty of time to transform the camps and tamper with archives to ensure that the lie cannot be discovered. So in fact there would be not even need to prevent Faurisson from accessing the archives and the ruins, since these would have fully confirmed the official version. If the elite did not modify the camps to make sort of preventing any questioning of the official theory, it is good that she wanted it be contested. And as we saw above, it was in fact during the Nazi reign itself that these archives and buildings should logically have been written and constructed.
Obviously, if Faurisson is an agent, his various attacks are also bogus. He did not
never violated.
Regarding that of 1989, the first time that I saw the photos of Faurisson on his hospital bed,
even though I still admired him and didn't ask myself any questions about him, I
immediately said that the person in the photos did not look like him.
Here are the photos in question:
[Page 45]And here is Faurisson at about the same time (April 30, 1987, 19/20 newspaper of the FR3 channel)
The face of the attacked man is much thicker than that of Faurisson. So we could say it's because of the assault. But he was not punched on the left side of the face. So he There's no need for him to look mushy on that side. You could also say that if he looks thick, it is that he leans his head downwards, which makes a double chin. But lowering your head wouldn't influence on the side of the face, in the middle and at the top of the cheeks. And then, Faurisson had a face [Page 46] rather thin, almost emaciated, not very conducive to a double chin. And on the image of the FR3 newspaper in 1987, the head is rather tilted forward, and there is no double chin at all. By Moreover, on the 3 rd photo to the hospital, the man this time head up and there is still the presence of a double chin and a thickened face.
And then the left eyebrow doesn't seem to match either. So, it is true that the image of 1987 is more fuzzy than that of 1989. So, maybe with a better definition, it would correspond better. But, from what we see, it does not correspond. The middle and end of the eyebrow (towards the ear) is much wider than that of the person on the hospital bed.
Moreover, the photo is wrong. The problem is the blood in the mouth. If he was
already in the hospital, why was there still blood around his mouth? It is not normal. We would have
had to do without something to wipe off. Or we would have wiped it off. And then, even though he had continued to bleed,
it should have run in the mouth and therefore in the throat. It shouldn't have kept flowing at
outside. Indeed, it is not from the lip that the blood flows, but from the inside of the mouth. So,
there shouldn't be that much blood around his mouth.
And with all this blood having flowed why didn't he have traces where he would have tried to wipe himself off, whether with the hands or a tissue? There, we essentially have clear bloodstains.
In the first photo, he looks up. We should then have at least some blood dripping towards the lower face on the right side of the cheek where there is a lot of blood. In this position the blood should then have flowed downward, as is the case with the area under the mouth.
And if the blood is coming from a wound in the lip, or even from the inside of the mouth, then why not Doesn't it have a huge bruise where we hit it? A fist is large. So that should have left a bruise over a large area.
So it looks pretty clearly like a staging.
In François Brigneau's book, Faurisson recounts his assault (page 11):
"When I walked past them, the ball hit my legs. I kicked it off. One of the young people then hit me violently in the jaw. A punch ... I fell, shouting. On the ground, they beat me, with kicks , very hard, and in silence. I kept on screaming. They kept shooting me all over my body, from head to stomach and thighs, but above all to the head . It was all the more painful since my jaw had been dismantled from the first stroke. I tried to protect my face with my hands, and my body by curling up. It hit always, on the fly, as in a bag. They wanted to kill me with kicks. This is the technique "beating to death". As in stoning, responsibility for a possible murder cannot be be attributed to this or that aggressor. "
Problem, on the photos provided, as said previously, for the punch to the jaw, we can only imagine it. We do not see any blue. Apart from that, there is only one visible impact, [Page 47] the one with the eye. However, if the kicks were raining, and especially to the head, we should see at least 4 or 5 big impacts.
Besides, he said he had protected himself with his hands. But in this case, he should have specified then that his hands were badly damaged, even unusable. Because shots repeated feet (probably with shoes with very hard soles), worn according to him for killing leaves huge marks. And the hands, which are fragile, can leave wounds for months.
He also specifies that he was saved by people who were not far away, including a young sailor who was within 2 meters. Good luck that there was a colossus on hand ready to fight with 3 ultra-violent types. And of course, neither had a knife or gun to threaten him and him say to go his way.
So, to deflect the blow, some might suddenly say that it is known that it is not
Faurisson and that this is an error that has lasted for years. But, these photos are present on
Internet for about 20 years. And the latter never said that these photos were those of
someone else. However, if that was the case, he would have made it clear immediately. Moreover, they have
regularly been used on pro-revisionist sites, and no one has ever come forward to say that
it was another person.
This is not the only aggression suffered by Faurisson. Here , we learn that it was not his second
assault (with the 1978), but the 6 th .
" My assault on September 16, 1989 is the sixth since November 20, 1978 at the University of Lyon- II: two assaults in Lyon, two in Paris and two in Vichy. "
And on the site of Equality and Reconciliation, we learn that: " The professor was the victim of ten physical attacks between November 20, 1978 and May 31, 1993 (two in Lyon, two in Vichy, two in Stockholm and four in Paris). Seven of these attacks are caused by organizations or militias French Jews (two in Lyon, one in Vichy, one in Stockholm because of French Jews who came by plane de Paris and associated with Swedish Jews, one at the Sorbonne and one at the Paris courthouse). "
So it would not have stopped at that of 1989. There would have been 4 more after that of September. 1989.
I tried to find the dates of the assaults. I found 9 out of the 10:
1) November 20, 1978 at the faculty of Lyon II (thrashed)
2) Around January 22, 1979 at the faculty of Lyon II (manages to escape)
3) July 12, 1987 at Sporting Club de Vichy (violently beaten)
4) September 12, 1987 at the Sorbonne (injured) [Page 48]
5) September 16, 1989 in Vichy (the 6 th according Faurisson) (wounded in the face and kicked)
6) March 21, 1991 at the courthouse in Paris (injured in the leg)
7) March 17, 1992 in Stockholm (8 th according Faurisson) (manages to escape)
8) May 22, 1993 in Stockholm (manages to escape)
9) May 30, 1993 in Paris (violently beaten with a sword cane)
So there was one before September 16, 1989.
1.10.3) Details and reflections on assaults
Here are some details on the different assaults.
The first assault would therefore be that of November 20, 1978, at the faculty of Lyon II. We have details in François Brigneau's book, page 90:
"Students", foreign to the faculty, await the sacrilegious professor. Can we discuss the gas chambers and Proust? Obviously, no. Faurisson is assaulted in his office. He emerges. he running in the halls, the pack on the trail. "
"Caught on the way out, he's beaten up ."
The 2 nd assault took place about January 22, 1979 (page 91 of the book Brigneau):
" The following week, Robert Faurisson received corroborating information: a special commando comes down from Paris to make him hide. At university, it is confirmed. He is coming. Faurisson does not insist. As he leaves, he meets the beaters. They only recognize it after passing it. The hunt for the man starts. Nothing lengthens the stride more than the danger of death. Faurisson maintains the distance. Here is a providential site. He launches into it, permanently sows the zealots and collapses, exhausted, behind a low wall. "
The third assault would be that of July 12, 1987 at the Sporting Club of Vichy ( here ) .
"Shock: Who are you blaming?
RF: I can't tell you. I can only tell you that my first thought went to a young man whom, the day before the attack on me, I was surprised to see in my neighborhood, along the park. On July 12, 1987 , he hit me violently at the Sporting Club from Vichy . "
Concerning the 4 th attack on this page Site Equality and Reconciliation: [Page 49]
"On September 12, 1987 , at the Sorbonne, members of a Jewish militia attacked Henry Chauveau (seriously injured), Michel Sergent, Pierre Guillaume and Freddy Storer (Belgian) as well as the professor Faurisson, all injured . "
The 6 th is that of September 16, 1989 in Vichy, the details of which we saw in the previous section.
The 7 th was held on 21 March 1991. This is what we can see on the Site of Ahmed Rami
" March 21, 1991. Assault on supporters of the revisionist ROBERT FAURISSON during his trial at the PALAIS DE JUSTICE DE PARIS, by members of BETAR. "
And here :
" 2.7 The author and Mr. Boizeau appealed against their conviction to the Paris Court of Appeal (eleventh chamber). On December 9, 1992, the eleventh chamber, chaired by Ms. Françoise Simon, confirmed the conviction and sentenced MM. Faurisson and Boizeau to a fine of 374,045 francs and 50 centimes, taking into account the damages to be paid to the 11 complainant associations for moral damage. The Court of Appeal notably examined the facts in the light of Articles 6 and 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and a concluded that the correctional chamber had assessed them correctly. The author adds that besides this sentence he incurred considerable costs, including legal fees for his defense and hospitalization following the injuries he suffered when he was assaulted by members of Bétar and Tagar the day the trial opens . "
And here :
"It is also true that in March 1991 I was able, at the end of a hearing, to be evacuated by the mousetrap and the underground. But I had been seriously injured in the leg by one of the Jewish thugs, despite the protection of a guard braced on a metal barrier and, subsequently, I had to, because of following this assault on a shoe, undergo surgery. "
" In desperation, a lieutenant took it upon himself to evacuate us through the mousetrap and the underground. There were five of us: Me Delcroix, Pierre Guillaume (editor of Roger Garaudy's book), my employee, a man of about 75 years old injured in the leg just as I had been in 1991 , and myself. "
The 8 th is that of 17 March 1992 in Stockholm. We have some details here :
" It is not surprising that on the evening of my arrival, Ahmed Rami, two young Swedes and myself
were almost lynched by a group of young people armed with sticks, knives and bombs
tear gas and taken away by officials of a Jewish student club. I thus lived my
eighth assault in twelve years. " [Page 50]
The 9 th is that of 22 May 1993 in Stockholm. Faurisson talks about it here :
" My name is Robert Faurisson. I am 64 years old. We are today the 22 of May 1993. I am in
Stockholm at the end of a difficult day. This afternoon I was supposed to give a conference in
Stockholm in a private place to some people interested by Revisionism. But it wasn't possible. When,
with my friend Ahmed Rami, I got near the place we were attacked by some hooligans who had theirs
face hidden and I was told that those people had stones and knifes . We received on our car one
stone, on the window. It did not break. We had to leave. It was impossible for me to give this
conference."
The 10 th aggression is that of 30 May 1993 in Paris.
In the book " Writings revisionists (1974-1998) ", in the letter of 1 st June 1993:
" Note that an incident occurred during this congress: a man named Pierre Courson, former interned at
Buchenwald, approached the professor to ask for his name, then punched him violently in
using his sword cane . Immediately, two friends who accompanied Mr. Faurisson belted the
disruptor who immediately chose to leave the premises. "
Then, in that of June 18, 1993:
" On May 30, a Jew attacked me at a congress of atheists. "
So he was also attacked on May 30, 1993, with a cane.
The problem is, suddenly, there is no proof that this actually happened.
And while in 1989, Faurisson finally had the idea to take 3 unfortunate photos of bad
quality, he forgets to do it again during the next four assaults, so we don't have to
again no evidence.
The details of some attacks are questionable.
This is the case with the 1 st . He is supposedly beaten up. But we have no details on the subject. Weird when
even. Since it was the first assault, we should have had a lot of details.
But no. All we know is that he was beaten up. [Page 51]
This is still the case for the 2 nd . We are told that the attackers only recognized him after having him
exceeded. It's amazing. It is hard to imagine that these guys came without having seen pictures of
Faurisson. However, in the crowd of students, a professor recognizes himself very easily, because of the
age difference. And Faurisson's physique was quite typical, very recognizable. So we don't
not quite see how the guys who came to assault him could have missed him.
But hey, assuming that's true, there's a second problem. There shouldn't have been marked
on their foreheads that they came to attack Faurisson. So, Faurisson should not have suspected anything and
shouldn't have started running after passing them. Suddenly, even if they had recognized him
after having passed it by 10 or 20 m, they should have been able to retrace their steps and catch Faurisson.
Third problem, there was no one at the doors to stop it in the event of a leak. This is
possible, but it's a bit weird anyway.
And finally, the fourth problem. We are told that Faurisson succeeded in sowing his attackers. That is
very surprising. He was almost 50 years old. And at 50, you can't make a violent effort
for a long time. He was apparently small (between 1.65m and 1.70m). For their part, his attackers
must have been in their twenties; and inevitably, we had to take big guys to do this
kind of job. So, they were surely going faster than him. And if they pursued him, it is because they
had it in their field of vision. And in this case, he had virtually no chance of
escape. The blow of the building site where he would have taken refuge is a little too lucky to be credible.
So I think it was Brigneau who said that Faurisson was athletic and in good physical shape.
Okay, but he wasn't a professional athlete. And with his job as a university professor, more
his family, plus his work on revisionism, he must not have had much time to do
Sport. He had to do it only once a week, two at most. Nothing to do with him
an athlete. And even with a very correct physical form, at 50, you tire quickly when
we make a violent effort. So, in front of 20 year old guys, tall and athletic, he had almost
no chance of sowing them.
The few details of the attack of September 12, 1987, at the Sorbonne also raise questions. he
is said that Faurisson would have been injured (without knowing the nature of the injury).
But above all, it is said that Henry Chauveau was seriously injured. However, that poses a problem. The
group which carries out the attack thus seriously injures Henry Chauveau, but not Faurisson. Faurisson
was the beast to be slaughtered, the chief bastard. But no, instead of seriously injuring the latter, it is
Chauveau that they do that, that is to say to an illustrious stranger. Indeed, until then, while I know the
revisionism since 1996, I had never heard of it. And there's hardly anything on him
on the Internet. It is also very practical so that we have no proof of what happened to him.
And apparently, the attackers must have been much stronger, since the 5 people attacked had
all were injured. And there was apparently no one to defend them. So the aggressors
should have had no difficulty concentrating on Faurisson and seriously injuring him too.
But no, they just give him a simple injury and not serious injuries. They finally got the junk
ultimate at their mercy. But instead of massacring him, like Chauveau, they just make him a simple
injury. [Page 52]
For the first aggression in Sweden ( March 17, 1992 ), the anti-revisionists therefore had
knives, sticks and tear gas. But apparently Faurisson got off without too much
problems. The attackers were once again a real band with nickel feet.
And the same goes for the second attack in Sweden. There he apparently has nothing.
Assuming for a moment that the attackers were ordinary types, we can say that,
seeing that they were protected by the power in place, they could have multiplied the attacks. So that
is not 10 assaults that Faurisson should have suffered, but 30 or 40.
Besides, the majority of these attacks were apparently organized. It had been prepared in high places
since the attackers were always protected by the police and the political authorities. The
problem is that in 1989, we have an aggression which is practically made to kill according to the statements
by Faurisson. And the same can be said of that of September 12, 1987, since Chauveau
still been seriously injured. So if the elite's goal was to kill Faurisson, why not
did she not? Moreover, if the elite had really wanted to suppress Faurisson, it would have been sufficient to
kill him with a pistol or explosive device. But if the goal was not this, why did she
ordered an attack that was highly likely to kill him in the heat of the moment? That does not make any sense.
But it does if the assault never actually happened, or was fictitious. The spectacular side of the attack
served to make Faurisson a martyr. But, as it was to serve until the 2010s,
to make the junction with the conspirators, he should not be killed.
Incidentally, we note that in addition to the fact that there are almost no photos, there are very few
details every time. However, when we have just been attacked like this, we want to talk about it. In
over the coming days, we tend to come back to the subject again and again. In any case, we give a
minimum level of detail, i.e. something that fits at least one page, but not that
barely 10 lines. But, liars often avoid giving too much detail, for fear of
contradict or invent something that might make people tick. That's why we have so little
information. :
The aim of these false attacks was of course to reinforce the martyr aspect of Faurisson. With those-
Here, his enemies appeared even more vile and loathsome. Obviously, at the time,
fanaticized by the elite, most people would think, either that it was right for him or that
was not good, but he had looked for it anyway. At worst, it was considered [Page 53] "counterproductive" for the official theory. There weren't many who must have found that
disgusting from a moral point of view. So apparently for the persecuted side it seemed
rather be a failure. But, as we have seen, the elite wanted to spread the adoption of revisionism
only from the 2010s. Therefore, the martyrdom effect would not apply until 20 years later.
And now, indeed, for many people who think a minimum, these attacks do
pass for a martyr, which supports the idea that it is the revisionists who are right. And that
also directly reinforces anti-Semitism, since it pushes grassroots Jews into a
little more for fanatical, undemocratic, violent, cowardly, and therefore despicable people. Therefore,
it is double benefit for the elite.
And somewhere, it's quite ironic, because the same technique is used here as the one used
for the Jews with the holocaust. Namely that people do not dare to question a person
that they think she suffered. With all these persecutions, the people who support Faurisson
will never dare to think that maybe he was not what he seemed to be, the same way
people do not dare to criticize the Jews because of the Holocaust. And of course, they dare not call in
question the reality of the assault or massacre.
Regarding the interview with Faurisson in Le Matin de Paris of November 16, 1978, we realize
So here it follows the Louis Darquier de Pellepoix affair in the Express of October 28, 1978.
If we want to analyze this event from a non-conspiracy or light conspiracy point of view,
we can ask ourselves the following question. Why did Le Matin decide to interview Faurisson for
this article ? And already, how did they think of him?
A priori, we say to ourselves that it is because he was already known to the latter because of the controversy of
1974, or his article in June 1978 in "Defense of the West". But, we learn on Radio Islam
( here) that this was not the case. Moreover, the fact that he was not known to the Morning serves precisely to
justify that he was interviewed, in opposition to the newspaper Le Monde, where he was already. [Page 54]
" In the world nobody blinks. We know the man and we live in terror to see him land,
trying to corner an editor in a hallway to lecture him on importance. In the morning of Paris,
we do not know the case and the Parisian editorial staff charges its correspondent in Lyon, Claude
Regent, to contact Faurisson. They meet, armed with cassette recorders, on the 8th
November at the Sofitel . "
So how did they think of him? In fact because of the letter he sent to several
newspapers (including Le Matin) in reaction to the Darquier affair. This is how they got to know
of its existence.
However, the fact that they did not know him before this letter poses a problem. Why go interview
a totally unknown guy, apparently (for the Morning) not having published anything on the subject? For
them, he was nobody in this matter. He couldn't be considered a specialist.
So there was no real reason for Le Matin to devote an interview to him, especially on a subject
causing so much scandal. It suddenly gave importance to a guy who was unknown
until then (at least on this subject).
So, one could answer that it is because the subject was hot and that they had only him under the
hand. As there was still no specialist in the field in France, they were sought in
catastrophe the first which presented itself. It seems logical.
Only, the affair started to make a big noise, it had reached the ears of the Jewish authorities,
since Simone Veil reacted to it on October 30, 1978 , in Ivan Levaï's program on Europe 1. So,
these, instead of giving more publicity to this theory, would certainly have sought to
hush up the case as much as possible. And since the CEO of Le Matin was Jewish, of course, he would have gone to their
meaning.
Moreover, even without pressure from the Jewish authorities, as people on the left, anti-racists and
loathing anti-Semitism (at a time when leftists were already hysterical on the subject),
Journalists from Le Matin would have been more than happy to be able to say that Louis Darquier of
Pellepoix was the only guy who said that and that he was a lone nutcase. Go get Faurisson was at
contrary to give the impression that there was a movement of revisionist opinion when in reality it
there was nothing at that time.
So they definitely weren't going to interview some guy who didn't have any legitimacy
concerning revisionism. Giving importance to such an abject idea movement (for them)
while still belonging to the microscopic small group would have been considered by them as
something that went against their moral principles.
And at the time, this kind of leftist newspapers was not at all in the mercantilism, and therefore the
scoop at all costs. On the contrary, we hated this kind of method. Left-wing newspapers are
presented as very serious from this point of view. The few newspapers that practiced this,
like France-Soir, were deeply despised by leftist journalists. So we can't
not invoke the desire to make the buzz on the part of these two newspapers.
And then, at that time, Le Matin could not justify the publication of Faurisson's interview.
by aggression. However, it is in part the aggression of Faurisson which is put forward to justify
publication in the "World". [Page 55]
And above all, the journalists would have been terrified at the idea of the consequences of the interview. They
knew very well that they could have been accused of playing into the game of the revisionist movement in him
suddenly giving visibility he didn't have. And given the terror that already reigned on the subject,
it was the risk of immediate layoff. Because here it was zealous to do
an interview. So it was the risk of dismissal in the second; and the certainty of no longer
never work for any other mainstream newspaper. So never journalists
would not have taken that kind of risk. All the more so as we saw that it was the Jew Perdriel who was at the
head of this newspaper, a friend of the Rothschilds, which means that they had even more risks of
get fired if they advertised revisionism. So it is clear that if they did, it is
because they were told to do it.
And in the case of Le Matin, it is the newspaper that comes looking for Faurisson to make a
interview. We are in something that goes much further than what the world will almost do
2 months later. Indeed, in the case of Le Monde, it was only a question of publishing a letter of
reader, and the initiative for sending it came from Faurisson. It is of much less scope.
But hey, if we come back to the level of conspiracy of this site, things are a lot
simpler. Since everything is under control, these newspapers would never have published these articles if the elite
hadn't wanted it, period.
Finally, it is said that in 1974, Faurisson sent his first revisionist letters to various
historians and specialists known throughout the world; and this with the letterhead of his university
(Sorbonne). He did it to gain more credibility. This is an important detail. Indeed, a teacher has
the right to say whatever he wants if he does it in his own name and his university does not have the right to
sanction for his opinions. But if he does it on behalf of the university, things change, because
it makes believe that she endorses what he says. And write a letter with the letterhead of the university leaves to
think he's doing it on behalf of it. In this situation, the university has the right to sanction the
professor. And that, Faurisson could not ignore. On a subject so explosive, so taboo, it is
obvious that he knew he was in danger of being dismissed outright by using paper with the letterhead of the
Sorbonne. If he did so, it must be on purpose. Of course, it doesn't make sense if it was this
that it seemed to be. But if he's an elite agent, it makes sense. He had to be let go by his
faculty to better pass for a martyr.
And the argument that he only spoke to individuals privately and thought he did not
risking punishment thanks to that does not hold a second. Speaking to official advocates of
official thesis, some of whom were Jews, it is obvious that they were bound to denounce him and
that the use of letterhead would automatically be used against him. And considering the subject, its
university was not going to hesitate to fire him, or at least prevent his advancement and suppress
any advantage. Considering his age and intelligence, Faurisson knew all of this perfectly. [Page 56]
The first was the Roques affair. He affirmed in his university thesis defended in 1985 that
the testimony of SS Kurt Gerstein on the homicidal gassings of Belzec had no value
scientist. However, this testimony was important, since it was officially coming from an SS who
disapproved of the mass killings and who had made spontaneous confessions. They were therefore not
tainted with the suspicion of having been obtained under torture.
The Roques affair had a big impact in France. It is for example said on this site having for
Faurisson theme: " Then broke out in France the " time bomb " for the Roques affair. From
of April and May 1986 was released in the newspapers, on all radio stations and on all
television channels a major campaign against "the scandalous thesis of Nantes" , "the
thesis which denies the gas chambers "," the anti-Semitic thesis which received the highest grade ". "
Roques was notably invited on May 23, 1986 to radio Europe 1 in the program "Découvertes" (a very popular show), from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Henri Roques and his lawyer éric Delcroix meet again opposed to nine people, without counting the person in charge of the program: Jean-Pierre Elkabbach.
We also talk about it in the 20h newspaper of Antenne 2 (here and here ) , May 23, 1986.
Who was Henri Roques? Without further details, we say to ourselves that it was a young person (that's what I thought, until a few years ago). It is essentially only them who pass theses. And for himself launch into a battle of this kind, we tend to think that it takes the unconsciousness and the ardor of the youth. But in fact, no. He was born in 1920. So when he started writing his thesis, he had already 62 years old!
And we say to ourselves that he was an average student who wanted to make the truth triumph. But not at all.
He was a neo-fascist.
Indeed, we learn on Wikipedia :
"He admitted having belonged to the RNP (Rassemblement National Populaire) from February 1941 to October
1942. Put under house arrest in Rambervillers on September 20, 1945, he was released shortly after,
subject to an order of call-up. " [Page 57]
"During the 1950s, he became an active far-right activist , participating in several
neofascist groups : National Citadel Movement in 1950, French Phalange in 1955.
For three years he was general secretary of this neofascist group. It is as such that it
participates in the inaugural meeting of the Deutsche Soziale Union founded by Otto Strasser. "
"It seems that Roques muted his political engagements between the early 1960s
and the 1980s. From 1986, he appears in the demonstrations of the National Front where his
wife holds official functions. According to Valérie Igounet, if Henri Roques is not
officially a member of the National Front, it is not to compromise the party of Jean-Marie Le
Pen, because in the meantime it is at the center of the controversy that the defense of his doctoral thesis in
Letters aroused. "
Detail that will be important later, we learn here that it was an agricultural engineer (at the
retirement in 1981).
" In June 1985, a retired agricultural engineer, Henri Roques , a far-right and close activist
de Faurisson, supports at the University of Nantes a thesis on Kurt Gerstein, questioning the "Official" truth on the Holocaust. Its jury is made up almost exclusively of extreme right activists, not competent on the subject, including the president, Jean-Paul Allard, of Lyon III , militant of the
Research and Study Group for European Civilization ( GRECE ). It's the first time
that deniers are trying to get a diploma endorsed. After a year of controversy, this one
is canceled due to numerous frauds which led to its issue.
A thesis is something that requires a minimum number of pages, generally within
400 to 500. On the site from the University of Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne, we are talking about a minimum of 300 pages for a history thesis, and 400 to 500 ideally:
" A history thesis corresponds to original research work, which constitutes a contribution to the
scientific knowledge. If from a quantitative point of view the thesis should be situated, ideally, between
400 and 500 pages (in any case, it is desirable that the minimum threshold of 300 pages be respected),
it is especially on its nature of intellectual work that it is necessary to focus. "
So a thesis is not done in a few months. On a specialized subject, requiring research by
references, it usually takes years to write it down.
However, at 61 or 62, you no longer want to be bored with this kind of thing. After having worked
for almost 40 years, very few people have the courage to tackle such a thankless task. And that over 2, 3 or 4 years. When we know that we may only have 10 or 15 years to live, we don't
Usually there is no risk of wasting 20 or 30% of this time doing a Benedictine work. Mostly
when you already have 40 years of work behind you. Above all, we want to enjoy life.
So, of course, anything is always possible. But all the same, it's already pretty fishy. [Page 58]
And not everyone can do that. A man of action will generally not be
able to stay bent over books to write a thesis. A man of money will think that
it is time wasted for nothing. You have to have a certain mind to do that sort of thing. And he
It also takes some practice. Few people are able to bend over overnight
on books and write 400 or 500 pages on an arid and sharp subject. Especially since it can't
not be written in a mediocre style. For a thesis, especially in comparative literature, the style must
be of an excellent standard. Those who are selected for a doctorate in literature are partly selected on
this criterion.
But Roques had never been a man of writing until then. He was an agricultural engineer, secretary
General of the French Phalange. But nowhere do we see that he was a journalist or a writer or
professor. So again, nothing is impossible. But again, it's suspicious. And as it is
the second questionable element on the same problem, it becomes clearly suspect.
And it was obviously necessary in the subject concerned . A student with a DEA in history could not
not pass a chemistry thesis. And conversely, a student with a DEA in chemistry could not
pass a thesis in history. However, we are told that Roques had been a student at the university of sciences
from Nancy (Henri Poincaré University), then agricultural engineer. So normally he didn't have the
diploma allowing him to pass a thesis in comparative literature. He may have had the bac level
+5, but not in comparative literature. And he most likely didn't have an AED, but something
more applied. However, you need a DEA specifically.
And these requirements are normal. The thesis allows to have the doctoral degree, the highest level
academic; a diploma that allows you to teach at the faculty or apply for jobs in
searcher. And obviously, the places of teachers or researchers are rare and therefore expensive. Yes
any pequin could pass a thesis as a free candidate and thus obtain a diploma of
doctorate, then he could walk past people who have worked hard to get through the different
steps to the top of the university. As academics protect their home, they will not
obviously not make such competition possible at the highest level. And this is also true
for the passage between sectors. It is out of the question that guys with a diploma for example in
biology, even university, come to hunt on the lands of those who are in literature or
physical, computer, etc ... And this, even if they have the level. So, logically, the diploma of
doctorate is only reserved for those who have a bac + 5 university degree, and specifically in the
sector in question. It is even so restrictive that within a sector, people who have a
DESS instead of a DEA cannot continue with a doctorate, this because the DESS has a finality
professional and not research or teaching. So even the bac + 5 level is not
sufficient in itself. And even within a course, depending on the specialization that the student has taken at the level
bac + 3 and bac + 4, he may not be able to apply for a particular DEA and therefore then, for a particular doctorate. [Page 59]
Moreover, among the reasons that led to the annulment of his thesis and the refusal to grant him the
title of doctor, there was precisely the fact that he did not have the required titles. This is what we can see
sure Wikipedia :
" Dischamps also notes irregularities in the transfer of the file from the University of Paris IV, where
the thesis was initially submitted without a member of the academic body agreeing to
propose the defense and the fact that Roques did not have the required qualifications . "
Therefore, he should never normally have been able to enroll in a doctorate and pass a thesis of
comparative literature. If he was able to do so, it is because he received a totally illegal pass from the
president of the university. Indeed, I do not think that the thesis director can give such
waiver without referring to the latter. But there was no reason for this one to grant one. AT
at the time (1979-1984), the president was Jacques Vilaines, a centralist, then between 1985 and 1988, the
president was Paul Malvy, a professor of medicine. So it wasn't people who had
something to do with comparative literature. Neither of them depended on near or
far from the pundits of the literature faculty and therefore had to answer to them. And neither
was apparently not far-right. And anyway, even in these conditions, the rules
were the rules. So the president of the university would not have granted such a privilege to a student
of college and even less to a complete stranger.
And he would have been all the less able to have a privilege since the subject of his thesis had a priori only
moderately to do with comparative literature. Even if it was a question of comparing the 4 versions
French and the 2 German versions of the Gerstein report, it was more of a history thesis.
Therefore, given the unusual request for a pass and given the age of the applicant, the president of
the university should have inquired about the subject of the thesis. Having a rather historical subject
in a university of literature should have already made him tick strongly. All that would have it
obviously led to analyze the problem more deeply. And there he would have quickly started
to catch a glimpse of the pot aux roses. He probably would have learned about Roques and once he knew
who he was, he would obviously have refused his application for doctoral studies.
On the young-nation website , we learn that :
" He obtained this thesis despite multiple obstacles : his first thesis supervisor could not train
jury , all recusing themselves despite the excellence of the thesis, frightened by the explosive nature of the thesis
questioning the dogma of the "Shoah". Obtaining the thesis, with the mention "Very good" and
congratulations from the jury, mobilized all the anti-France: Dr Roques was the object of a violent campaign
of hate. "
So, even though the president of the university had only seen fire there until then, various members of the 1 st
jury should have warned him immediately of the "scandalous" nature of Roques' thesis. And this one
should then have prevented his defense. So even though Roques might have succeeded in writing his thesis, he [Page 60] could not have gone until the defense and even less until obtaining his diploma
doctorate.
And if the president of the university had not been diligent, we can be sure that those who refused to be
members of the jury would have spread the news that a guy was looking to defend a thesis
revisionist and that this would have immediately alerted all the thought police (journalists,
far-left activists, Jewish associations, politicians, etc.).
Another problem, the professors who accepted to be juries for his thesis were taking a huge risk.
for their profession. So one could answer that they were revisionist fascists and that, suddenly,
it made sense that they supported Roques. Except they apparently weren't doing
noise until then. Otherwise, they would quickly have been spotted by the system and sacked in some way or
of another. So if they hadn't done anything "reprehensible" so far, it was because they were people.
cautious, unwilling to take risks with regard to their career. And since it was about
university professors, that means they were of a certain age and therefore had this behavior
for 10, 20 or 30 years. Now, by validating Roques' thesis, they put themselves at the front of the
scene; and in the midst of the revisionist witch-hunt, they took the enormous risk of
expel from their faculty. Their behavior therefore becomes inconsistent; if they were careful people,
they certainly would not have exposed themselves to such great danger. Once again, it accredits
the idea that it was all organized at the highest level. These teachers were actually very
probably elite agents and, acting on command, they were in fact taking no risks.
There, their behavior becomes logical.
And we do not quite understand why Roques absolutely wanted to pass a thesis. He could
very well just write a book and publish it. It was much less complicated and uncertain.
And having a thesis did not strengthen the credibility of his work since, having been obtained with
the help of professors favorable to revisionism, everyone was going to say immediately that this
had been a diploma of convenience. However, to gain more credibility by having the approval of
college professors was about the only valid excuse to do all of this. Without this reason,
all these efforts were wasted.
Another possible reason, much less convincing, was to show the world that
revisionists were present in the upper echelons of a French university. It would have been a
sort of show of power, a stroke of brilliance, a way of making fun of the authority in place.
But, it would not have served much, since it would have immediately led to a purification
professors who supported him. Which means that, as we have just seen, these would not have
certainly not given their support. They wouldn't have risked their careers for a simple coup
without tomorrow. And it also means that in the end, it would have been the revisionists who would have lost,
since they would have been fired and their influence wiped out. So that would have clearly been the forces
anti-revisionists who would have laughed at the revisionists in the end. And then the
demonstration of power would not have been extraordinary, since it would only have concerned
university and a small group inside of it. Nothing fabulous. Finally, the idea of ??a sparkle
relatively ridiculous like that, it's a young man's idea, not that of a 60-year-old guy. Yes
that was the idea behind this action, it had a schoolboy side, and a kid's challenge. [Page 61]
So, on the Wikipedia page , we are told what happened: " In 1981, when he comes from
to retire, Henri Roques contacted Faurisson who suggested that he do a thesis on
the stories of Kurt Gerstein ".
Okay. But, between a suggestion of Faurisson and the realization of the thing, there is a world. We have
since the thing was not possible since Roques did not have a DEA in literature. So the idea
de Faurisson immediately fell into the water.
Besides, that means that Faurisson's suggestion is suspicious. He was perfectly placed to
to know that such a thing was not possible. But as Faurisson was an agent of power, it is
normal. It served as a voluntary screen to justify this story.
On the same Wikipedia page, we are told how the thing happened in practice. " Jacques
Rougeot , professor of literature at the University of Paris IV, agrees to be its thesis supervisor. Rougeot
is aware of certain contradictions, even improbabilities, present in the accounts of
Gerstein "To get everyone to agree, nothing is better than a thesis. Like that, the texts
genuine ones will appear, and the one who made a mistake will recognize his mistake ". The thesis subject
confessions of Kurt Gerstein. Comparative study of the different versions was filed in 1982. Roques
is initiated by Faurisson in the criticism of texts and the rules of the university method at the same
time that he regularly reports on his work to his thesis supervisor. "
So, there, we have the name of the thesis director. Who is Jacques Rougeot? Already, we learn on his Wikipedia page, that he is a doctor of letters (1978) and professor emeritus of French at the university
Paris Sorbonne-Paris IV. What comes next is interesting. We are told that:
" he was one of the founders and chairman of the honorary committee of the National Interuniversity Union
(UNITED). "
" He was also one of the founders of the Initiative and Freedom Movement, of which he was the first president ."
" In the 1980s, he wrote in the review of the Clock Club , Contrepoint, a group to which he
elsewhere belonged . "
The Initiative and Freedom Movement was a right-wing political movement, as was the Union
National Interuniversity. So Rougeot was clearly on the right. Now, it's already pretty weird,
since the university in general was a land of leftism at the time, and especially the universities of
letter or language. So it's relatively surprising that we have a kind of straight professor at the
Sorbonne. Especially since he was 30 years old in May 68. He was clearly of what is called "the generation.
68 ". And the 68 generation, in university of letters or of language, was ultra-leftist. It was among the sectors
the most to the left, and that when the faculties were already strongly on the left. It was a real
haunt of communists, anarchists, Maoists, Trotskyists, socialists, cool babes,
etc... So, in the lot, a right guy, it must have done badly. Besides, in fact, it [Page 62] was clearly on a hard right, between classic right and far right, since the club of
the Clock was of this tendency. So it becomes even more suspicious.
But what even more fishy is that the clock club is clearly a Freemasonry creation.
masonry. The clock is a symbol frequently used in Freemasonry. And the people
far-right wing with some knowledge of Freemason influence could not
ignore this fact. So those who founded this club would not have taken this name because of the doubt that it
trained on his true nature. If they named it that, it's because it's actually an emanation
Freemasonry (the story that the name came from the clock in Yvan Blot's apartment,
one of the creators of this association, was obviously invented to drown the fish). They had to
thinking that ordinary people were too stupid or ignorant to make the connection. And if it's a
division of Freemasonry, then all of its members and stakeholders were Freemasons.
So Rougeot certainly was (for more thoughts on the clock club, see appendix 2).
And the Initiative and Freedom Movement (MIL) is itself a shady thing. It is apparently a
informal reformation of the SAC, which was a kind of parallel police in the service of General
Gaulle. We are told regarding the SAC on Wikipedia :
" The civic action service (SAC) was, from 1960 to 1981, an association in the service of the general of
Gaulle then his Gaullist successors, but often described as a parallel police, originally created
to constitute a "guard of the faithful" devoted to the unconditional service of the general after his
back to business in 1958. "
In reality, the SAC was therefore an emanation of the secret services. Which means that the MIL was
certainly itself an emanation of the latter. And the fact that Jacques Rougeot made it
party (and was outright its first president) indicates that he was most likely an agent
power.
By the way, the abbreviation of Mouvement Initiative et Liberté is MIL. And MIL in French is a
homonym of thousand, namely the number 1000. And 1000, it is 10x10x10, either XXX in Roman numeral or IO
IO IO, which are illuminati references. Again, it couldn't be innocent.
And compared to his position at the University of Paris IV, that means that he was very probably protected.
By 1981 the Socialists came to power. So that he wasn't fucked up in this
university, with all its hard-right, even far-right activities, is that it was
necessarily an agent.
The question then arises as to why Jacques Rougeot agreed to supervise Roques' thesis. Yes he was a freemason and an agent of power, and that power was against the revisionists, this agent should have absolutely refused to participate in this adventure. He should even have denounced them immediately. If he agreed to do it, it is because in reality, revisionism is a project of the elite.
And of course, Rougeot should have said straight away that it was impossible to pass this thesis since Roques did not have a DEA in comparative literature and therefore could not enroll it in 3 rd
cycle. He should have added that even if Roques managed to do it at another university thanks to various complicities, this would necessarily be invalidated. [Page 63]
And, here again, we do not see why Rougeot would have accepted to take such a huge risk.
for his academic career and for all his posts in political organizations. They had necessarily that revisionism was persecuted in a totally hysterical and iniquitous manner on the part of
power in place. So he knew he was in danger of being benched by society and sidelined from all circles he frequented. He would never have taken that risk. And all the less since he had none apparently never taken any so far (at least not of that order).
And in addition to the stigma attached to supporting a revisionist, there was simply the risk to be dismissed for having allowed a person without an adequate diploma to register in doctorate. He had validated an illegal registration and issuance of diplomas, all in a way
conscious, premeditated. It could go a long way academically, especially in such a context
where all sanctions were already permitted by general hysteria against revisionism.
In addition, we learn on Wikipedia, that
" In 1981, when he had just retired, Henri Roques contacted Faurisson who
suggests doing a thesis on the stories of Kurt Gerstein. Roques begins work on Kurt
Gerstein in writing a memoir, Poliakov facing Gerstein's testimony, and he is cited as
defense witness at the trial brought by Robert Faurisson against Leon Poliakov - trial at
term of which Robert Faurisson is condemned, for defamation, to two thousand francs fine and one
free of damages and interest, conviction confirmed on appeal. "
This poses a problem. Indeed, if Roques had been an illustrious unknown at the time of his registration in
doctorate, we could have accepted the idea that it went unnoticed. But this is no longer the case
at all. Since he had been cited in the Faurisson trial, he had instantly become known
police services, and also journalists (he would very probably have become so too by his
simple association with Faurisson, but with the trial, it was even more obvious). So it would have been
closely followed by the secret services to find out what he was doing. And these would have
immediately became aware of his strange enrollment in doctorate and the subject of his thesis. So,
if the power in place had really been against revisionism, it would then have warned the
journalists and especially the university authorities of Paris IV who would have immediately canceled his
registration in doctorate. But it was not done because revisionism was a creation of
the elite.
We learn a little further on Wikipedia that: " In fact, Henri Roques will recognize that Faurisson
will have been his "unofficial thesis supervisor" ".
It is after obtaining his thesis that he will recognize this. Suddenly, the problem of spying on
Roques arises even more. Insofar as he had remained in regular contact with Faurisson
throughout his thesis, it is impossible that the secret services were not aware that
the existence of it. There, not only Roques, but also Faurisson (who was to be still
more spied on than Roques) were involved throughout the thesis. So the French secret services
should have known what was going on. Roques should then have been dismissed immediately
of the University. But that didn't happen because it was actually an elite-organized operation. [Page 64]
We learn, again on Wikipedia : " In 1984, Roques finished writing, and Rougeot must
constitute a jury. Become aware of the explosive nature of the thesis, he tries to constitute a jury
above all suspicion, but faces various refusals ".
It is hardly credible that Rougeot only became aware of the character at this time.
explosive of the thesis. Revisionism was already totally demonized. Rougeot could not
ignore it. He knew very well where he was going from the start.
Otherwise, according to the official story we are being served here, success was not initially guaranteed, since there is
had problem at this point. So how could Roques have wanted to give it a shot, when he hadn't
apparently not received any guarantees regarding the jury? He had to have these guarantees, otherwise, if he
was not sure he could defend his thesis, there was no point in spending two and a half years writing it.
But he wrote it anyway (or a think tank wrote it for him) because he knew very well
that in the end, there would be no problem with the jury.
Moreover, since the members of the first jury refused to assume this role, one can think that
it is because at least some of them disapproved of the subject of the thesis. So like
already said previously, one wonders why some did not denounce it at that time.
So maybe most were far-right (but then, with the second jury, that
begins to make a bunch of people who were far-right in the highest strata of
university). It is a possibility. But, with the various refusals, he may not have confined himself to
only far-right colleagues he knew.
And then, it is well said that Rougeot tried to constitute a jury above all suspicion. Now that, that
involved having people who were not far-right. Otherwise people would obviously have said
that it was a jury of convenience. So normally he had to resort to people on the left,
from the center or the classic right. And suddenly, we fall back on the problem of the fact that they should have
denounce Roques. And besides, that also poses a problem vis-à-vis Rougeot. Indeed, having
aware that the thesis was explosive, he knew that with a jury above all suspicion (therefore, not
far-right), there was a huge risk that not only Roques, but also himself
get denounced by one of them.
We are then told that: " Roques then takes the matter in hand and reconnects with Jean-Claude Rivière ,
a professor from Nantes who is neither a historian nor a Germanist, but a former editor at the
far-right newspaper Europe-Action and co-founder of GRECE , and who agrees to become his new thesis director . This is a postgraduate doctoral thesis. The thesis jury is finally
chaired by Jean-Paul Allard, professor of Germanic language and literature at Lyon III and director of Indo-European studies, with Pierre Zind , associate professor in the science department of the education of Lyon II, an Alsatian autonomist close to GREECE . While the other members of the Jury are rather close to GREECE, Thierry Buron, traditionalist Catholic, attending the University of
Nantes, appears on the jury as a consultant, but will be absent during the defense ".
Finding a first teacher who was willing to play his career for it was already amazing, so in
find a second at short notice (Jean-Claude Rivière), just as ready to destroy his career, [Page 65]
accompanied by several others in the same case (the jury), fell squarely on the intervention
Divine.
We also wonder why he did not take things in hand from the start since it was so
easy to find a professor willing to become his thesis supervisor, as well as the members
of the jury. He didn't because it took at least one mishap to make everything seem
not too easy. And then, those who invent these stories like to add small details to
distract people from important points.
So like the clock club, GREECE is clearly a hidden Freemason association. This
which means that, here too, their support for Roques becomes inconsistent. Freemasonry is
supposed to be totally anti-revisionist. So its members should never have agreed to
participate in the jury. If they did, it was because the elite ordered them to do it. They did not "allow" them
to do so, which would imply a free decision on their part, but forced them to do so. The
agents of this level do not take initiative. They just obey orders.
This allows us to come back to a problem mentioned above: the political orientation of
members of the first jury. The fact that most of the members of the second jury were of extreme
right makes it less likely that the first thesis supervisor, Jacques Rougeot, did his
request to participate in the first jury only to far-right professors. There had to be
very little of that political edge at that time. And they had to be literature teachers
or a fairly close domain, which narrowed the search field even further. So the [Page 66]
problem of the non-denunciation of Roques by at least one of the people approached for
constitute the first jury arises again. Among the people contacted, there must have been some who
were not far-right, and who could have denounced Roques. They could have done it just
what for fear of being associated then with this story and of being accused of not having said anything, therefore
to be accomplices by omission. Considering the demonization of the revisionists at the time, it was a possibility
not insignificant. And this accusation could seriously damage their careers.
The fact that the members of the second jury were mainly members or close to GREECE does not
not by chance. They had to be in order to be able to link far-right revisionism to
from the mid-1980s in France. As the latter was on the rise, it made
the even greater revisionist threat to the "values of the republic". And so that
justified the creation of the Fabius-Gayssot law . And Roques had to be on the extreme right; no
only to reinforce this idea that revisionism was becoming a movement of fascists, but
also because it made it possible to justify the choice of a thesis director and a jury more or less
far-right.
Moreover, if we had this complicated plan adopted at Roques (pass a thesis instead of simply
write a book), is that the elite wanted to believe that the university itself was gangrenous at most
high level by revisionism. At the time, a non-university guy who would have written a book
revisionist alone, that would have just been one more isolated nutcase; especially if it had been a fascist
notorious. A guy doing it in a university and receiving support from professors
(in addition to the far-right) to graduate, there it had a much more symbolic impact
important. And, for the elite, it was necessary to give a very symbolic scope to the event. It was necessary to do
believe that revisionist and far-right ideas were found at the highest level of these
temples of knowledge that are universities and therefore that the republic was in danger. And the republic
in danger, that justified the creation of the Fabius-Gayssot law.
This is also why they had made sure that Faurisson was a university professor. As
he was an academic, his revisionist commitment had far more reach.
Otherwise, in Roques' thesis, we can read on page 198:
" difficult, because we had to collect materials of which we did not know the number and the origin;
some have been found in Germany, at the LKA in Bielefeld / Westphalia, others in the United States,
"National Archives" of Washington, others still, in Paris, in the files of Military Justice
French "
How is it that we authorized this guy having connections with the extreme right, and
above all, with Faurisson, to consult the archives in question? He should have been denied access.
But we didn't do it because he was an agent. So all the doors were open to him.
Moreover, it would later be a secondary element of revisionism. The stars were
Faurisson, Butz, Luchter, the members of the old mole, etc ... The big subjects, it was the impossibility
gas chamber technique, the way the camps functioned, the false death toll, the
retreat of the authorities on the official version, the false Jewish witnesses, etc ... Roques and the testimony
of the anti-Nazi SS Gerstein, which obviously imagined to be a fake was only of secondary interest
in all of that. Personally, when I learned about revisionism in the late years
90, the subject of this thesis seemed to me of too limited interest to read. So, subsequently, people
weren't going to be so interested in it again (I almost forgot about it). And for the few there
interestingly, they were mainly going to read Roques' thesis, but not more than that interested in his CV. This
which meant that the secret services did not need to take care of all the details.
Finally, the 2 opposing camps were going to have good reasons not to look beyond the version
official. The anti-revisionists were going to say to themselves that these complicities at the highest level of the university
had allowed these irregularities. For their part, the pro-revisionists are too much in the worship of
revisionists known to be able to question them. So they were going to tell each other that it all had
been done on a regular basis (it was my case until then). Generally speaking, the pro-revisionists will not
not so much interested in these details, but mainly in the ideas put forward by these people.
So, one can object that he would have received publicity in the nationalist sphere since he was
part of the extreme right. However, it then had hundreds of thousands of members or
supporters. So, one can defend the idea that he did not care about official advertising and that he did not target
than that coming from nationalist circles. But in fact no. At the time, the extreme right respected the
taboo of the holocaust and said nothing about it. Suddenly, this argument falls apart. He wouldn't
logically should have received no publicity from the nationalists.
The only publicity Roques would have received would have come from the revisionists. But, with only that
a few tens or hundreds of members, they were of no importance in numerical terms.
So without the threat of nationalist newspapers talking about it, the official media could without
problem organizing the censorship of the event (and anyway, they would have done it even with this
threat). But the official journals have talked about it at length; and in doing so, have
created the Roques case. Once again, it was normal, it was intended. [Page 68]
We note on this page of the pro-Faurisson blog, that when Roques appeared on the radio in 1986, he
would have severely damaged his opponents.
" The climax of this campaign was reached on May 23, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., during a very
popular radio station Europe No. 1: "Discoveries". H. Roques and his lawyer, éric Delcroix,
were opposed by nine people, without counting the person in charge of the program: J.- P.
Elkabbach. Among these nine people, there were in particular G. Wellers and C. Lanzmann, author of the film
Shoah, as well as, by telephone, Simone Veil and two ministers. H. Roques said he
doubted the existence of the gas chambers while Eric Delcroix said that he did not believe in their
existence. Both gave their reasons. On the side of those who said they believed in the existence of
gas chambers, there were hardly any arguments but there were mostly moralizing sermons,
outrages and name-calling. C. Lanzmann launched at the address of H. Roques: "Shut your ugly mouth
rat! " At the end of the show, Jacques Tarnero said: " We got tricked . »H. Roques replied that
the revisionists were very strong if they had succeeded, being two, in trapping so many people.
Millions of French people have been able, if they have been careful, to witness the agony "live"
of the myth of homicidal gas chambers. From Claude Lanzmann's own mouth, they learned that he
should not be confused, as a minister had just done, crematorium ovens and gas chambers.
Lanzmann has said over and over again that there had been no homicidal gas chambers in Germany, nor in
Mauthausen (Austria) , but only in a few places in Poland. "
If the supporters of the official version were defeated that evening, we can be sure that it was
again on purpose. Indeed, thanks to the anti-revisionist hysteria organized by the elite, this victory
bursting with revisionism at the level of ideas made it possible to justify future laws
anti-revisionists.
Because after the debate, what was going to be put forward, it is obviously not that Roques and the
revisionists had good arguments (in the minds of the general public, white-hot by the
media, they were necessarily wrong), but they were too smart and they could seduce
simple souls.
To take a comparison, this guy was the devil. We don't argue with the devil. It is
necessarily bad and wants to lead us to our doom. Fortunately, "normal" people don't
not fall into the trap. But he can seduce gullible people. So the fact that he is advancing
apparently convincing arguments, far from leaning "normal" people on its side.
that they are even more upset against him, since he presents an even greater threat to
towards society by being able to seduce weak souls.
In this case, it was exactly the same. The fact that the revisionists are a bit
too convincing and could seduce a part of the public had to result in the media
present as extremely dangerous. So this live defeat from the official camp was
organized to generate more hysteria against the revisionists, and thus justify a further
little more the future Fabius-Gayssot law .
And the second advantage for the elite (even if much less important) is that in the long term, it
helped spread revisionism. This defeat of the official camp was obviously not going to happen in the future.
go unnoticed by people who think a minimum and who study revisionism. And even if [Page 69] it was a secondary element among the various revisionist arguments, it helped to convey
the idea that it was they who were right. So in the short term and long term things were going in
the meaning of the elite plan: in the short term, because it helped pass the Gayssot law, and in the long term
term, because it helped to spread revisionist ideas a little.
So, if he was able to write his thesis and then support it, it is because Roques necessarily received support. assets that went well beyond the presidency of the university.
Or, what is more likely is that almost none of this happened and the affair
has been largely invented. In this hypothesis, the thesis would have been written by a think
counter intelligence tank. Roques wouldn't even have to go to college and write anything
or (a thesis is practical for that, since you work alone). There would have just been to get approved
official history by the few officials involved (university presidents and a few
teachers).
" As for those who call me" provocateur ", I will answer them that I am delighted with this name,
coming from them, who are certainly anything but provocateurs: we will reread, for example, the article by
Michel Marmin in the World, after the attack on rue Copernic, or that of Alain de Benoist in the
Quotidien de Paris, to dissociate itself from its former accountant Henri Roques . "
So, Henri Roques was downright the accountant of Alain de Benoist, who is therefore one of the founders
from GREECE. Everything intersects.
3) The aftermath of the revisionist affair in France: the period 87-90
3.1) Interview with Faurisson in April 1987
[Page 70] In early 1987, we already had an interview with Faurisson on the FR3 television channel (here and here , FR3, journal 19/20) on April 30 , as part of the Klaus Barbie trial . So, again, there was a business allowing to speak about revisionism.
" Jean-Marie Le Pen: I do not know the revisionist theses. But whatever these theses are, and
whatever those developed intellectually, I am in favor of freedom of the mind. I
believes that the truth has an extraordinary force which is not afraid of lies or innuendo. By
therefore, I am hostile to all forms of prohibition and regulation of thought. All
what we know about the history of wars tells us that a number of facts have been
controversial and discussed. I am passionate about the history of WWII. I ask myself
a number of questions. I am not saying that the gas chambers did not exist. I could not
myself see some. I did not specifically study the question. But I believe it's a point
detail of the history of the Second World War.
Paul-Jacques Truffaut: Six million dead, is that a point of detail?
Jean-Marie Le Pen: Six million dead? How? 'Or' What ?
Paul-Jacques Truffaut: Six million Jews died during World War II, you
consider it a point of detail?
Jean-Marie Le Pen: The question that has been asked is how these people were or were not killed.
Paul-Jacques Truffaut: This is not a point of detail!
Jean-Marie Le Pen: Yes, it is a point of detail of the war. Will you tell me it's a truth
revealed in which everyone must believe, that it is a moral obligation? I say there are
historians who debate these questions.
Paul-Jacques Truffaut: A vast majority of historians and a few others have said it and proven it.
Olivier Mazerolle: You, Mr. Le Pen, do you consider that there was a Jewish genocide by the
gas chambers?
Jean-Marie Le Pen: There were many deaths, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of
Jewish dead and also people who were not Jews. "
So, without saying it openly, he clearly defends the revisionists. In the hysterical context
at the time, any response other than totally positive vis-à-vis the official version was [Page 71] necessarily support for the latter for the overwhelming majority of the population. And since it was the
leader of the French far-right, in people's minds, it showed the obvious collusion
between it and revisionism. As the far right was on the rise in France, this
meant that revisionism was no longer a mere small group of a few madmen, but threatened
to spread much more widely.
And of course, the word detail was there on purpose to add an odious side to his statement, to create a
general indignation. Because to say that if the holocaust existed, its embodiment is a point
detail of the history of the Third World War (when in reality it is the essential element of
the extermination thesis) will seem odious to people. It's like saying something like
"why argue over this problem? There are much more important things in the 2nd war
world. "So what Le Pen is saying is that in the end we don't give a damn about all that.
that officially, we are talking about 6 million deaths and that necessarily, the way or the ways in which they
were killed matters a lot (especially if the method of assassination which is debated concerns at least
90% of those killed and that calling it into question is de facto calling into question the shoah itself).
So to say it doesn't matter minimizes the holocaust in a way.
And since he is also an elite agent, this answer was obviously not an awkwardness of
His part. It was wanted.
And of course, those who designed this incident in conjunction with Agent Le Pen made sure that,
in the hysteria of the moment, what would be retained by the overwhelming majority of the population was that Le
Pen had said or meant that it was the holocaust itself that was a detail of the 2nd war
world and not the (main) method of carrying out the holocaust. And that made the Pen
insupportable ; and by association, so too is revisionism. So it didn't matter if Le Pen spoke in
made the method of carrying out the holocaust, which would stick around for the next few years
in the minds of the people, it was that Le Pen had said that the holocaust was a detail of history
of the 2nd world war. And that helped to justify the future Fabius-Gayssot law and to persecute
the revisions.
As said above, this affair was enormous in France, so much so that we hesitated to talk about
detail on some controversial subjects. And, for years, as soon as someone said the word detail
people instantly thought of this statement. All the newspapers talked about it. We have some
some traces here (1 p.m. newspaper from Antenne 2, September 15, 1987), here (Antenne 2 news 20h,
September 15, 1987) and here (newspaper of 13h of Antenne 2, September 18, 1987).
During a meeting of the Front National summer school, he declared:
"Mr. Durafour and Dumoulin, obscure minister of openness, in which he has moreover
immediately disappeared, said: "We must ally ourselves, in the municipal elections, including [Page 72] with the Communist Party, because the Communist Party is losing its strength while the extreme right continues to
to win. " Mr. Durafour-crematorium , thank you for this admission!"
It is true that Durafour had called for the extermination of the National Front. But that was earlier in the year.
And apparently Le Pen's statement did not mention it.
So, once again, Agent Le Pen helped advance the agenda of revisionism and the Fabius law-
Gayssot with a programmed "slippage".
As luck would have it, the television was there, and pictures were broadcast, as can be seen here (Antenne 2, 1 p.m. newspaper, September 3, 1988).
By the way, the Antenne 2 journalist returns to the detail business of the previous year, and says
" everyone remembers a statement from the same president of the Front National, speaking in detail
history about the concentration camps . " So we see that a year later, the newspapers
no longer spoke of details about the gas chambers, but squarely of the
concentration.
Here too, the elite were able to make the affair last long since MEPs asked for the
lifting of the European parliamentary immunity of Jean-Marie le Pen. Thing they got on the 11th
December 1989 . This is what we can see here (Antenne 2, 8 p.m. newspaper, December 11, 1989), here (Antenne 2, 1 p.m. newspaper, December 12, 1989), here (the five, 1 p.m. newspaper, December 12, 1989) and here (the five, 1 p.m. newspaper, December 12, 1988). So we kept talking about the case in the media
for many more months.
1988 is also the year of the famous Leuchter Report , which is another gigantic blow to the
official theory. I do not believe that the newspapers spoke about it in France at the time. But after
suddenly, that could make it possible to justify a little more the Fabius-Gayssot law.
In the same interview, the filmmaker also vilifies the " cinematographic Jewry
international ".
So in this statement he questioned, without really saying it, the holocaust. And as the
Pen about the detail, he appeared to the people as an obnoxious guy. And in the statement
next, he appeared to be anti-Semitic. [Page 73]
However, Claude Autant-Lara was a filmmaker. He made blockbuster films from 1939 to around 1959,
or for 20 years. And already at the time, those who were at the top of the ladder of this profession
were either members of the elite or agents. So, Autant-Lara was necessarily either one or
the other. The fact that his family had already been in the show business for 2 generations goes into this
sens (his mother was a theater and cinema actress, 334th member of the French comedy, and
natural daughter of a Parisian choreographer). He was also president of the National Federation
of the CGT show (trade union very close to the Communist Party) for sixteen years, from 1947 to 1963.
There too, you had to be an agent of power to find yourself in such a position.
And then, since it was fashionable to be a Communist in the cinema in France, we cannot say
that he had taken enormous risks. In general, we do not have the impression that he took any
until the 80s. During the war, things went well for him (he managed to make films).
Afterwards, he was close to the Communists when this party was successful. During the 1970s, he was a
little passed into the background and no longer made people talk about him for good or bad. So we don't understand
very well why this guy who had always been in the nails until then, starts at 88 years old to become
initially a rebel by joining the National Front and by becoming a European deputy of this party ( the 18th
June 1989 ); then a super rebel by making his pro-revisionist and anti-Jewish (and super
rebel for only a few minutes, then never say anything again).
Moreover, it is difficult to see how he was able to pass from Communism to the Front-National. Some
could answer that many Communists went to the FN at that time and that the
The conversion of Autant-Lara is therefore not that extraordinary. Yes, but it was about
grassroots communists, mainly workers. They had reasons to do so. They saw
their living space be invaded by immigrants. They were hit hard by unemployment and their
jobs often went to immigrants or to foreign countries. It could be understood that they
pass to the National Front. But hardly any high-ranking, wealthy Communist passed
at the FN. They lived in protected universes and did not suffer any of the inconveniences that
workers. So they either remained Communists or put water in their wine and are
become socialists. And the older they were, the less chance there was for them to go to the FN. By
that we do not generally change political orientation when we are over 70 years old, and again
less for a political tendency that one has considered all one's life as the embodiment of evil. So,
the evolution of Autant-Lara remains very, very suspicious.
Strictly speaking, it would possibly be possible if we talked about the 2010s. There, we could imagine
than well-to-do Communists who were in their 50s at the start of the 1980s, having seen France
to be populated more and more by blacks and Arabs, ended up saying to each other around 80, after a long
evolution of their ideas, that it is the FN which was right. But in 1989, it was only 6 years since
the FN had started its ascent. So, it was far too early for the Communists of this
gender may have changed, especially those over 70.
The evolution of Autant-Lara is all the more suspicious since, being in the cinema, he must have encountered
many Jews, since they were already numerous in this profession. For example, we
learn here, that he worked in 1925 with Pierre Braunberger on the film "Nana". We can read on the
same page that he also dedicated the model he had made of Nana's dress to Pierre
Braunberger, producer of the film, stating that it was from "his friend" Claude Autant-
Lara. At the end of the 1930s, he directed 2 films by Maurice Lehmann. This is not considered [Page 74] Jewish. But given the name, the face, the top positions in the theater and the times, he was very.
probably. Moreover, he was accused of being Jewish by the Germans during the war and did not owe his
hi than being protected by a certain Roger Trébor. In 1947, Autant-Lara worked with the
producer Paul Graetz on the film "the devil in the body". Nothing is said about Graetz's religion. House
finds another Paul Graetz (an actor), who died in 1937, who was Jewish to him and who had to flee Nazism.
The name Graetz or Gretz is apparently worn by various well-known Jews. And in 1951, its director of
production for the famous movie "The Red Inn", is Simon Schiffrin , a Jew who had to flee France
for New York during the persecutions of the Jews during the war. The producer is Joseph Zielinski.
We have no information about him, but this Polish name is often worn by Jews. And at the time,
a producer of films bearing that name in France had a very good chance of being so.
Moreover, on his tomb, which is a family vault, we can see that there is also a certain
Akakia Viala, née Antoinette Allevy, a cousin of Claude. Now, Allevy is a variant of the name Levy,
who could not be more Jewish. So he had a cousin who was Jewish or of Jewish ancestry. Finally, the father of
Claude, the architect Edouard Autant, helped prove the innocence of Captain Dreyfus by
publishing the correspondence of Commander Esterhazy. So, again, his sudden anti-Semitism
seems strange. He certainly worked with various Jews, he has a Dreyfus father, a Jewish cousin
or of Jewish descent and therefore most likely a number of family members
extent that are. He never made a profession of anti-Semitism when he allegedly had it.
occasion, in the 1930s and 1940s. But suddenly, at 88, he began to criticize the Jews.
By the way, this story of Claude's father in the Dreyfus affair is also very suspicious. We are
already asks what he was doing in this story. A simple architect who gets involved in a
business of state, already, it is suspect. And the conditions for his intervention in the case seem a little
too incredible to be true. Indeed, how did he get his hands on the Esterhazy correspondence? Through a concierge who was doing the trash for the latter. As if
Esterhazy, who must have felt in danger, was going to be foolish enough to get rid of her
compromising correspondence in his trash can, when at the time, everyone had a
fireplace or stove. Since the Dreyfus affair was a false flag at the time, it is clear that Edouard
As much had to be an agent in charge of feeding it. And so, her son had a very high probability
to be one too (and 100% chance if the father was also a member of the elite).
Apparently the parents were already communists. And they received good people at their home.
This is what we can read here : " At the end of the 1920s, the family apartment on rue Lepic was used
to the meetings of the Friends of New Russia, an organization created by Gabrielle Duchêne and where
rubbed shoulders with pacifists and communists. Marcel Prenant mentioned among the participants the names of Francis
Jourdain, Marcel Cohen, Jean Baby, Paul Labérenne, René Maublanc, Henri Wallon and Jacques
Soustelle. Autant-Lara sometimes presented Soviet films there which the censorship refused to accept,
thus The Battleship Potemkin. "
In fact, in the list of names given, they were all Communists. So it is clear that the parents
were very Communists too.
So Claude Autant-Lara was immersed in communism from his youth. And he was involved
of these meetings, since they showed censored Soviet films. He therefore shared the ideas of his
parents; otherwise he would not have participated. When this kind of opinion goes back this far, it's [Page 75] something really grounded in itself. It is then all the more difficult to understand that he could
move to the extreme right at the end of his life.
And all these people were part of the intelligentsia of the time (Edouard also frequented Rodin and
Courteline). Some have held high positions thereafter. So Edouard Autant was not a small
architect with a small notoriety as we would like us to believe. To frequent this
kind of people, he had to be a member of the elite.
Jacques Soustelle, for example, became at the liberation the director of the intelligence services
French for a few months. Then, in 1945, he was appointed Minister of Information. So it was
certainly a member of the elite.
We note the presence of a Cohen. So there were also Jews in the courts of his
parents. And there was not to be just one, since in the 1920s and 1930s the Jews were
many in the upper echelons of communism. So that adds more dating
Jewish and so another oddity about the fact that he later became anti-Semitic.
So Claude Autant-Lara was certainly an agent of power. And if he sided with the Front
National and then he made this statement about Simone Veil, that he was ordered to
do it, as for others.
What was the point of joining the Front-National? Well, for people to link it to the FN when
he made his outing about Simone Veil and the Jews. The fact that he becomes an MEP the same
year in the Front National group was useful to tie it even more firmly to the FN
during his statement in question. So in people's heads, the idea that there was a link was confirmed
between revisionism, anti-Semitism and the National Front (then in full rise as already
dit), so that revisionism and anti-Semitism were becoming a serious threat.
If he had released this before joining the FN (which must date at least from May 1989), it would have been
only the declaration of a bitter old fool. But there, it took on a much larger scale.
And if he made his second statement on " international cinematographic jewelery ", it is to relate
clearly revisionism to anti-Semitism.
It says on its Wikipedia page :
" Claude Autant-Lara was accused of denouncing during the Occupation, in particular by the producer of
Pierre Braunberger cinema. "
In fact, Braunberger said this in October 1990, so after the Autant-Lara affair. It's clear that
this interview was made to create from scratch an antisemitism of Autant-Lara
posted in 1989. The designers of this case obviously thought that it could appear
odd to some people that Autant-Lara suddenly became anti-Jewish at 88. So he
A precedent had to be created showing that he had an anti-Semitic past going back a long way.
Braunberger died a month after his statement. Like that he didn't have to give more than
details on this story. [Page 76]
There is a video of the Braunberger interview here. He said at the beginning that he had been denounced by Claude
So many-Lara. It was to his father that the Gestapo went, but he says it was he who was
certainly aimed:
- the journalist: " you think that Autant-Lara denounced him (his father)"
The problem is that he contradicts himself around 3:40 am by saying " I don't think I was denounced. Du
Still, in all the books, no one talks about denouncing me... I don't know why. I do not
don't think I've been reported no... I don't think I have been reported, but I don't know . "So,
the accusation becomes ridiculous. We feel that the thing has been done anyhow, or that they haven't
taken seriously and had fun introducing a big inconsistency. Of course there is no trace
defense from Autant-Lara on the Internet. He could have vehemently denied it, seen
that his honor was under attack. But no, he didn't say anything because it was all arranged and he had to pretend to be an anti-Semite.
And if he had really denounced Braunberger, we do not see why he would have agreed to work at
again with Jews after WWII. And above all, why would Jews have agreed to work with him. They would have slaughtered him professionally speaking. He couldn't have
work with no one in the film industry. However, the post-war period was the period of its
great successes.
Here , it says:
" According to Jean-Luc Drouin," For having qualified the Jews as 'parasites', Claude Autant-Lara is worried
at the Liberation, but it is cleared thanks to the Communist Party, "
Only, this is the only place where it appears. And we don't have more details than that. But even
if there were, it would certainly be put in the same bag as Braunberger's statement, to
know a story invented to create an precedence to the statements of 1989.
According to Wikipedia :
" The Keeper of the Seals of the time, Pierre Arpaillange, had proceedings instituted for" racial insults,
racial defamation and incitement to racial hatred ". Claude Autant-Lara was released . "
In fact, as her role ended after a few months, there was no need to continue the
deception. This is most likely why he was released.
" The real then goes on trial before the unreal. The historical theme of homicidal gas chambers ,
is very revealing of this trial. The evidence proposed to demonstrate its existence evolves as
circumstances and times but are extracted from a box of tricks comprising three drawers. All
below: the visit of the premises ( not very credible ). In the middle: the affirmation of the victors (they did exist).
Above: hearsay ( story of the man who saw the man who saw the man who... ). In total we
postulates existence, and whatever the reality of this reality . We will recognize here the foundation of any tyranny. "
Obviously, it is scandalous and revisionism is once again put forward. This is what we can read
on the Cairn site :
"In January 1990, Bernard Notin , another teacher from Lyon III , published a racist and negationist article in the journal économie et Sociétés. The case takes on considerable proportions because it shows that negationist ideas can now cross the roadblocks of the biggest
scientific journals . After long months, Bernard Notin is finally sanctioned by the University. "
Who is Bernard Notin? We don't have much on him except that he was a teaching academic
in economics at Lyon III and holder of two doctorates. He was born in 1950. So he was 39 years old at the
time of the matter.
Already, that raises questions. At 39, in the midst of a professional university career, and never having
up until then, it is hard to understand why Notin suddenly decided to scuttle it by
issuing in 1 or 2 paragraphs a lip-smacking criticism of the official theory. Yes
again, he had written a detailed openly revisionist article published in an extreme
right or revisionist, that would have made some sense. It would have had one by posting information
new or old information but seen in a new light. But there he was just asserting
his disbelief on a few lines without going any further. It didn't make sense to destroy her brilliant
career for that.
It's a bit as if a weakling who has never attacked anyone is going to scratch the little one lightly.
finger of a colossus known to be a dangerous madman and who would be surrounded by 100 of his friends all
as crazy as him. It would do no good and he would be sure to get slaughtered. In front of such
action, it looks like: either he's a suicidal madman, or the event is a staging and the guy doesn't
risk nothing in fact. And in Notin's case, he clearly wasn't a fool.
Especially since he did that in a scientific journal. He would have written this in a non-university journal,
it could have passed for his career. He would not have questioned his university. But there, by publishing this [Page 78] in a scientific journal it did, and he was taking a high risk of being excluded from his
faculty.
The fact that he retracted a few years later (in 1993, as can be seen here ) is suspicious
also. Considering the times and the anti-revisionist hysteria, he couldn't ignore what was to come to him.
So if he didn't feel the courage to face all the trouble that was going to befall him, all
that for a few lines, there was no point in starting. And we can't even excuse it by
the unconsciousness of youth, since he was 39 years old. Normally someone who at the time
decided to assert himself as a revisionist publicly (and not in the heat of the conversation, but by
written, thoughtfully) had a kamikaze side to it. He was someone who, for the love of the
truth, and fully aware of the risks, had decided to go all the way and not come back
on his remarks thereafter. It couldn't be someone expressing some doubts in passing
and quickly reneging on his statements.
But if Notin was an agent, then recanting was normal. His mission was only to do
talk about him at the time so that the Fabius-Gayssot law passes in the following months. And once
this mission accomplished, the elite no longer had any interest in continuing to declare themselves a revisionist.
So he could withdraw 2 or 3 years later without any problem. He couldn't do it a few months or
even 1 year later, because that would have seemed too suspicious. But after 3 years, it grew to
roughly.
Sure Wikipedia, we learn that, as luck would have it, Notin was of the extreme right:
" In 1990, he was appointed member of the scientific council of the Front National (FN). Close to Pierre Vial, he
is also a member of the Research and Studies Group for European Civilization ( GRECE ) and
of the editorial board of its theoretical journal, Nouvelle école. He belongs to the controversial Institut
of Indo-European studies. He collaborates with Nationalism and Republic. "
It is not surprising. Here again, it was done to link revisionism to the extreme right.
With Bernard Notin who was a revisionist and far-right, we had the Nazi threat looming
once again on the French university. With all other recent and older cases,
that justified the passing of the Fabius-Gayssot law and the persecution of the revisionists.
Another interesting fact, he is a member of GRECE , like some members of the second thesis jury
Henri Roques, which means that he is necessarily a Freemason. In any case, we find at
again this association in a matter of revisionism.
Otherwise, when we see Notin's face, we think more of a Lebanese or a Jew. And a Jew in this
type of job, it is necessarily an agent or a member of the elite. But hey, he could have been blond
blue eyed with a snub nose that the conclusion would have been the same, given the information we
already has on him. In this context, it just adds an additional element.
Moreover, it is difficult to see what a guy with a Lebanese or Jewish face came to do in a
far-right movement like GREECE or even the National Front. A priori, he shouldn't have
feel very good there. Obviously, we can always say "why not"? It is not impossible.
But that just adds to the list of oddities in the Notin affair. [Page 79]
By the way, at the time, the University of Lyon was supposed to be known as a haunt of
far-right professors and even revisionists. Some teachers on the Roques jury were
of this university. This was also the case with Notin. The problem here is that it would mean that knowing
that, the power in place would have done nothing to remedy that in 4 years (that is to say since the affair
Roques). We believe in it very strongly. From the Roques affair, they should have been persecuted from all
possible ways to get them to leave.
" On July 11, breaking all records for speed in legal proceedings , the 1st
chamber of the Paris tribunal de grande instance, chaired by Mr. Jean Favard, considered that, in the
lawsuit brought by the MRAP to B. Notin, there was no reason for the offense of defamation or that of
racism, but the academic was condemned to pay 20,000 F in damages to the MRAP for "fault"
within the meaning of article 1382 of the Civil Code, without counting an additional 5,000 F. In the conclusions
written by Me Ducroux, lawyer for B. Notin in this trial, it was recalled that his client had
not taken a position on the substance (existence or non-existence of the gas chambers): "Mr. Notin in this
paragraph does not deny the existence of the gas chambers, as a succinct and fragmented reading of
his scientific article might lead one to believe so, but simply states that certain facts that we
taken for granted can be the subject of a scientific study without the author
could be accused of revisionism. ""
So apparently the MRAP sued Notin for libel and racism. But they were
dismissed for these charges. The court only accepted the offense of "fault". In reality, it was rather
an offense of prejudice to another, since article 1382 says:
"" Any fact whatsoever of man, which causes damage to others, obliges him through whose fault
he succeeded in repairing it ": in other words, when the fault of a person causes prejudice to
a third party, the person responsible must compensate the victim. "
There again, it made it possible to speak again about revisionism, 2 days before the vote of the Fabius-Gayssot law. This is why the procedure was very fast.
It is Olivier Mathieu, presented as a far-right journalist / writer during the show, who
is at the origin of the controversy. [Page 80]
Sure Wikipedia, we can read about it:
"Invited to a debate on the extreme right in the program" Ciel, mon mardi! "By Christophe Dechavanne
on February 6, 1990, he marked the history of French television by being at the origin of a double
general brawl live on French television.
First of all, he says he defines himself as " National Socialist ". He even specifies that "The appellation Nazism is pejorative, never took place. And that, according to him, it should not be used. After seven minutes of broadcast, he declares: "Mr. Dechavanne, you speak of democracy, then it is necessary that viewers know something. I belong to a - historical - school, the
revisionism , of which I am one of the representatives. And you forbade me, Mr. Dechavanne, to
talk about revisionism. »He then exclaims« And, I will say it loud and clear in front of this plebs: Faurisson is right, the gas chambers are junk ! " This gives rise to a first general fight involving both guests and the public. Christophe Dechavanne manages to restore calm after
a few minutes."
Of course, it was still a completely organized affair. On television it's even more obvious
than elsewhere. And it is therefore clear that Olivier Mathieu is an agent of power.
The aim was once again to link revisionism and the extreme right . But there going even more
far, since Olivier Mathieu apparently defined himself as a National Socialist; therefore, an emulator
Hitler. At 5 months of the passing of the Fabius-Gayssot law, it was necessary to drive the point home a little more.
On his Wikipedia page , we find some interesting information about him.
We already learn that he is the natural son of René Louis, a medievalist, archaeologist, historian and
French philologist who was professor of medieval literary history in the universities of Lille,
Caen, Tours and Paris from 1941 to 1977. So his father was far from being just anyone. He also
was appointed by Jérôme Carcopino to the regional management of the first constituency of
Historical antiques, a position he held for sixteen years. This is the kind of sinecure that
is often reserved for Freemasons.
His grandmother is not just anyone either. This is Marie de Vivier (née Jacquart), a
Belgian author. It is said that Olivier's youth is marked by frequenting the entourage of
his mother and his grandmother. So, Olivier not having lived with his father, we can deduce that
her mother, Marguerite Mathieu, was the daughter of Marie de Vivier. And these received Giuliano
Bonfanten, Hergé, Robert Poulet, Ferdinand Teulé, etc .., in short, beautiful people; especially Hergé,
who, at the time, was the 1 st or the 2 nd most famous comic book creator in the French-speaking world (before
or behind the Goscinny / Uderzo couple). This kind of circle is not found in the lambda type
from the neighborhood.
Concerning Olivier Mathieu himself, in 1982, when he was only in his twenties (he was born
in 1960), he contributed to numerous far-right newspapers (Rivarol, Present, Minute, National-
Hebdo, Aspect de la France, Writings of Paris, Routes, Elements) or quite marked on the right
(Show of the World). Considering that these newspapers are creations of the elite, it is clear that if he succeeded in there [Page 81] enter so young and collaborate with such a large number of them is that it is an agent
of the elite.
Very interesting too, in the 80s, he frequented GREECE , a haunt of Freemasons. So,
once again, we find a member or fellow traveler from GREECE in this story.
Moreover, the review Elements, in which he wrote, was GRECE's general public showcase. His
editorialist being from the beginning, Alain de Benoist, of whom we spoke above.
Going back to his TV appearance in 1990, it is said that after the first fight there is
had a second . And this time an activist from the Jewish extremist group Betar-Tagar climbed onto the plateau and hit it . The assault was officially claimed in Tribune juive on February 16.
So, it is true that Mathieu had just provoked by asking Jean-Pierre Pierre-
Bloch, at the time president of the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism " if he is
ready to take a minute's silence with him in memory of the fourteen million Germans who were
deported in 1945 and 1946 - two million dead ". But, the reaction was totally
disproportionate. In fact, it was just at the right limit. It was provoking enough that
At the time, the masses thought it was right for him. And the reaction was enough
excessive so that, 25 years later, it is the Jews who pass for the bastards to the
people who have become Judeo-critical (the mass of people, she continuing to say to herself that it was good fact).
The fact that the Beta-Taga activist managed to hit him shows that the thing was planned. Since the
departure, given the subject, there would certainly have been at least ten agents providing the service
order at the level of the platform and in the stands. And normally, after a first fight, there
would have had at least 5 more, with 7 or 8 on the plateau ready to prevent anyone
to reach one of the guests. If a guy managed to get through, it was on purpose. And even before
the show in fact; spectators should have been sorted to prevent activists from being able to
cause a fight. As the television channels often use spectators
paid, it wouldn't have been a problem to call on people they already knew. If they
didn't do that, they wanted an attack to happen. It was the same as the
scripted brawls that we found at the Jerry Springer Show in the USA.
So, ok, it could be an ambush planned jointly by Dechavanne and the organizations
Jewish, without Mathieu being involved. This is the theory defended in some circles
far-right now. But how Dechavanne could know that Mathieu was going to slip
(especially since Mathieu had promised him not to talk about revisionism)? What if he didn't have it
fact, the ambush could not have happened, because all the same a solid pretext was needed for
assault him. But Dechavanne knew that things would go wrong because everything was planned and Mathieu
was part of the staging.
In addition, if there had been ambush, it would not have been in Dechavanne's interest to trigger it at
moment of the second fight, because, there, precisely, one could accuse him of being in cahoots with
Jewish organizations by not providing sufficient security. While by not setting up
only one fight, there, he could tell that his security service was taken by surprise. But
Obviously, if one of the goals was precisely to be able to accuse him in the future of having been in cahoots [Page 82] with Jewish organizations (and this is what was wanted), it was better that it be done during a
second fight. In addition, the fact that there was a second made this event more
spectacular and memorable.
Once again, this case was to have a dual effect, short term and long term. Short
In the long term, it made it possible to justify the passage of the Fabius-Gayssot law. And in the long run, it should be useful 20
or 30 years later to raise anti-Semitism a little more, by showing that the Jews are
ultra-violent people who can't stand criticism. If again, he had been a lambda Jew, we would have
could tell himself that he was just excited reacting in the moment (but the Jews would still be
passed for excited intolerant). But here, Wikipedia specifies that it was a member of the
extremist group Betar-Tagar and that the attack was claimed the next day by the newspaper
"Jewish Tribune". So people sensitized to the Jewish problem in the 2010s would say to themselves that
the aggression had in fact been planned by the Jewish organizations.
So, we could say that since the show dates from 1990, it was going to be forgotten and that what I
just said concerning the second objective of the case does not hold. If no one should be
remembering the event 25 years later, it was useless to pass off the Jews as people
violent. But, as luck would have it, among all the shows of "Ciel mon Tuesday", it is precisely
this one which is (supposedly) considered the most striking by people. Suddenly she is
regularly rebroadcast in the blooper shows or on the history of television (it has for
example was rebroadcast on TMC on August 26, 2015 at 8:55 p.m. and seen by 684,000 viewers, and
even 1 million at the end) and reviewed by hundreds of thousands of people.
We learn here (2015 interview) that Olivier Mathieu would have moved away from nationalist circles and
revisionists for 25 years, that is to say from 1990. It makes sense. Apparently his role
main vis-à-vis revisionism was to be played in 1990; and then his work was finished. So he
no longer needed to keep up appearances. It is therefore possible that his articles in
nationalist journals were in fact written by think tanks and its role was limited to this
appearance at Ciel mon Tuesday, and perhaps at a few others in nationalist circles (history of
give a little appearance of reality to his character).
The reason he gives is that he would have been poorly received in revisionist and far-right circles.
and that he would have ended up being disgusted by this environment. This is what we can read in an interview made by
Jean-Pierre Fleury (who also devoted a 400-page book to him) in August 2015.
"Jean-Pierre Fleury:" And this should not be taken, in 2015, on your part, for a defense of
revisionist circles!
In nothing. I have often had the opportunity to say, since 1990, the disappointment - to put it mildly -
what have caused me and what are causing me these small environments, these micro-environments, that I no longer frequent
for twenty-five years, which I will never see again and which no longer interest me. No matter
that they call themselves " revisionists " and that their adversaries define them as "negationists".
I no longer have any contact with these people. Above all, I don't want to have any more. For their part, they have me
insulted dozens of times on their sites. I give them back their contempt. [Page 83]
However, I defend nothing other than myself and my practice of literature. I don't need neither
revisionists, nor journalists like Christophe Dechavanne, to tell me what I should
to talk or not, or how I should talk about it. I hear myself being equidistant from the middle
revisionists and the countless Messieurs Dechavanne. "
In fact, given his background, it was difficult to justify his disengagement by fear. It would have been little
credible for a guy who dared to say that he was a revisionist and a National Socialist in front of millions
of people. So all that was left was this very flawed explanation. Because we don't go in
nationalist and revisionist circles to make friends. We go because we have the spirit
nationalist and for revisionism, the love of truth. If we want to make friends, we will
in traditional parties or in sports clubs or other circles (in his case, in
literary circles). And we do not see how the reception from people could make him no longer
nationalize or revisionist. Hospitality has nothing to do with ideas. He could have said he was always
nationalist or revisionist, but that he no longer frequented these circles. There, ok.
And making this kind of argument makes it seem very superficial. Basically he says his ideas
depend on how people in that environment receive it. Which means that if a socialist is
nice to him, he will be a socialist. And if he stops being nice, he will no longer be a socialist. The type
completely inconsistent. So, it is difficult to see someone of this intellectual level and this
age (he was in his 55s when he said that) to resort to this argument, which makes him sound like an asshole,
while, moreover, he claims to be of a high intellectual level. If he does, it's because it's his only
way of explaining this very bizarre evolution of his political ideas.
And it's still astonishing that all the people were against him in those circles, that he didn't
failed to make some friends.
" Above all, we should understand one thing, namely that I am certainly not extreme
right and that I was not on Ciel mon Tuesday . I had long hair, and there was
on the other hand, a far-right activist with a shaved neck who bawled " that he was not with this
sir ". The gentleman in question was me. Of which act. Me, I have never been to school, I
am reformed from military service, I am not a Catholic and I was excommunicated by
renaming, and during the few years that I frequented extreme right-wing circles I
spent my time telling them that I was not on the extreme right . In 1992 there were tea towels
far right who called on their activists to beat me up on sight . Oh well, I'm extreme
right me?
I also gave in particular a long interview to Michel Marmin, in 2003, so there are more than ten
years, in the newspaper Elements, where I explain at length that I have NEVER been extreme
right . "
So this guy has written numerous articles in various far-right newspapers over the years
80. He declared himself a National Socialist in 1990 on television. He was close to the PFN (a party [Page 84] Belgian far-right), also close to GREECE. He wrote a biography on Abel Bonnard,
figure of the French far-right in the 1930s and 1940s. But he was never far-right.
He must have ended up there by chance. He saw light and walked in.
For the NFP, apparently, it was only because this party was in favor of the speech
revisionist that he would have frequented him (since he was himself a revisionist), but not because he
shared their political views. Okay, but the other four inconsistencies remain.
And we also wonder why he agreed to go to the Dechavanne show, which had precisely
as a subject, the extreme right and where he was invited as a person belonging to this
movement. If he did not see himself as far-right, he should have declined the invitation,
especially with all that it implied then like stigmatization on behalf of all the people who
could have recognized him in the street. So, if he came, it was because he still considered himself
as far-right, or so..., he was there on a mission for the elite.
And we also wonder why Dechavanne invited him if he did not claim to be far-right.
It was not to be the representatives of this political tendency who had to be missing to go
on its show. In addition, given the look of Mathieu, he was really not far-right. With
his long hair, his beard, and the way he dressed, he was more of a far-left student. Not
the profile of the aggressive and violent Nazi villain that Dechavanne must have wanted to show.
" In 2003, in Elements, to Michel Marmin who asked him if he was no longer on the extreme right, he replied:
" No. For a very simple reason: I never have been . "He adds:" I took positions, yes. By
humor , sometimes out of desperation. Or - it's not always the same - I got it
take ". "
Who, having worked for years in far-right newspapers, having declared themselves national-
socialist on television, having been close to the PFN, close to GREECE, and having written a biography
by Abel Bonnard, looks like most of it was a good joke after all?
On the other hand, it is typical of an agent of influence. With this little phrase, he swings in the face of people
ordinary people that he's an agent and that it was all acting, but knowing full well that
no one will be able to understand. It's just the kind of thing they like to do. Note the
" I was made to take ", which means that the positions he took were dictated from outside.
This is probably also a hidden message.
So Olivier Mathieu must certainly be telling the truth. He was never on the extreme right. It was all
than a command work on the part of the elite to better be able to pass the Fabius-Gayssot law.
Sure Wikipedia :
" Massive demonstrations against racism and anti-Semitism are organized during the
following week, often covered with banners and slogans " Le Pen, les mots, Carpentras, les
tears ". The President François Mitterrand participates in one of them in Paris. It's the first
when a President of the Republic in the exercise of his functions participates in a demonstration in
France. "
On the pro-Faurisson blog, we have this extract which transcribes the atmosphere of the time:
" The Fabius-Gayssot law was discussed and voted on (by the socialo-communist majority at the time) in
the atmosphere of hysteria due to the discovery of violated graves in the Jewish cemetery of Carpentras.
A formidable campaign was launched in France and abroad against the Lepenists and the
revisionists , immediately accused, without any proof, of having instigated this violation of
burials. On the front page of its issue of May 13-14, 1990, the newspaper Le Monde published a
drawing by Plantu where, next to raped Jewish graves and a crying Jew, stood two thugs
shaved head, one of which carried under her arm a work entitled Revisionist Thesis . Laurent Fabius
had, with his colleague Pierre Joxe, Minister of the Interior, taken the head of this campaign. Francois Mitterrand, President of the Republic, personally joined in the street a procession
bristling with Israeli flags; Jean-Marie Le Pen was denounced as an assassin; Robert
Faurisson also . "
" In 1990, petrified by the witch-hunting atmosphere , deputies and senators hostile to the law
Fabius-Gayssot had not dared to refer it to the Constitutional Council . "
The Fabius-Gayssot law was precisely under discussion at that time. So the Carpentras affair has
allowed to create the hysteria necessary to justify the vote.
Moreover, we can read in this article from the Canopé network: " The Gayssot law is adopted in a
particular context, two months after the desecration of the Jewish cemetery of Carpentras (night of 8 to 9
May 1990). Voted on July 13, 1990, it clearly displays its goal: to put a stop to the
dissemination of negationist theses and sanction their carriers. " [Page 86]
Here there is no need to even search. The assembly is obvious and well known. And from the start,
some (including Le Pen) spoke of staging. And now everyone a minimum
conspirator knows it was.
Only people who understood that it was a conspiracy believe that it was a
scene to push the far right and the revisionists and protect the Jews, when in fact it was
the reverse (at least in the long term).
This is why the staging was so obvious. It was so that the fact that it was a conspiracy
leaves no doubt and that in the long term the Jews will pass for the bastards of history (in the
Muslim / conspiratorial). This is why the agent of influence Le Pen was able to declare from the start that he
It was a completely fabricated affair. It was to guide people even more clearly
towards this idea that Carpentras had been a Jewish plot. Of course he spoke of communist conspiracy
or even Muslim. But the elite knew that 20 years later people would talk about a Jewish plot and
no more communist conspiracy (since it was the elite themselves who were going to make sure to reorient the
people towards this idea).
In passing, we note the progression of the political tendencies involved in revisionism in
France. At the beginning, we have people on the left who support revisionism, so that the thing
can pass without being directly associated with fascism and be prohibited. Then when we need
to justify the Gayssot law, all of a sudden, most of the revisionists that appear are people
far-right (Roques, Le Pen, Claude Autant-Lara, Notin, Mathieu).
Bardèche was sued for his book " Nuremberg or The Promised Land " (published in 1948). But it has
was released after his first trial (which took place from January to February 6, 1951). The
Attorney General then appealed. And he was sentenced in his second trial to one year in prison [Page 87] farm and 50,000 francs fine for " apologia for war crimes ", and the book prohibited for sale
on March 19, 1952 (and still is today). His cassation appeal was dismissed in February 1954
and he was put in jail in July 1954 to serve his sentence. Despite everything, he only made a few
days in prison because he was pardoned by President Coty. But he did not grant him amnesty because he
thought that Bardèche was innocent or that the punishment was exaggerated, but simply because
that apparently Bardèche had already served some time in prison (in reality, only
a few weeks) and because he was in a precarious financial situation and father of 5 children. In
In fact, it is the intervention of numerous personalities from the world of letters to René Coty who
would have been decisive in his release. Without that, he would have done his sentence. It was not a remission
because of the court decision.
The problem is that he did it again in 1950 with " Nuremberg II or the counterfeiters ". But there it is
not sued for this book. And therefore, the latter is not prohibited for sale. We can also
find on Amazon. Strange to say the least.
Rassinier , he was pursued in April 1951 by three associations of deportees because of his preface
produced by Albert Paraz for his book " Le mensonge d'Ulysse " (published in 1950). These are
rejected on May 9, 1951. But they appealed and won in November 1951. And he was then
sentenced to 15 days in prison, 100,000 F in fines and jointly and severally 800,000 francs in
damages to the FNDIR. The seizure and destruction of the book is also ordered. Four years
later, in 1955, the Court of Cassation quashed this judgment and he was released.
This is what can be read in the preface to "Ulysses' lie", pages 5 and 6:
" " Mr. Paul Rassinier, author of the book that the FNDIR, civil party, considered as an infringement
brought to the Resistance , was sentenced to fifteen days suspended prison sentence and 100,000 francs
a fine and jointly and severally 800,000 francs in damages to the FNDIR. Seizure and
destruction of all copies of the book were ordered . "(Franc-tireur, November 3, 1951) "
"" The author, the preface and the publisher of Lies have been sued since 1951
d'Ulysse are finally released by the court of Grenoble. The case was called at first instance
before the Bourg-en-Bresse Criminal Court, which, on May 9, 1951, had rendered a judgment of
acquits ordering the civil parties to pay the costs.
On appeal from the two associations and the public ministry, the Lyon Court of Appeal had to render a judgment
of guilt Nov. 2, 1951 - Mr. Rassinier was sentenced to fifteen days in prison suspended and
100,000 F fine, Mr. Paraz eight days in prison and 100,000 F fine, Mr. Greusard 50,000 F
fine. The civil parties obtained 800,000 F in damages. In addition, the
copies of the Lie of Ulysses were seized by the police and destroyed .
However an appeal in cassation was signed against the judgment of the court of Lyon, and on December 16
last the Supreme Court annulled it and referred the case back to the Grenoble court, where the debate
started again on April 29th. "(Le Monde, May 26, 1955)"
This is what we can still read in the article "Negationist theses and freedom of expression in
France" : [Page 88]
" The first important occurrence is the lawsuit brought by the National Federation of Deportees
and interned resistant and patriotic against P. Rassinier for his book, Le mensonge d'Ulysse. The
legal motivation is that of insults and defamation, on the basis of Article 29 of the Press Law
which provides: "Any allegation or imputation which prejudices the honor or the consideration of
the person or body to which the act is attributed is a defamation ... Any outrageous expression,
terms of contempt or invective which do not include the imputation of any fact is an insult. " The courtyard
Appeal from Lyon, in a judgment of November 2, 1951 , condemns P. Rassinier to fifteen days in prison
and 100,000 F fine, plus 400,000 F in damages to the fndirp .
The following year (March 19, 1952 ), Maurice Bardèche , after being released at first instance, was
sentenced on appeal to one year in prison and a 50,000 F fine for apologizing for the crime of
murder. The book is forbidden for sale . "
And on Wikipedia :
" At the same time, he and Albert Paraz are the subject of two legal proceedings: one by Edmond
Michelet, for defamation, which he will withdraw in October 1951; and the other from
associations of deportees: these rejected at first instance (April 1951), won on appeal
(November 1951), but the Court of Cassation quashed this judgment in 1955 . "
The case went to appeal and cassation, but Faurisson does not give the dates or the result. And we
can not find anything else on the Internet.
During a second trial (therefore, different from the first), he was also prosecuted by the MRAP and the LICRA and another association for racial defamation and incitement to racial hatred following its declarations on Europe 1 in December 1980. He was sentenced on July 8, 1981 to 3 months in prison suspended sentence and a fine of 5,000 francs. He must also pay 4000 francs in damages to the LICRA, 6,000 francs to the MRAP and 6,000 francs to the Amicale des deportés d'Auschwitz et des camps de Great Silesia.
What is systematically overlooked by the newspapers is that Faurisson had to
also - unprecedented in France - pay for the time it takes to read the judgment on the radio and
prime-time television, which would have cost him the extraordinary sum of 3,600,000
francs (i.e. 1,362,000 euros or approximately $ 1,500,000 in 2019).
He's appealing. And on June 23, 1982 , the court confirmed the conviction, but removing the sentence of
3,600,000 francs. So his sentence was very much reduced. He's still appealing. And in cassation, the
April 26, 1983 , even though the previous conviction was upheld, the court declared "Nobody
cannot, as it stands, convince him of a lie ... ".
Finally, during a third trial , also on July 8, 1981, he was tried for " injury to others " that he allegedly caused by a "falsification of history" in four press articles (Le Matin, 16 [Page 89] November 1979, Le Monde, December 16 and 29, 1978, January 16, 1979). Strange justification for the
trial, since the crime of falsifying history did not exist in French law; but OK. We
may think that it is to make the associations prosecuting him odious in the future (these are
number of 9, including MRAP and Licra). Faurisson is condemned for injury to others, but not
for forgery. The condemnation is light, since it concerns only 1 franc of damages and
interests.
He appealed and was retried from December 13, 1982. The court delivered its verdict on April 26, 1983.
It confirms the judgment of 1 st instance.
So, for the 3 trials, he is condemned. Of course, at the symbolic and theoretical level, some of
his condemnations are brilliant victories. But from a financial point of view and the threat of
prison, justice has succeeded in reaching it. And we can assume that this is what we justify
did not write a book (the works he wrote were in fact made for trial). So the
convictions were effective. Which means they had no reason to create the law
Gayssot.
So the legal pretexts to convict the revisionists already existed and were
effective. Bardèche could have been sentenced to prison, to a heavy fine and to ban
from his book for apologia for war crimes, Rassinier to the same type of penalty for defamation,
Faurisson the same (except for the banning of a book since there was none) for racial defamation and
incitement to racial hatred, as well as defamation. And that was for a first offense. We
imagine what it would have been like if these people had reoffended.
So we wonder why we needed the Gayssot law. There was already everything you needed
to harshly condemn the revisionists and dissuade them from continuing.
The answer is that these laws were too generic. They did not point fingers at Jews like
being omnipresent and omnipotent tyrants . So the Gayssot law was needed.
Since there was something illogical about proposing the Gayssot law when there was already an arsenal
sufficient laws to condemn the revisionists, the elite could have provided an explanation for the
thing. But she was satisfied with the minimum service. She mainly relied on the hysteria of the
moment, without providing too much after-sales service.
What, apparently, served as the main justification is the proliferation of cases of
revisionism . It allowed the authorities to say that apparently, even if there were laws
allowing these statements to be punished, they were not enough and therefore a new one was needed,
specifically geared towards protesting the Holocaust.
But in fact, it wasn't really brought like that. We did not say: "we could see that the laws in
force were ineffective; we need a new one. "There was a rise in hysteria over 2 or 3 years
and the last business was used to justify the passage of the law. We did not build a
argument on the subject (or then, very light); we just played on the emotion. [Page 90]
Another possible reason could have come from the judgment of the court of April 1983 for the 3 rd trial of
Faurisson. This one talks about it here . Here are the two court statements he puts forward:
" It is not for the court to rule on the legitimacy of such a method or on the scope of
arguments presented by M. Faurisson. "
" The value of the conclusions defended by Mr. Faurisson therefore depends solely on the assessment of
experts, historians and the public. "
In fact, it was only a reminder of the law then in force which stated that the state did not have to define historical truth. But, according to Faurisson, the court would have somehow established that justice did not have to pronounce on the validity of the revisionist discourse and that we were therefore free to express those kinds of opinions. That too could have justified the Fabius-Gayssot law, if it had allowed revisionists to express themselves in being prosecuted.
Only that did not prevent Le Pen from being condemned for the retail affair. This is also the case
de Notin, who was prosecuted by the MRAP and was sentenced on July 11, 1990 to a fine of 20,000 F
for harm to others. Claude Autant-Lara was prosecuted (by the Minister of Justice for insults
race, racial defamation and incitement to racial hatred), but was acquitted. Only Roques was not
sued. But his case was different, since apparently he did not deny the existence of
gas chambers, but only questioned the testimony of Kurt Gerstein.
So there hasn't really been any case law allowing revisionists to express themselves.
freely between 1983 and 1990. So that could not serve as a justification for the Gayssot law.
Suddenly, the only really tenable justification is that of the multiplication of cases
revisionists in the late 1980s.
If the elite created the Fabius-Gayssot law, it is because it made it possible to make an exceptional law primarily for Jews; which suddenly automatically designated them as the
true masters of France (and of the world, since no country has really criticized this law), showing
as well as everything that the anti-Semites said was true. With this law, the Jews appeared from a
single blow like persecutors, enemies of freedom, dictators, in short, the wicked of
the story. All the anti-Semitic theories that Jews rule the world seemed to be
reveal true. Of course, that was not the case for the very great mass of people. But it was at
eyes of those who think a minimum. And they have been designated even more clearly as the
masters of the world thereafter, since similar laws were passed in other countries
Europeans.
Personally, I remember that it was when the Fabius-Gayssot law was passed that I had a
I was convinced that the revisionists were telling the truth. Before, having no real information
on their arguments (since it was all practically inaccessible before the Internet), I thought that,
given the witch hunt organized against them, they must have been right anyway. But
I was still hesitant. It was when the Fabius-Gayssot law was passed that all of a sudden, I was
practically sure. There, there was hardly any possible doubt. A law that prohibits remitting [Page 91]
in question a historical event immediately designates it as false. And of course, like this
The law was meant to specifically protect the Jews, which meant that their power was immense.
Of course, for the time being, no one could see that (me, no more than anyone else). All that people
having a minimum of conscience saw at the start, it is a victory of the Jews and a huge blow
brought to revisionism. But now, with the steady rise of Judeo-critical discourse on
Internet and the realization that everything is organized by the elite, the real objective of this law
begins to become visible. The real intention was to put in place the political conditions for
expel the Jews to Israel by designating them to a part of the population as the enemy number 1.
So, ultimately, the real purpose of the Fabius-Gayssot law was to harm ordinary Jews, not to protect them. .
With its control of the media, if the elite had wanted it, it could have continued to persecute the
revisionists and praising the Jews over and over again. And the situation would have remained the same as that of 1990. But the aim of the elite was not to protect the Jews, but on the contrary to attract
hostility on them in order to compel them to go to Israel.
But by creating this law in the 1950s, it made revisionism impossible in Europe. It
allowed to have two martyrs in the 1950s (Rassinier and Bardèche). But, these two cases
would have been too old to enthrall the crowds in the 2010s, that is to say at the time
where the elite wanted revisionism and anti-Semitism to spread massively in circles
intellectuals. Nobody would have had anything more to do with these 2 people 60 years later.
By creating the Gayssot law in 1990, long enough after the start of the Faurisson affair, it allowed
revisionism to emerge in the 1970s (in its final form), to let it progress in
the 80s while beginning the persecutions. And that allowed to give him a clear status and
net of martyrdom in the years 1990/2000.
Obviously, it was then practically no longer possible to create and sell works
revisionists in most European countries from the 90s onwards. But that was okay,
because the elite knew that the Internet was coming and that all revisionist works would be there
available. And in addition, there was the USA, where it was possible to speak of revisionism without
problem.
So in the 2010s, the perfect conditions were going to be in place to spread the
revisionism among millions of people (martyrdom + total availability of revisionist material +
explosion of conspiratorial ideas). [Page 92]
It is true that if we had banned revisionism in the 1950s in Europe, it would still have
could develop in the USA thanks to the 1st amendment. But, precisely, the 1st amendment posed
problem, because it prevents the creation of martyrs. There would then have been no persecution of
revisionists, neither in Europe nor in the United States, something which greatly helped the dissemination of their ideas and the
re-emergence of the Judeo-critical discourse.
On the other hand, there would have been documents available on the Internet. And they would have been visible in
Europe, which could have made it possible to justify a propagation of revisionist ideas on this
continent (and elsewhere, part of the revisionist documents accessible in Europe come from
USA). But, without a martyr in Europe (or too old for it to interest people), it would have made
things more complicated. As the elite wanted anti-Semitism to spread in Europe, it
There had to be martyrs there. Guys speaking freely in other parts of the
world would have had much less impact on Europeans. An American Faurisson, no
persecuted, that would not have interested many people in Europe, or even in the USA.
The elite could have suppressed the 1st Amendment and created martyrs on US soil. But, there too, that
would not have had much effect for the development of revisionism in Europe, since the USA is
too far from this continent. We needed a law located in a European country (and spreading small
little by little in other European countries) for that. So repealing the 1st Amendment would not have had a an impact as interesting as that of creating the Gayssot law in France and its variations in Europe. By elsewhere, as the elite need freedom of speech in America to be able to publish
ideas prohibited elsewhere and thus spread various theories apparently dissenting (not only
on the Shoah), she prefers to keep it... at least for now.
So, if it were only the revisionists who were being persecuted in Europe, it would probably be
insufficient to create a large anti-Semitic movement. But there are known political figures,
like Soral, Dieudonné, and many other less important personalities, as well as bloggers,
youtubers, etc., who have also been since the 2000s.
Added to this is the problem of the colonization of Palestine and the persecutions inflicted on
Palestinians. That too promotes and will continue to promote Judeo-critical discourse.
If we add to these persecutions, all the "revelations" (true or false) about Jewish power, it will end.
by mass. [Page 93]
By the way, we understand why it was the Communist Gayssot who proposed this law. Like the
Communists were seen as tyrants enemies of freedom of expression, it made sense
at the time that it was one of them who created this law. It helped distract from
Jews immediately.
But we were careful to involve the Jew Fabius in the creation of the law. It should be used for
later. At the beginning, we mainly talked about the Gayssot law. It was after that came the expression Fabius law-Gayssot (in revisionist circles it happened quickly, but in other circles
intellectuals, it took longer). It allowed after the fact to link the law to the Jews, whereas
at first it was linked to the Communists.
His journey is that of an apparatchik of the system. Born in 1913. Received 5 th of the aggregation of
philosophy in 1936 (aged 23). Editor-in-chief of Radio-France in Algiers in 1943. Member of the
Central Committee of the PCF in 1945. He was elected Communist deputy for Tarn (1945-1951), then for the Seine
(1956-1958), and finally Senator of Paris (1959-1962). He teaches at the University of Clermont-Ferrand,
then at the University of Poitiers. He is the director of Cahiers du communisme, the theoretical review of the PCF,
until 1964. Director of the Center for Marxist Studies and Research, he was for a long time a
of the "official philosophers" of the Communist Party. In short, both a member of the intelligentsia and the
French nomenklatura.
We learn a little more in an article by Guy Konopnicki in the Marianne newspaper on June 15
2012: " He is the ideologue of the purges, the friend of Maurice Thorez. He charges Marty and Tillon. At a time when
Krushchev recognizes Stalin's crimes, Garaudy helps Maurice Thorez in his denial of
changes happening in Moscow. He slays the leaders who call for
de-Stalinization of the PCF and delivers an indictment against Laurent Casanova, responsible for intellectuals
and culture, fired in 1961. " [Page 94]
" When the USSR invaded Czechoslovakia on August 21, 1968, Roger Garaudy spent his last
vacation of a communist hierarch, in a dacha on the shores of the Black Sea. "
So it was downright Stalinist pure juice. And he was so well regarded by the USSR that he was entitled to a
dacha for his vacation.
We also learn in this same article that at the end of the 1960s, he denounced the abuses
anti-Semitic.
" The first differences expressed by Roger Garaudy do not suggest its evolution
later. In 1967, he became concerned about the tone adopted by Humanity in criticizing Israel. He points to a
risk of anti-Semitic drift. In March 1968, he openly protested against the anti-Semitism which
accompanies the repression of the student movement in Poland. Then, in May 1968, he criticized the
central committee the famous article by Georges Marchais denouncing "the German anarchist Cohn-Bendit
" "
" In his critique of the USSR, of Poland and of normalization in Czechoslovakia, Roger Garaudy
continues to denounce anti-Semitism, masked as anti-Zionism . Waldeck Rochet tries to avoid the
rupture. But he fell ill and disappeared from the political scene at the end of November 1969. Georges
Marchais launches the final assault and Roger Garaudy speaks one last time, in a dismal silence, at the
XIXth congress of the PCF, in Nanterre in February 1970. Once again, he denounces the anti-Semitism which is rampant in communist Poland. "
And isn't it that in 1982, at age 69, he converted to Islam. Astonishing for a communist (the
communism being a bit the antithesis of religions in general, we are in the assumed materialism
and claimed). And even more for a member of the system.
That said, the Secret Service that designed this conversion story still did
be careful to get out of the precedents (it would have gone from atheism or Catholicism to Protestantism
at 14, then from Protestantism to Catholicism in the 1970s), just to make people believe that
was used to the fact and therefore a bit nuts at this level (the type who changes religion as well as
shirt what).
Finally, in 1995, at the age of 82, he published a revisionist book published by La Vieille Taupe entitled " Les Founding myths of Israeli politics . "This is where the Garaudy affair begins.
We already have a first problem, which is the same as for Roques. It is very weird that a guy who
apparently never looked for the problems, took huge risks at 82.
Especially at that time, the Fabius-Gayssot law had passed. So the situation was much worse than
that of the 1980s at the judicial level. There, revisionist writings could be sanctioned
immediately and very harshly. So to write a revisionist book under his real name was
expose yourself to serious problems. Strictly speaking, we can believe in this kind of action on the part of
someone who would have acted like a rebel all their life, but not a type who always stuck in
nails. And even less of a member of the system.
But precisely, as Garaudy is clearly a member of the system, that is to say an agent of
the elite, it is in any case impossible that he switched to revisionism on his own. If he's
become an actor of this movement, it is inevitably that one told him to do it. [Page 95]
And it's very weird that at 82, this guy suddenly receives the revisionist "light". At 82,
in general we no longer adopt new ideas. And when we were a communist from a young age
age, one does not pass on the side of the wicked Nazis in the last moments of his life. Of course that
is not absolutely impossible, but it is extremely unlikely.
When I read his book in the late 90s and learned that he was
converted to the Muslim religion when he had been a communist, that struck me as weird. But hey, I
I said to myself "why not after all" and I left it there.
But there, by discovering the true goal of revisionism, I now understand the role of Roger
Garaudy.
We have seen on this blog that, during the third world war, the opposition on the
European territory will be composed on one side of anti-Illuminati conspiracies, Muslims
and anti-Semites and on the other ordinary people, Jews and nationalists.
With that in mind, it becomes clear that Garaudy was used to initiate the junction between the trend
revisionist and Muslims . With him, revisionism reached the Muslim crowds who
will be combined with the anti-Semitic during the 3 rd World War. It was the first step towards that in
France. That's why he became a Muslim. Of course, he probably wasn't. But he did
pretending to convert so that his influence in the Muslim world can be explained.
Suddenly, this oddity that a former communist suddenly became a Muslim becomes
logic. And he had to convert well before his first revisionist writings, otherwise it would have
might have looked suspicious. There, by converting supposedly in 1982, it dissociated his Muslim conversion
of its passage to revisionism.
This is also why the French revisionists had to be partly on the left. It was necessary
be able to explain that we had at least one who switched to Islam, something that would have been very
suspicious from a far-right person.
And of course, his conversion to revisionism was not enough. He had to receive official support from one or more leaders and personalities of Muslim countries to put it
forward to the Muslim crowds. This is the reason why the Egyptian minister of
culture awarded him in 1998 the medal of Islamic preaching, the highest distinction
Islamic in Egypt. In this article in the newspaper Le Monde, we also learn that: " He had been
received by a vice-president, two ministers and the mufti of Syria and by the imam of the great mosque
Egyptian woman from Al-Azhar. The Arab Lawyers Union launched a campaign of petitions for the
support. And the wife of the head of state of the United Arab Emirates had donated $ 50,000 to him .
Without that, he would have remained only a French Muslim revisionist. It was already good because he could
reach out to Muslims in France. But with these supports, he reached an international dimension [Page 96] in Muslim crowds. He no longer influenced a few million French Muslims, but tens of millions of Muslims around the world.
And concerning the timing of the Garaudy affair, it must be seen that it started in 1995, just before the
beginning of the stigmatization of Muslims from 2001. It was only launched then
for this reason. Already, it was very much in the timing of the elite agenda. And then it was difficult
to do this before, because the elite wanted to put the Arabs on a pedestal for all
1980s, to promote massive immigration to Europe. However, associating the Arabs with revisionism
would have been obviously counterproductive at that point. So, his book had to come out only
1995 and that it did not begin to receive support from some Muslim leaders until 1998 for
that the beginning of the junction between Muslims and revisionism takes place in the late 90s,
so close to 2001 and the beginning of the shift in opinion on Muslims.
Thanks to Garaudy, we started to have articles like this one ("The roots of negationism in France ", Henry Rousso, Cités magazine, April 2008) denouncing the collusion between the revisionists
and Islamist circles:
"In the 2000s, we discovered above all, not without some reluctance and resistance, that the
Holocaust denial has changed in nature and has become a political weapon in Islamist circles .
Here too, we find the influence of French intellectuals, such as Roger Garaudy , who published in December
1995, The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics, which became a bestseller in the Arab world.
muslim . The pamphlet is in line with writings considering the Holocaust as a
lie and an "instrument" of Israeli policy, a theme taken up in particular by the
Iranian President Ahmadinejad, during the negationist conference organized in Tehran, in December 2006
: for the first time since 1945, denial of the Shoah constitutes the official position of the leader of a
State recognized by the international community. "
Ahmadinejad is obviously an elite agent. All presidents of all countries are. And Iran
is no exception. They are simply playing the role of enemies of the West assigned to them by the elite.
So if they promoted revisionism, it was because the elite ordered them to do so.
Regarding the timing, the elite could have waited until the 2010s for revisionism to spread
among Muslims. There, with the Internet, it was easily explained. But, they wanted the
premises go back further to have antecedents. The first steps had to be laid, to
that the development of revisionism appears to follow a natural course in the crowds
Muslim (beginning, development, then more or less generalization). If it had happened from
but blank in the 2010s, it would have looked less natural and therefore more fishy.
Moreover, as the second generation revisionists were to disappear in the 2010s, he
the junction between them and the Muslim world had to take place while they were still alive and
a minimum in form. This is why the support for the revisionists by the Iranian leaders started
in 2005 and that there was the Holocaust conference in Iran in 2006 with big names from [Page 97] revisionism like Faurisson, Serge Thion, Garaudy and Fredrick Toben. In addition, it was inserted
perfectly in the timing of the elite (just after the beginnings of revisionism in the world
Muslim via Garaudy, and just before its democratization in the 2010s, via the Internet and
stars of European conspiracy).
The fact that it was leaders of the Islamic world who carried out acts in favor of
revisionists or have expressed pro-revisionist opinions, moreover
the elite of Muslims in addition to the people. And of course, it made it possible to give a lot more
authority and publicity to these opinions only if they had been ordinary individuals.
A clue that shows Iranian support was just front and only made to establish well
the link between revisionism and Islamism is that the Iranian regime has never really fully supported
the revisionists. They could have given them a lot of money, edited their books, provided them with
publicity, their legal defense, shelter and impunity in Iran, etc... But they didn't.
And it was done on purpose. The second generation revisionists had to stay in their
situation of martyrs. So they were not to receive any help from the Iranians. Then maybe
that in the future, to remedy this oddity, the newspapers will give us "revelations" on
support for the revisionists in the 2000s from the Iranian regime (or other
Muslim). But hey, until now, we've never heard of that.
Radio Islam started from 1987 as a radio station. So, it goes back a priori further than
Garaudy. But in fact, at the base, it was simply a radio intended for Muslims, without
sulphurous content. Soon the radio drifted into "anti-Semitic" content, Rami being
sentenced for incitement to racial hatred in 1990 to 6 months in prison. He invited Faurisson to
speak twice on Radio Islam since March 1992. And he participated in the conference of the Institute for
Historical Review also in 1992. But all that had stopped between 1993 and 1995, since his radio
was no longer transmitting. It was only in 1996 that the radio came back, with the appearance of the site
web, which had revisionist content. So well, it's still open to discussion, but we can say
that he appeared on the revisionist scene earlier than Garaudy, but that he was then only a close
movement. He wasn't really a part of it yet. It was only in 1996 that he
really started to be.
Of course, the goal here was the same as with Garaudy: to lay the first milestones of the junction between
revisionism and Muslims. There had to be an Arab Muslim and not just a white one
converted at this stage of the junction. Otherwise, it would have been too artificial . It wouldn't have spoken enough [Page 98] to Muslim crowds (mainly Arabs). Let's say that Garaudy brought the prestige of
the French intellectual, while Rami brought the proximity of the Arab intellectual.
Regarding his biography, There's not too much. But, we have perhaps the most important. Indeed,
we learn here that in fact, he is a former soldier (refugee in Sweden). He had the rank of lieutenant.
However, we have seen in the work of Miles Mathis that the agents of influence are often former
officers or / and sons of military personnel.
Moreover, his course is quite curious. He was born in December 1946. He prepares the Normal School
Superior in Morocco (school which trains future teachers). He graduated at just 16
and a half years (June 1963). Then, he teaches history, geography, French and Arabic in
secondary schools in Casablanca.
However, already, obtaining the diploma of the ENS of Casablanca at this age is very strange, since today, you must have the license level to register for this training. It would mean that Rami will have obtained
his baccalaureate at 12 and a half (whereas, normally, it is obtained at 18). But hey, maybe
be that there is an error in its Wikipedia entry.
Then, a complete change of course, he became a soldier in the fall of 1965, ie at 18 years old. And
when he left Morocco, he was a tank lieutenant. Why this very surprising reconversion
after just under two and a half years? We are told he was opposed to the regime in place
and thought that by becoming an officer, he could achieve it more easily. He intended to
destroy the regime from within.
Me, I rather have the impression that he was from the start in the secret service and that his career in
the army is there to explain his departure for Sweden (he would have participated in a failed putsch and would have been
forced to flee). And his so-called teaching stint must be there so that people are not
not too suspicious of his military status.
In the USA, thanks to the 1st Amendment, there is no censorship law. So, a priori, nothing was opposed to
what revisionist celebrities appear there.
And logically, one of the great figures of the movement, Arthur Butz , is American. He indeed wrote
the book " The Deception of the Twentieth Century ", which was published in 1976 in England by "The Historical Review Press "by Anthony Hancock. [Page 99]
It is also in the USA that the IHR ( Institute for Historical Review ) was created in 1978, by Willis Carto (an American) and the Englishman David McCalden . There was also CODOH with Bradley R. Smith and Mark Weber in 1987.
In passing, one may wonder if the name IHR is not a nod to the IHS , the emblem of the Jesuits .
On the other hand, it was not the elite's objective for revisionism to spread among the people. he
could thrive in terms of revisionist personalities and organizations. But he was not
still question that it becomes a vast movement. It was only supposed to become
2010s (and probably even a little later in the USA).
But that was easy for the elite. Since she was in control of all sides of the problem, she could
easily to ensure that only a few hundred people join this movement. She
could organize the inefficiency of the revisionists and the lack of means. She could discourage
goodwill joining organizations already in place (IHR, CODOH, etc.). Etc ... And on the side
mainstream, it could give only minimal publicity to the revisionists. And anyway, seen
the political situation at the time, it was spreading the revisionist which was difficult, not maintaining it
at the level of a small group. Indeed, there was no extremist movement in the United States, nor of the right,
nor left. There was only one large center with some differences economically and
societal. So, to people, anything that appeared to be potentially extremist (like the
revisionism) was immediately rejected. Under these conditions, and with no way to find out
other than the mass media, hardly anyone was likely to become a revisionist.
The movement was intended to remain totally marginal.
And then, in the USA, there were a number of far-right revisionists in the movement.
American at the start (in the 70s and 80s). David McCalden was there. Willis Carto too. Weber
also. And ensuring that there are far-right personalities made it possible to repel
ordinary people. So two of them like Arthur Butz and Bradley R. Smith weren't
apparently no far-right. But it was enough that a good part of the revisionists
American be it so that it does not pose a problem. For the majority of the general public, manipulated
by the media, revisionism was a Nazi thing, period (and concerning Butz, as he had
worked with the IHR, for the general public he was a Nazi by association).
Thus, the American public could see the martyrdom of a revisionist author located in a nearby country. The
Zundel case also made people think that Jewish domination was global and not
limited to a few countries in Europe, which was good for the future project of expelling Jews to
Israel.
But, there was no need for more than one persecuted person in North America. Thanks to the 1st amendment,
American agents of influence, and even honest people, were able to spread revisionism there
freely, and winning over hundreds of thousands of people to this theory during the years 2000/2010.
For phase 5 of revisionism, the elite did not have to complicate their lives. In general, the
pro-revisionism plan was apparently much easier to implement in the United States
than in France or in other European countries.
"Neither in Dachau, nor in Bergen-Belsen, nor in Buchenwald Jews or other detainees were gassed."
"The massive annihilation of the Jews by gas began in 1941-1942 and took place only in
rare points chosen for this purpose and provided with adequate technical installations, above all in
occupied Polish territory ( but nowhere in the old Reich ): in Auschwitz-Birkenau, in Sobibor-sur-
Bug, in Treblinka, Chelmno and Belzec. "
Which made Faurisson say that the title of the article should have been: "No gassing in all the old
Reich "(Germany within its borders of 1937).
We have a more complete version in Brigneau's book, page 83:
" the headline" No gassing in Dachau ", a letter from Dr Martin Broszat, member (and future director) of
Munich Institute of Contemporary History. We read: [Page 101]
"Neither in Dachau, nor in Bergen-Belsen, nor in Buchenwald Jews or other detainees were gassed.
Dachau's gas chamber was never completely finished and "put into service". Of
hundreds of thousands of inmates, who perished in Dachau or in other concentration camps
located within the borders of the Old Reich, were victims above all of the catastrophic
hygienic and supply conditions: in the twelve months from July 1942 to
June 1943, 110,812 people died of disease and hunger in all the concentration camps
of the Reich, according to official statistics of the SS. The massive annihilation of the Jews by gas
began in 1941/1942 and took place only in rare points chosen for this purpose and provided
adequate technical installations, above all in occupied Polish territory ( but nowhere in
the Old Reich ): in Auschwitz-Birkenau, in Sobibor-sur-Bug, in Treblinka. Chelmno and Belzec.
There but not at Bergen-Belsen, Dachau or Buchenwald , these devices of annihilation were erected.
en masse, camouflaged in showers or in disinfection rooms, which is mentioned in your
article. This necessary distinction certainly does not change the criminal character of
the institution of concentration camps. But maybe she can help suppress the fatal
confusion from which it follows that many incorrigible people use arguments that are
separated from their context for polemical ends and [from which it also follows] that they hasten to reply
people who certainly have an exact overall judgment but who rely on
false or defective information. "
Brigneau immediately added:
"The personality of Dr Martin Broszat and the official authority of the Institute of Contemporary History of
Munich attached great importance to this public declaration. She posed and imposed
four equally corrosive questions:
(1) Since the gas chambers were the # 1 tool of "mass annihilation", why
hadn't the Hitler regime installed them in all the concentration camps ? In others
In terms, why had he limited them to the open camps in occupied Poland?
(2) Since there had been no gas chambers in Dachau, how did the indictment of the Tribunal de
Had Nuremberg been able to certify their existence, even at Dachau? How could he, in November
45, show a film to the accused who, upset at a spectacle they had ignored everything about,
watched the operation of this gas chamber which, according to Dr Martin Broszat, had never
commissioned at Dachau, but which, on the Nuremberg screen, was gassing a hundred Jews per session at
Dachau?
(3) Since the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich, entirely acquired by Israel, affirmed
that no gas chamber had existed in Dachau, Buchenwald or Bergen-Belsen, how
Could it be explained that a host of eyewitnesses had seen it working in these camps ? Over there
fragility of human testimony? By the lie of Odysseus?
(4) Finally, if we could not believe the witnesses who told how we died in the
Dachau, Buchenwald or Bergen-Belsen gas chambers since these were myths,
how could we give credit to other witnesses who told , often in
different and even contradictory, their functioning in Auschwitz-Birkenau, Sobibor-sur-Bug,
Treblinka, Chelmno and Belzec? " [Page 102[
So, from 1960, there was a disavowal of the version defended until then concerning the gassings.
in the three camps in question. It was obviously a formidable blow to the "legal" version.
Suddenly, the official camp scuttled itself.
Only, it is practically impossible. The elite plan these things well in advance and do not
no such gross errors. She does, but not like that. And on the other hand, it tends not to
never go back on his lies (in any case, as long as they are necessary for the current plan). So if
she did it here, because the thing was planned at the base, it was part of the plan.
So, from 1983, the official authorities partly reversed this declaration (see here ).
They would have adopted an intermediate version. There would have been gas chambers in the west, but there
would have had only a few thousand gassings. These version changes obviously had to have
a catastrophic effect for the credibility of the official theory.
The gassing truck holocaust also received some early vogue. Then, without giving it up
totally, the official story has become much more low-key on this subject.
On the revisionist side, as we do not give in extreme conspiracy, the explanation is
that he had not had any consultation between the Russians and the Westerners about the lie, hence the
different versions which have followed one another for certain means of extermination (for example,
massacres using electricity defended by the Russians which was abandoned after a few
weeks in Nuremberg). But, already, it seems very weird that Americans and Russians do not
not agree on a common version. Since the history of the past 74 years has
shown they were defending the same lie, they should have been careful not to contradict each other
each other.
But above all, the problem is that we now know that there are not several groups that dominate the
world, but only one. So the development of the scam was done by one team, a long time
in advance, so there couldn't be several different stories. So if there was
several versions of presented, most of which have been abandoned, is that it was wanted from the
departure. There is a clear reason for this decision: to give arguments to the revisionists in the future.
And that, as that implied that the revisionists were agents, the latter were obliged to
stay at a lower level of conspiracy and talk about cacophony between the Russians and the
Westerners.
Another, more secondary reason was to prevent people from realizing that all this had
was designed by one team, which meant that one group of people dominated the world.
By introducing contradictions, abandoning this or that version, it kept people away from [Page 103]
the idea that all of this could have been done either through global consultation or by a team
having imposed the correct version on the whole world.
There have also been huge decreases in the death toll. For example, the plate
Auschwitz giving a number of killed 4 million was withdrawn at the beginning of April 1990. And from 1992, it was planned to install a new one with the figure of 1.5 million (see here ), something that was done in
1995.
So, just before the Fabius-Gayssot law was passed, which is one of the worst times to do so, we were withdrawing the plaque saying there were 4 million dead at Auschwitz. Less than 2 years later, we declared
that it was going to be replaced with the figure of 1.5 million dead. And in 1995, just when
The Internet was starting to take off, the new plate was indeed installed. This timing
is certainly not due to chance.
It was, there again, an element made to make pass the intellectuals to revisionism. Going down
as much as the death toll, we put up a huge red flag indicating that it is a
scam. Such a retreat from the very pediment of the most emblematic place of the Shoah looked like
total surrender.
And it's even better than that, because the official figure of the number of deaths given in the museum
Auschwitz is 1.1 million. So not only has there been a huge setback in the number of
killed, but in addition, we have a different number on the plaque at the entrance to the camp and in the museum.
And of course, the fact of having kept intact the overall figure of 6 million Jews killed while withdrawing
2.5 million deaths at Auschwitz is also ridiculous. But, again, it was on purpose.
And in fact, these contradictions are also a step backwards, since we see that the figures are rather
decreasing over the years. We start from 2 to 9 million between 1945 and 1955 (the 9
million being in the documentary film Nuit et Brouillard, 1955). It starts to decrease
slightly in the 1970s (2 to 5 million). And it drops sharply in the 80s to 90s, with
mostly figures ranging from 1 to 1.6 million. In 1994, the Pope officially researched
the holocaust, Jean-Claude Pressac, even ended with a figure of 630,000 to 710,000 (including 470,000 to
550,000 Jews gassed). It's the stampede. But of course, as with the other elements, it was done
on purpose.
Regarding the Pressac figures, it should be noted that, there too, it was shortly after the Fabius law-
Gayssot. Admit such a decrease in numbers 4 years after its inception (in fact, 3 years,
since he had made a first estimate of 775,000 / 800,000 dead in 1993, including 630,000 Jews
gassed) was also a huge snub to the official version. Especially in France, since
was French. It was extremely embarrassing. So, then, the official authorities have [Page 104] apparently abandoned Pressac. But for a while, he was their champion. Moreover, the fact
to have accepted Pressac's version, then to have rejected it half-heartedly is a blow
added to their credibility. It's completely weathervane.
Normally, the elite would never have ceded ground on these various points. And she would have done
obviously be careful to have only one version, not several. If she backed off and there were several
versions, it is necessarily that it was wanted. It was necessary that people with a minimum of intelligence and
of guts (at least until 2010; afterwards, revisionism having become much more mainstream,
there was less need for courage) say to themselves that it was the revisionists who were right. And
behind the spread of revisionism was the goal of advancing anti-Judaism.
It can be noted, moreover, that most of the downward revisions were made after 1980 and
the arrival of the revisionists 2.0. It is even more illogical. Normally after 1980 the authorities
should have refused any reduction, lest people think that the revisionists had
right. And this is even more true after 1990 and the passing of the Fabius-Gayssot law (to which we can
join the adoption of similar laws in Switzerland in 1994 and in Belgium in 1995), and the arrival of the Internet.
However, in the 90s, it was not one, but at least five reductions that were made: the one on the
Auschwitz plaque (1995), that in the Auschwitz museum (1995), that of Pressac (1993 and 1994),
and two in Majdanek (see below) in 1992 and 2006. Of course, as we have seen, the authorities
would never have revised the numbers down anyway at any time. But there they
had a very important additional reason for not doing so.
But the figure accepted at Nuremberg does not seem to have been the figure presented to visitors to the
Museum. Indeed, Judge Zdzislaw Lukaszkiewicz of the Main Commission for the Investigation of
Nazi crimes in Poland ruled in 1948 that the death toll was instead 360,000 . It must have
be the official figure for about 40 years presented to the museum. In any case, he appeared in
the Holocaust Encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia Britannica Polish edition, and in the Polish Nowa
Encyklopedia Powszechna PWN (see here ).
But in 1992, Czeslaw Rajca reduced the number of victims to 235,000. That was the official figure
of the Majdanek Museum for about 14 years. It was already a big overhaul. And in 2005, Tomasz
Kranz, director of the research department at the Majdanek State Museum, lowered the
figures at 78,000 victims, including 59,000 Jews. It is a number almost identical to that which is
indicated on the museum's website since 2006 (still in force in 2019, see here ), which is 80,000, including 60,000 Jews. So, these are the official figures. Which means we went from 1.5 million according to the Nuremberg Tribunal, 80,000 according to the Majdanek State Museum. The number of killed has been divided by 18 by the authorities. In short, more reductions used to spread ideas revisionists. [Page 105]
What is interesting is that these variations in the number of deaths are also revealed on
non-revisionist sites. On the official Auschwitz website , these decreases are mentioned (as well
for Auschwitz than for Majdanek). On the English version of Wikipedia , we admit that the figures
de Majdanek were gradually reduced. So even mainstream sites recognize
the existence of these declines in official figures. You might think it's to get people the
less responsive to revisionism.
In the spring of 1940, thousands of Polish soldiers were assassinated by the Soviets. During
invading Russia, the Germans discovered the corpses in late 1941 and accused
Russians. But they turned the accusation around and said it was the Germans who had them.
killed in September 1941. The Nuremberg Tribunal considered them guilty of this
crime. And all western states retained this version until April 13, 1990, when
the Russian state officially recognized that it was in fact the Soviets who carried out this
massacre. It was again a big blow to the credibility of official history and blessed bread
for the revisionists.
Of course, the official camp ended by saying that only the Russians had accused the Germans of this
massacre, and that Katyn had not been mentioned in Nuremberg. But Faurisson has shown that all this
was wrong.
Regarding Friedman, here's what happened ( here ) :
"Pages 304-371 retrace the examination and cross-examination of Arnold Friedman ; this
last collapses on pages 445-446 when he finally confesses that he hasn't actually seen anything, that he has spoken
by hearsay because, he said, he had met convincing people ; maybe, added
he, would he have taken the position of D. Christie rather than that of these people if D. Christie had been able to
say back then what he was telling her now! "
In the same article , we have a first description of Vrba : [Page 106]
" Dr. Vrba was a witness of exceptional importance . One can even say that at this trial of
Toronto the prosecution had found a way to recruit "Holocaust" expert with
Dr Hilberg and Witness 1 with Dr Vrba . The latter's testimony had been one of the
main sources of the famous War Refugee Board Report on German Extermination Camps -
Auschwitz and Birkenau, published in November 1944 by the Executive Office of the President [Roosevelt].
Dr R. Vrba was also the author of I Cannot Forgive, written in collaboration with Alan Bestic who,
in his preface, declared about him: "Indeed I would like to pay tribute to him for the immense
trouble he took over every detail; for the meticulous, almost fanatical respect he revealed for
accuracy. " "
Then, we learn how he behaved during the trial and the reactions of the court.
"Perhaps a court of law has never seen a witness speak so confidently about the
Auschwitz gas chambers. But, at the end of the cross-examination, the situation was reversed.
point that Dr Vrba had only one explanation for his errors and his lies: in his book he
had, he admitted, had recourse to the " poetic license " or, as he liked to say in Latin, to the "
licentia poetarum "!
There was a dramatic turnaround at the end: Prosecutor Griffiths himself, who had called this witness
No.1, apparently outraged by Dr R. Vrba's lies, shot him with the following question:
You told Mr. Christie several times in discussing your book I Cannot Forgive that you used poetic
license in writing that book. Have you used poetic license in your testimony ?
The false witness tried to ward off the blow but DA Griffiths finished him off with a second question.
equally treacherous concerning, this time, the figures of gassed people given by Vrba; the witness answered by
chatter; Griffiths was about to ask him a third and final question when suddenly
the case was cut short and the prosecutor was heard to say to the judge: "I have no further questions for Dr.
Vrba. "
The mine decomposed, the witness left the bar. The examination, cross-examination and
re-examination of this character occupies four hundred pages of the transcript. These pages
could appear in an encyclopedia of law in the chapter on methods of detecting false
testimony."
So during the trial, faced with all his lies, Vrba ended up saying that he had used the
" poetic license ". In other words, he simply admitted half-heartedly that he was lying, which is worth withdrawal.
The problem is that we can hardly imagine the elite bringing such unreliable witnesses to the stand.
that can be easily routed by defense counsel.
At a minimum, the Jewish authorities should have trained Vrba to answer all the questions
risked defending him. They were nevertheless primarily concerned by these
testimonials. However, they had at their disposal all the means of the Mossad, and the potential help of
all the Jewish students and intellectuals to thoroughly refine Vrba's testimony. But no, everything [Page 107] it was done in the most total amateurism. It is not normal. It is obvious that it has been done
intentionally.
But even before the trial, from the outset, the secret service agencies which are in charge of putting
to the point these lies should have provided these actors with pretty much holding testimonials.
Friedman and Vrba are obviously not isolated individuals who provided their testimonies of
spontaneous way. They were agents of influence mandated by the elite. And it is the latter that has them
provided these delusional and untenable testimonies in a court of law. And she could only do it
deliberately.
So, we can answer that just after the war, the elite needed testimonies
extraordinary like those of Friedmann and Vrba, the better to impress naive crowds.
But, she could have had two types of testimonies: delusional testimonies like those of
Vrba, intended to last 20 or 30 years before being challenged, and exaggerating testimonies
less, thus being able to be presented to a possible trial, or serving to obtain a more
canonical holocaust. The first would have allowed the crowds to bite the hook of this
lie in the first years, on the emotional side, and the second would have given a
aura of seriousness, which would have kept the credibility of the Holocaust in the minds of
people who think a minimum.
But hey, anyway, the elite would necessarily have been aware that these ridiculous testimonies do not
especially not to be presented in front of a free court of justice. So she would never have had
use the evidence of Friedman and Vrba in the first place. What if the defense had made them
calling to the bar, the elite would have found a way to prevent that. It would have been enough for him to say that they were sick. Or she could have knocked Friedman or Vrba out of the game with a fake death (and in
giving them a new identity).
"Three years later, in 1988 , during the second trial against E. Zündel, the public prosecutor found
prudent to abandon all recourse to a witness. Canadian justice apparently understood
the lesson of the first trial: there was no real witness to the existence and functioning
Nazi gas chambers.
Little by little, every other country in the world has learned the lesson . In 1987, in France, at the trial of
Klaus Barbie, we talked about the gas chambers at Auschwitz but no witnesses were produced at
strictly speaking of these gas chambers . The lawyer Jacques Vergès, courageous but not reckless,
preferred to dodge the subject. It was a chance for the Jewish lawyers who feared nothing so much
see me appear alongside J. Vergès. If the latter had accepted my offer to advise him, we
could have dealt a formidable blow to the myth of the gas chambers in France.
Also in France, during some revisionist trials, Jewish witnesses sometimes came
evoke these gas chambers but none attested, at the bar, to have seen one or to have attended a
homicidal gassing . [Page 108]
Today, witnesses in the gas chambers are extremely rare and the Demjanjuk trial in
Israel, who has once again revealed how common false witness is in this matter,
contributed to this change. A few years ago, it happened to me to be challenged
aggressively in the back of the courtroom by old Jews who presented themselves to me as
"Living witnesses of the Auschwitz gas chambers"; they were showing me their tattoos. It was enough for me
ask them to look me in the eye and describe a gas chamber to
that they inevitably retort: ??"How could I?" If I had seen a gas chamber
with my own eyes, I wouldn't be here today talking to you; I too would have been gassed "."
This confirms that the testimonies of Friedman and Vrba were catastrophic, since, otherwise, they
would have been called to testify again.
And there, by practically stopping recourse to testimony during trials after 1985, it is again
a damning admission that the revisionists are right.
So, of course, it is the logical continuation of the rout of 1985. But, at the base, this one was provoked.
by the elite.
" The expert cited by the prosecution was Dr Raul Hilberg, author of The Destruction of the European
Jews. He had to endure, day after day, such a humiliation that, requested in 1988 by a new
prosecutor for a new trial against E. Zündel, he refused to come back to testify ; he motivated his
refusal in a confidential letter in which he confessed his fear of having to face the
questions from D. Christie . From the cross-examination of Dr Raul Hilberg it emerged that ultimately
there was no evidence of the existence of either an order, a plan, an instruction, or
a budget for the alleged enterprise of physical extermination of the Jews; we did not own
neither an expertise of the murder weapon (gas chamber or gas truck) nor an autopsy report
establishing the murder of an inmate by poison gas. "
So we also have an unofficial statement from Hilberg acknowledging that after the 1985 trial, he
was afraid of having to face Christie's questions again. It's still a great
confession. By the way, we wonder how Faurisson managed to learn about this letter
confidential.
In this article , Faurisson quotes other historians:
" Subsequently, in 1988, Arno Mayer , professor (Jewish) at Princeton University, was to write:" The
sources for the study of gas chambers are both rare and dubious "(" rare and unreliable ":
see. http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2006/12/les-victoires-du-revisionnisme.html, point no 13).
In 1996, the French historian Jacques Baynac noted, about these rooms, " the absence of
documents, traces or other material evidence "(see.
http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2006/12/les-victoires-du-revisionnisme.html, point no 17).
Four years later, we learned that Jean-Claude Pressac , who had yet made the most
ardent defender of the thesis of their existence, had ended up writing (in a study completed on June 15 [Page 109]
1995 and made public in 2000 by Valérie Igounet) that these gas chambers, just like, in its
together, the official history of the camps, were now doomed " to the dustbins of history " (see.
http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2006/12/les-victoires-du-revisionnisme.html, point no 18). Finally,
on December 27, 2009, Robert Jan van Pelt , professor (Jewish) at the University of Toronto, last historian
to make sure to prove the existence of these gas chambers at Auschwitz and Birkenau, has just declared
that in the matter " at ninety-nine percent, what we know, we do not have the
physical elements to prove it ". For his part, he is content to have on the subject" a certainty
moral "(" a moral certainty ") and he advocates that the Auschwitz complex be left abandoned.
Birkenau, which materially proves virtually nothing of what the millions of pilgrims
still imagine they are there (see http://www.thestar.com/News/Insight/article/742965). "
And we find others here.
So even historians have backed off formally or unofficially. Again, it's a terrible hit brought to the official thesis.
The problem is, all of these people were agents of power. And they would never have
took the initiative to make these statements destroying the official thesis on their own. So they have
necessarily been mandated by the elite to do so. And in this case, it is that the latter wanted that
the official theory is called into question.
" All over the United States, Joseph Hirt was recognized as a victim of the Holocaust.
decades, the one who is now a 91-year-old had given lectures and
made presentations at US universities and schools. He told how he
managed to escape from Auschwitz, the infamous extermination camp built by the
Nazis, passing under barbed wire, or how he had met Doctor Josef Mengele, who
conducted medical experiments on detainees. But today he finally admitted he had it all
invented, apologizing publicly to those to whom his story could harm. "
" In October 1991, the periodical Le Deporté pour la liberté, organ of the National Union of
associations of deportees, internees and families of disappeared (UNADIF), announced on the front page:
central pages of this issue, first part of the testimony of Henry Bily , one of the rare survivors
of a Sonderkommando. »In his delivery of November 1991, H. Bily continued the story of his
experience of Auschwitz under the title of "My extraordinary story".
However, in the following issue of Deported for Freedom, that of December 1991-January 1992,
appeared a "Focus after the insertion in our columns of the text of Henry Bily". The direction [Page 110] and the writing of the publication revealed the fake : H. Bily had, in most of his
testimony, proceeded to:
the complete copy without any mention of references, passages (in particular chapters 7 and
28) from the book by Dr Myklos Nyiszli: Médecin à Auschwitz, written in 1946 and translated and published in 1961
published by René Julliard. Unfortunately, the errors originally made by Dr Nyiszli
were also taken over; finally, the longest loan relates to the description of the
functioning of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Sonderkommando, in which Henry Bily declares [himself
lying] having worked ...
It follows from this analysis that it is in no way possible to consider Henry's text
Bily as an original and personal testimony.
To an attentive reader of this press release, the sentence "Unfortunately, the errors made
originally by Dr Nyiszli were also taken over "could suggest that,
misfortune, H. Bily, Jewish tie merchant, had copied a testimony which, by itself, was already
a fake."
So it was the media that exposed the lie. Incredible a priori. The elite never confess their
scams. So if it did so through the media, it was because it was voluntary. She wanted to
less part of the public understands that the official version of the holocaust is false.
In the same genre, in 1995, Binjamin Wilkomirski (in reality Bruno Grosjean) published the book
"Fragments: a childhood 1939-1948". He describes his childhood during the Nazi occupation where he spent
by hiding places in the Polish countryside and then interned in two different camps
Nazis (Majdanek and Auschwitz). But, in 1998 , the Swiss press revealed that it was a lie.
The author denies. But, in 1999, the book was withdrawn from sale.
In 1997, to drive the point further, we had the ridiculous story of the Jewish girl helped by
wolves during the 2nd world war ("Surviving with the wolves" by Misha Defonseca). It was sinking
in the grotesque. But it was made for. And to show the masses the version they had to believe,
the author finally admitted in 2008 that the story was an invention. And of course the newspapers have
widely relayed the denial.
And there are various others like this around the world. Hence the famous drawing with a Jew who
draw a swastika on the wall of a Jewish temple and a guy exclaims "Hey rabbi, watcha doin
? ". [Page 111]
It can be noted that most of the cases in question date from the late 1990s and the
2000s. We were indeed getting closer to the 2010s, that is to say the moment when it was planned.
that a significant part of the population adopts revisionist theory and Judeo-critical ideas.
So, we had to make sure that even those with a rather slow brain to relax as well as
more fearful and ignorant are interested in the subject and that a part tilts towards revisionism and
anti-Judaism.
We already have all the absurdities and physical impossibilities concerning gas chambers,
crematoria and life in the camps:
Otherwise, in the obvious lie genre, the statutes of the Nuremberg Tribunal state that:
"The tribunal will not be bound by the technical rules relating to the taking of evidence. [...]"
"The court will not require proof of facts of common knowledge to be reported but will hold them
for granted."
François Brigneau rightly remarks: " Since these facts exist, in large numbers, they are
patent, irrefutable, why settle for rumor? Weird... "
So, in the genre I signal you with a sign of 100x100m that I am lying, it is strong.
" On February 21, 1979, still in Le Monde, there appeared a declaration by thirty-four historians who
concluded thus: " We must not ask ourselves how, technically, such a mass murder
been possible. It has been technically possible since it has taken place . "In my opinion,"
exterminationists ", as I call them, signed a capitulation in the open countryside. "
Obviously, such a response was catastrophic. As Faurisson says, it was practically
a capitulation in the open countryside. It was still a glaring clue of the official lie, put there
drawing. [Page 113]
The stories of 6 million Jews killed or in danger of death or facing famine or persecution
one way or another during the 30 or 40 years before the 2 nd World War was also a
good way to ridicule the official theory. And the elite made sure to insist on it. In
indeed, I remember that there was a revisionist blog called
http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.fr/ (now deleted), which regularly featured
newspaper articles on the subject. And there were so many that I ended up quitting
Download. Of course, in the immediate future, the elite had these articles written for the phase of the plan where the Jews had to appear as victims. But she had planned from the start that it would be
questioning the holocaust 70 or 80 years later. These are people who plan on easily
200 years.
We already have one of Elie Wiesel :
" An exceptional witness, Wiesel assures to have met other exceptional witnesses.
Babi-Yar, a locality in Ukraine where the Germans executed Soviets and, among them, Jews,
Wiesel writes:
Later I learned from a witness that for months and months the ground had not stopped shaking
; and that from time to time, geysers of blood had spurted out. "
Purely grotesque. And as Faurisson says:
"These words did not escape the author in a minute of bewilderment: for the first time, he had them
written, then an indeterminate number of times (at least one) he had to reread them on proofs; finally these
words have been translated into various languages ??like everything this author writes. "
In the ranting genre, we also have this:
" If he personally survived, it was of course a miracle. He says that in Buchenwald the Germans
sent "10,000 people to their deaths every day. I was always among the last hundred or so.
of the exit door. They stopped us there. Why? ("Author, Teacher, Witness", Time, March 18
1985, p. 79). "
Faurisson highlights before the fact that Eli Wiesel would not once mention the gas chambers in his
book "the night", except in a very fleeting way on page 109. And this while it is often presented as
a great witness to these. In fact, he says the Jews were allegedly killed by being burned alive. It
also, it is overwhelming. While one of the greatest witnesses to the Holocaust hardly ever talks about
gas chambers is that they never existed. [Page 114]
" In La Nuit, a biographical account in particular of his internment in Auschwitz and
Buchenwald, USA. Wiesel does not even mention the gas chambers but it appears that, by some sort
universal media convention, it is held to be the witness par excellence of the "Holocaust"
and gas chambers . According to him, if the Germans exterminated crowds of Jews, it was by
rushing into braziers or furnaces ! The end of his testimony includes an episode
extremely curious about which I have been waiting for years for Elie Wiesel to provide us with
an explanation: in January 1945, he tells us, the Germans left him and his father
choice between staying in the camp to await the arrival of the Soviets or leaving with the troops
German; after having concerted, the father and the son decided to leave with their exterminators
for Germany instead of waiting on the spot for their Soviet liberators "
But, if we stick to the idea that the official theory is the result of a conspiracy by Jewish leaders to
forbid any criticism of the Jewish people, how could they have let this go? Obviously, they
would have ensured that only testimonials going in the official sense received publicity.
Everything should have gone through them and only the false witnesses validated by them would have been able to
in chapter. So, assuming Wiesel was a free electron not dubbed by the authorities in
charge of the canard, he would never have received publicity and recognition from the media. he
would have remained an illustrious stranger. However, on the contrary, he received tons. We even gave him the prize
Nobel Peace Prize in 1986.
We also learn that the vacuum cleaner was passed every day at 12:30 p.m., that they used a
alarm clock and that they had done carpentry work, etc., while the police multiplied
searches in the surroundings and that the house was supposed to be surrounded by
people who could potentially denounce them. And it is also specified that illegal immigrants do not
especially not to make noise and that if ever one of them cough, he quickly took
codeine because the walls were so thin that "enemies" could have heard them.
In 9 passages, the food is described as bad, poor or insufficient. Elsewhere, she
is plentiful and delicious.
And everything is to match. It's inconsistency upon inconsistency.
And in the revisionist camp, it's a bit similar: everything would have been done in amateurism without
planning or management and control of the scam. In fact, the Jewish authorities would have simply seized
an opportunity that presented itself to present the Jewish people as a victim and would have everything
climbed in a rush. So they would have been too happy to use a number of
spontaneous false testimonies from pathological liars, even if they were delusional and
risked ultimately undermining the credibility of the whole. The consistency of the lie would have
was organized afterwards and would have spread over decades. In any case, there would have been no
planning.
Except that we can see that the history of the holocaust of 6 million Jews dates back to well before the
World War II. So even if one does not believe in global conspiracy, it is clear
despite everything that this lie was planned long before 1944. And if it was planned long in advance,
that means it was organized. It also means that the conspirators had plenty of time to
recruit false witnesses and that they did not need free electrons of the kind
Gerstein or Wiesel. So in the particular case of Gerstein, they should have discarded or rearranged
his testimony, to have a more presentable version. And of course, in the case of a guy who
would have released a book (which they could not prevent), they would not have given him any publicity, this [Page 116] which in 99.99% of cases would have been enough for it to be read only by a few hundred people. And
official historians would not have hesitated to present it as false testimony if by the most
by chance, he had managed to sell well. If they didn't, it was because they wanted to have
ridiculous testimonies that would be called into question later.
And if we believe in global conspiracy, then we don't even need those kinds of clues. It is
clear that everything is planned tens or even hundreds of years in advance and that this kind
amateurism in conspiracy cannot exist unless it is wanted.
And even with this level of conspiracy, there was a tendency at first to reject the idea of mistakes.
volunteers.
The elite were thought to feel so sure of their power to misinform the masses that they
was having fun introducing enormities, since she was sure it wouldn't be noticed. Thing
which was even truer before the Internet, when all the information came from the media.
And then, the fact that these errors were voluntary necessarily implied that revisionism was a
movement created by the elite. However, at the end of the 2000s, it was only 10 or 15 years since
most advanced people had discovered revisionism on the Internet. Psychologically he was
difficult to question people whom we had admired until then, and who we thought were
martyrs of truth. So it took a little while to unlock this psychological lock.
Especially since revisionism was apparently one of the most popular truth-seeking movements
advances.
Moreover, the revisionists were isolated. They received little or no support from the
other dissident movements. And they themselves did not take care of the latter. So, a priori, it
there was no elite project they were linked to. So it seemed like a real movement of
search for truth.
It was not until the end of the 2000s that the link began to appear, with agents
of the elite present in the conspiracy camp who started to promote the
revisionism. A phenomenon which was amplified in the 2010s. It has also been observed that
revisionist websites and blogs were not systematically and immediately erased, whereas
the elite would have had quite the power. And since, since then, revisionism has spread more and more
plus, things are quite different. It becomes possible that these inconsistencies and exaggerations
were put there on purpose. [Page 117]
His revisionist journey is as follows. Of himself, he says about his youth: "I was a real
little facho ". He was also fascinated by Hitler's Germany, the camps, the German army, the
weapons, etc. So he was more of a neo-Nazi than a neo-fascist. It is this fascination for
camps which prompted him to make a first trip to Poland in 1966, to visit the camps of
Stutthof, Treblinka, and Auschwitz. He frequented far-right circles such as the Oeuvre
French in the early 1970s. He joined the Front National in 1973, but left it quickly.
and then renounced all political engagement.
In 1975, he would have had as a project to write a book of alternate history of the 3 rd Reich with a chapter
would take place in Birkenau. According to his own words, it was in 1979 that he tackled this chapter. It is
would then be informed in books that he had bought during his first visit to this camp, in
1966. But with the latter, he was unable to locate the crematoria at Auschwitz (this is what
can see here : "In August 1966, long before I started to write, I visited the Auschwitz museum
and was probably one of the few French people of my generation to go there. Having bought on the spot
a few books, when I wanted to use them in 1979, the result was disastrous. Either the explanations
Polish historians were lamentable, or I didn't understand anything. " ). He would have watched the soap opera
American "holocaust". But again, nothing made sense about the crematoria. At this
At the time, he had no real doubts about the holocaust. He just told himself his books were imprecise
or that he had misunderstood them and that the producers of the soap opera were looking for more money than
historical accuracy. It was to find out what it was really about that he went to Auschwitz-
Birkenau a second time in October 1979 (therefore after Faurisson). He met Tadeusz there
Iwaszko, the director of the camp. The latter would have communicated to him the plans of the crematoria. And Pressac
would have found them incompatible with criminal intent. So it's only then
that he became a revisionist. Immediately afterwards, he would have learned of the existence of Faurisson and would have entered communication with him.
But his collaboration with the latter actually lasted a short time. He started working with him
in the spring of 1980. And by April 1981, he returned to the official camp. During this period of
collaboration, he would have more and more doubted Faurisson's method. But it was during his [Page 118] third trip to Auschwitz, in August 1980, that he would have renounced the revisionist thesis, seeing
documents provided by the camp director. He broke up with Faurisson in April 1981. He
then started to work with Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Serge Klarsfeld and Anne Freyer-Mauthner.
First problem : we are told that Pressac would have noticed himself that the official version
was wrong. He would have been a spontaneous revisionist. He wouldn't have read Bardèche, or Rassinier, or
Faurisson, or even Richard E. Harwood and his book " Six million deaths are they really
? Wikipedia suggests that he might have read the latter since he frequented the
the political movement l'Oeuvre française, which disseminated it; but he himself never said anything about it. In short, he would have formed his opinion on his own.
It is hardly credible. The holocaust taboo was so strong in the 1970s that no one dared
doubt. And this was all the more the case since the conspiracy movement did not yet exist.
So, you had to have read at least one revisionist author to start thinking that history
official was wrong, or have learned of the existence of revisionism. As much, for one
Rassinier who had (supposedly) been in a camp, his doubt was credible. For a Bardèche which
had first rebelled against the Nuremberg tribunal, then had read Rassinier, his career
revisionist was plausible too. Ditto for Faurisson who had read both. But for Pressac,
who had read no one, it is not at all. Of course, that is not absolutely impossible. But
it is very suspicious.
Second problem , even for the few neo-Nazis who were still Hitler worshipers in the years
70, the death camps were seen as a terrible stain in his political work. AT
part to question their existence or the number of dead, the camps were then taboo
for them. Suddenly, this story of fascination for the camps to the point of going to visit several in
1966 is very suspicious.
But in fact, it serves the story that the elite want to sell us. As we have seen, the interest of Pressac
for the camps and the Nazi regime would have led him to write an uchronie book, part of which would have been
spent in Auschwitz. And it is by using works on Auschwitz bought in 1966 in Poland for
documenting himself for his book that he would have realized that these official documents were not
coherent between them, which would have pushed him to return to Auschwitz in 1979 to obtain more
information. So the fascination with camps, the first trip to Poland in 1966, likewise
that his book, were essential for the story that we wanted to sell about the course
revisionist of Pressac. Without them, no revisionist Pressac. Only, with them, the oddity in
question appears.
Only, it is absolutely ridiculous. It is clear that scalded by the experience with Faurisson, the
director of the museum, Tadeusz Iwaszko, is said to have closed the door to anyone emitting the slightest
beginning of shadow of doubt about the official theory. Having certainly brought up the [Page 119] suspenders after the Faurisson episode, and his career probably no longer held by a thread, he would no longer have wanted to take the slightest risk. And anyway, Iwaszko would in fact have had nothing to say. Having become hyper vigilant because of the Faurisson affair, the Polish communist authorities, totally involved in the holocaust lie, reportedly refused to grant a visa to Pressac and the matter would have ended there. So, already, for Faurisson, succeeding in coming to Poland, then to accessing the documents was almost impossible. But there, with the precedent introduced by Faurisson, that was completely.
So, one could answer that he sneaked there, and that it was only once in Auschwitz that he
revealed his true intentions by speaking to the museum director. But as we have seen for Faurisson,
that's not how things were back then. To travel alone, you had to go under
the caudine forks of police control. And as the paranoia between east and west was very
high, any single individual was considered a potential spy, therefore, subject to
close monitoring during the trip, and an analysis of his curriculum vitae by the services
secrets before this one.
But, even if by an incredible coincidence, Pressac had escaped the vigilance of the organizations of
Polish supervision before coming and during the start of his trip, Iwaszko allegedly asked the
Communist authorities authorized to provide the documents in question to Pressac. And this all
more than a museum director, in the days of communism, was necessarily an apparatchik of the
system, therefore someone prudent, avoiding making waves that could jeopardize his career.
And even more to the extent that there had already been the Faurisson affair. So he would have sought to
cover by appealing to a higher authority. And there, it would have been the red alert in the services
intelligence. They would have immediately known that he had been a member of the National Front, that he
was on the extreme right, would have asked him a thousand questions about his motivations, and in the end would have
forced out. And they would have put an alert on him to have his visa applications automatically
rejected in the future.
And what I'm saying here is even more true for the 1980 trip. There, the Soviet authorities and Iwaszko
already knew Pressac. So they couldn't be surprised anymore.
Here, we can note that in addition, we are no longer even dealing with a teacher, as with Faurisson, which
could give a little credibility to the request. Pressac is only a pharmacist. Why, in
full communist era, a museum director would have acceded to requests for documents from a
simple western pharmacist wanting to write a novel? He would simply have sent him back to the
works on sale in the museum shop, but would not have given access to the archives.
To give a current example, it is as if you were a Japanese nationalist pharmacist, that you
go to North Korea and ask for information from a museum director at a camp
retracing the Japanese atrocities against the Korean in the early 20 th century; this by expressing
doubts about the reality of the thing. If you did, I would wish you good luck, first so that
you succeed in obtaining a visa, then so that the authorities agree to communicate these
information, and finally, so that you don't end up in jail for a few weeks or months
for attempting to destabilize the regime or any other such reason.
So the fact that he was able to access the archives, with outright active help from Iwaszko, is
completely implausible. The problem is that without these two trips, the cause of his [Page 120] passage towards revisionism, then its return towards official theory disappeared. So it was necessary
that he made these two trips, even if that introduced a very big anomaly.
So, during two more trips, he expressed his doubts to Iwaszko. Which adds twice where he
should have been turned back by the Soviet authorities. We come to a total of four trips where he was
in this situation.
Especially since he was still seeing the revisionist Pierre Guillaume at that time. In fact he has
apparently had a relationship with him until his death, since we can read here : " Shortly
before his death, (...) he had sent (to Pierre Guillaume) a study he had written on the
massacre of Oradour-sur-Glane, which he considered 'explosive'. "You do what you want with it, Guillaume,
but when I'm dead, Guillaume, not before "" That, the Soviet authorities would necessarily have
knew and would have told the Poles, which would have led to their refusal to let him return to Poland.
And even if the Communists of the Eastern bloc had believed that her conversion was sincere, since she
was very recent and that he regularly requested new information to be sure of his
fact, they were not at all sure that he would not fall back into revisionism afterwards.
the next 2 or 3 visits. A guy who has already changed his mind twice in two years can change it
a third time. So, again, when in doubt, they would have preferred to have recourse to people
much more reliable, being part of the system.
Especially since he was apparently still neo-Nazi as he collected SS items above
his pharmacy. This is what we can read in Valérie Igounet's book, "Robert Faurisson, Portrait
of a negationist ", page 286:
" The historian Robert Van Pelt speaks of a real war museum on the second floor of his pharmacy and
considers Jean-Claude Pressac as a 'fervent admirer of the SS', a 'tyrannical' man, a [Page 121] 'visceral anti-Semite', follower of the myth of the worldwide Jewish conspiracy. (...) His friend Jacques
Zylbermine remembers that 'big library above his pharmacy'. Were there
stored SS objects. A whole set of things relating to Nazi mythology: the bust
Hitler and Hitler's head. " "
And that too, the Soviet authorities would have known. So, already, for a teacher more or less
apolitical, rather frequenting leftist circles, the Soviet authorities should have closed the
door. But then for a neo-Nazi, it would have been even worse. One more reason not to let him
return to Auschwitz.
Especially since, even if he had been honest, having a neo-Nazi doing the work of historians of the
seraglio and thus risking to become the great defender of the official version, it would have been bad
kind to say the least. It is clear that the Soviet authorities would have liked to avoid this at all costs (and the
French official camp too, normally).
And all this is simply a repetition of the official version. But as we know that the shoah is
can, and that the Soviets were part of this invention, it is obvious that they never
would not have authorized an independent type, and even less presenting doubts, to access the
archives revealing the lie.
So, we can say that he had not revealed the existence of this collection to the locals. But,
in a small town, everything is known quickly. So he couldn't have hidden his existence though
long time. Besides, he apparently did not hide it, since Robert Van Pelt knew it as well as
Jacques Zylbermine, a Jewish survivor of the "shoah". In my opinion, this story was only introduced
to strengthen his neo-Nazi character.
For example, we have the Jew Pierre Vidal-Naquet, who supposedly had both his parents killed in the
concentration camps and who had dedicated his life to the memory of the Shoah and therefore to the fight against
Nazism. And it didn't bother him to work for many years with a guy more or less
neo-Nazi. Who do we want to make believe that?
Especially as a neo-Nazi who believes in the Holocaust, morally, it is worse than a neo-Nazi who does not believe in it. In the second case, if he denies in good faith, we can say that he admires Hitler for what he did to
good. This is generally the position adopted by this kind of neo-Nazis. In the first case, it
admires Hitler when he knows he slaughtered millions of Jews. There, a lambda Jew really has
what to say that he is dealing with a real junk. And if in addition, he had his parents killed by order of Hitler, he enough to hate him, even hate him. So after learning it, Vidal-Naquet should have wanted to cut
totally bridges with Pressac. There should have been a huge clash or Vidal-Naquet would have dealt
Pressac of all names. And a number of other Jews probably would have liked to
skin.
And he himself was not afraid of finding himself in this environment populated by Jews where he risked being
identify as neo-Nazi at any time. He was not afraid to one day have to deal with
half-mad thugs from the LDJ or Betar who were known to beat up people who didn't
(well, all these actions were either hoaxes or false falgs, but Pressac was not
not supposed to know). Everything is fine, everything is normal. There is nothing fishy about this.
And so, all this for a fictional book, where extreme accuracy is of little importance. If there is any detail
which is not perfect, no one will blame it. Damn perfectionist, guy. And that then
that, as we have just pointed out, he is still a pharmacist and must have good days
fulfilled. So, in a situation like this, we tend to be a little less conscientious about
details of secondary activities.
" His schooling takes place in a military establishment for the wards of the nation where his
father, then from 1954 to 1962 at the military prison of La Flèche where he met Pierre Guillaume for a time. "
It also brings to mind what Miles Mathis says about agents of influence. Many have passed
by the army, where have a senior military relative (usually from lieutenant colonel). Here,
it's not really the army, just its anteroom. But it was probably a facade. And
Pressac was also the son of a reserve officer. Moreover, in the case of Pressac, this training
the prytaneum also served to justify its neo-Nazism.
Well, already, it was in line with the idea that revisionism was a movement of Nazis and
therefore it had to be prohibited with the Fabius-Gayssot law.
And then there were not many ways to justify his interest in the camps and his membership.
fast and independent of revisionism. It makes sense that a neo-Nazi wants to clear Hitler from the crime
of the holocaust.
So, it's true that at the base, in France, revisionism was supposed to be more of a thing of people of
left or apolitical, so that there is a small period when they could still express themselves. So, [Page 124] with neo-Nazi Pressac, it went against that. But that was not a problem, since Pressac was not not known to the general public and newspapers at that time (say during the period 1978-1983).
So the French revisionists were indeed seen as far-left or apolitical people.
at the time it was useful.
Another usefulness of his neo-Nazism was to justify his permanent in-between position and his
reconversion to revisionism at the very end, in 1995. If it had a type of left, or apolitical, that
would have been more difficult to justify.
One may wonder why Pressac did not make his travels before Faurisson and in a way
general did not appear on the revisionist scene before this one? In other words, why the elite a-
did she choose this particular timing?
The problem is that it is that in this case, it is he who would have become the star of revisionism in the
place of Faurisson. However, it was expected that he would change sides quickly. And that would have worn a big
blow to revisionism. If the first French revisionist had abandoned revisionism after
a few months, that wouldn't have been serious. So, to avoid this problem, it was necessary that he
arrives after Faurisson on the revisionist scene and is either the latter's disciple and not his master or
more or less its equal.
And having to be Faurisson's disciple, it was better that he started his research after him.
Faurisson must have had precedence in everything. Otherwise, they would have been more on an equal footing.
With this in mind, he had to be the one who made contact with Faurisson and not the other way around.
And it had to be practically an unknown on the revisionist scene, for his change
camp is not noticed and is not known to the educated public until much later.
In my opinion, the problem was that he had to justify having been able to access the archives of the camps. If he was came to the Auschwitz museum in 1982 or 1983 presenting his doubts, since the revisionist affair
had already grown enormously, it would have been difficult to justify that Pressac was allowed to
to access. Access to archives was already a problem in Faurisson's case. But there it would have
really seemed suspicious to a lot of people. With the blackout on the revisionists, it would have been very
odd that he was not turned away by the Soviet authorities.
So he had to go to Birkenau just after Faurisson, in October 1979, when the director of the
camp was supposed not to be overly suspicious yet. There, it was still very weird for people [Page 125] having doubts about the revisionists, but it could pass to a public not suspecting nothing.
One can however wonder why he made his trip to Auschwitz before making contact
with Faurisson. He could very well have learned of his existence and contacted him without having
nothing done before. And he could have made his trip a little later. Only, since he was going to play the role of
disciple questioning the master, it was better if he had been able to do his research
independently of Faurisson. This is partly why he must not have heard from Faurisson
before.
And then, in the story that we are being sold, it is largely the trip to Auschwitz that made it
started to fall into the revisionist camp. Now, if he had been a known revisionist, he
should not normally have been able to access the archives, or even go to Poland. So that he
be able to get there, he had to not look suspicious of the museum director and the authorities
Soviets when he went there. And for that, it was better if he wasn't a revisionist yet, but
just someone with some doubts. And in this case, he had no reason to be interested in
Faurisson before the trip to Auschwitz in October 1979, since he was not yet a revisionist.
So, there too, he should not know of the existence of the latter before the trip in question. But
It's still very suspicious, since all the newspapers kept talking about him.
So, on the assumption that he had known Faurisson before, they could have said that he was only known
of the latter to explain that he was able to make his trip without the Polish authorities and the
camp director unsuspecting nothing. But, suspicious people might have thought, like
me, that the French secret services should have spotted it and reported it to the Polish authorities
(in case, they themselves would not have heard of this fact, which would have been unlikely, since
Poland was a satellite of the Soviet Empire, which was supposed to have secret services
extremely efficient). So it would have remained too suspect. Better he had no connection
with Faurisson.
The problem is if he had worked with him for 2-3 years he should have looked too suspicious
at the official camp and he should have rejected him. So he could not have collaborated with Pierre Vidal-Naquet and other representatives of the official camp. There, having worked only a few months with
Faurisson, his positive reception by the pundits of the official camp was not too shady.
Besides, his change of opinion would have been weird. After 2 or 3 years it would have been much more
strange that he finally said to himself that the revisionists were wrong. There, doing it quickly
change your mind, this development had a little credibility. The fact that he went astray for a
short time, before realizing his mistake with new information was
quite strange, but possible.
So they were forced to make it have a fast conversion. But, it's almost also fishy than a slow conversion. This guy is more or less a neo-Nazi, which at the time involved [Page 126] a pretty fanatic guy, considering all the crimes attributed to Hitler. And while he has just discovered a theory which exonerates his venerated Hitler of his crimes, he plays it impartial spirit, which wants only the truth. And then, it is obvious that the revisionists are right. So being supposedly objective and
integrity, it is clearly the revisionist theory that he should have chosen. But no, it is the reverse that
fact. Not credible again.
It also justified Iwaszko's help. Coming up with a novel story, he
might seem normal that the latter did not immediately think that he was dealing with a
revisionist when Pressac shared his doubts with him.
For non-French readers, the ENA is the most prestigious French "grande école". This is the cream
cream. In terms of reputation (in France), it's roughly the equivalent of Harvard. His
graduates have immediate access to very prestigious positions in the administration (positions which are
reserved); and the best often have flamboyant careers. Many deputies,
ministers, CEOs of companies, or presidents of the republic have graduated from this school for 50 years.
And since they are destined for a brilliant career at the head of the state, political parties or
large companies and that the elite ensure that only moderate opinions are allowed
in these spheres, the enarques all display opinions in accordance with the dominant doxa. He is leaving
of their professional survival. If an enarque displayed extreme political views, his career
in politics, in business, or within the state would be shattered instantly. Gold,
as we are dealing with young wolves with long teeth, who have sacrificed a large part of their
youth for their professional success, it is obviously out of the question to spoil everything by
expressing unorthodox views. Conformism reigns supreme, to such an extent that they are
often thought of as clones. Political opinions only go for a good socialism
dyed with soft liberalism. And obviously, given the positions of power to which the enarques have access,
we can be sure that some of them come from the elite who run the world. [Page 127]
This means that at the ENA, there are hardly any far-right people. And if there is, they
keep their ideas to themselves, for fear of seeing their professional ascent completely stopped. It is
therefore extremely surprising that all of a sudden we have several enarques meeting to form
a club considered to be far-right. So, we could answer that on several
promotions, it's possible to find a few far-right people. Maybe the
Clock club creators were of quite different ages.
But in fact no, the founders in question were apparently all the same age, one or two
years, ditto for promotions. Yvan Blot (class of 1973) and Jean-Yves Le Gallou (class of 74) are
born in 1948. Henry de Lesquen (class 74) and Bernard Mazin (class of 1975) were born at the beginning of
1949. Didier Maupas in October 1950 (class of 75). I have not found information on the date of
birth of Jean-Paul Antoine. But he would be from the 74 class.
We could add a 6 th person. Indeed, when the club was created, there was at least one
another enarch, but who was not considered a founding member; this is Maryvonne from
Saint-Pulgent (class of 76), born Le Gallo, in March 1951.
So what was the probability of having 5 or 6 enarques of about the same age and close to
far-right ideas founding such a club in 1974? It was almost zero . This was the case in
60s, 80s and 90s. But it was even more true in the 70s. see that during the 70s, the extreme right was at its lowest level ever. It had become almost a small group. It had made 0.5% in the legislative elections of 1973. And as we should have at least a minimum of 10 times fewer far-right people within the ENA, the the probability of having them was therefore 0.05%, or 1 in 2,000. There were about 40 or 50 students
ENA graduates per year, i.e. during the same year, 80 to 100 students (since schooling lasts 2
years). So the likelihood of having such a large number of far-right people or flirting with, already,
tiny in other decades, was practically zero. And all the more so since at the time,
far-right people were hugging the walls (and of course even more so at the ENA). So go up
openly a club of this kind would have been totally inconceivable normally, especially for a
enarque not yet having his title and being at the very beginning of his possible rise.
So, it is evident that the creation of the Clock Club (and GREECE) was ordered by the elite. It
was to serve as a think-tank, or rather a far-right Masonic lodge, that is to say a lodge
serving to shape the directives of the elite for the far right.
Some might think that they did this in a hidden way and that, suddenly, no one was at
running at ENA; so that the danger of being identified as far-right did not exist.
But in fact, it was not at all a club meeting in secret and operating in the shadows. His
members wanted the club to be known. They apparently weren't even hiding within
ENA, since we have this testimony from a fellow believer from the same promotion.
" However, from its inception, the ideological attachment of the Clock Club is beyond doubt .
the same promotion as these senior officials, Xavier Ousset (now close to the
socialist) describes how this small nucleus of future graduates is very quickly "spotted" by their
comrades : [Page 128]
"[During my schooling] I heard about the Clock Club because one of the founders is
as he was called "Mesquin du Lassot" [Henry de Lesquen] and Jean-Yves Le Gallou who is also from
the same promo. Him, it was a first excited. We had spotted these people right from school .
- Question: what weight did they have? Le Gallou was inside. He was in the house. It was
already engaged in the Paris region. In those years, within the Ministry of the Interior, he weighed little
because the club has just been created and... They are young but they are starting at that time... " "
So again, by doing this before they graduated, they were very likely to be
discriminated against during the competition. So, since the clock club was founded on July 10, 1974, we can
defend the idea that those in promotion 74 had already left it, since a promotion lasts
apparently from January of year N to December of year N + 1. And on the Wikipedia page which
gives the list of ENA students, we are talking about promotion 72-74 for promotion 74. So the
students of the class 74 had a priori entered in January 1972 and left in December 73. They did not
risked nothing more for their exit classification. But that was not the case for three of them:
Bernard Mazin (promotion 75), Didier Maupas (promotion 75) and Maryvonne de Saint-Pulgent (promotion
76). So the problem remains valid for them.
And anyway, Ousset says that Henry de Lesquen and Jean-Yves Le Gallou had already been spotted
from school. This means that they did not hide their far-right political views during
their education. So the problem remains the same. They risked being disadvantaged by teachers when
of the final ranking. However, the final ranking is of enormous importance at the ENA. This is what makes the
difference between those with a great career and those with a mediocre career. To be in
la botte (the first 15) secures golden places in the most prestigious sectors of
administration, but especially in large companies (at least at the time),
government, and possibly politics. Being at the bottom of the ranking results in a single
rather brilliant career in less highly rated administrations. It is clearly much less
good.
So, according to what is reported to us, practically all of them would have taken enormous risks for their
final classification at ENA. It is totally ridiculous.
In any case, even after schooling, they risked being blacklisted and penalized by their
and to see all the doors of positions of power closed. Again, someone does
not as much effort to get to the top of the top of social and professional success for everything
spoil at the gates of nirvana. You would have to be completely crazy to do that. And the enarques are
anything but crazy.
By the way, given what Xavier Ousset says, we cannot therefore defend the idea that some
members of the clock club, possibly more moderate, were unaware of
the very right-wing orientation of a large part of its founding members.
This club also had an aspect of bringing together the classic right and the far right.
But, there again, what could it be used for since the extreme right no longer had any
importance on the political spectrum? Here too, it was necessary to know that the extreme right was going to become again popular 10 years later.
We can also note an interesting thing in what Xavier Ousset says, it is that Jean-Yves
le Gallou worked at the Ministry of the Interior after the ENA. When we read Miles Mathis, all of
next, it brings up a red flag. And by looking a little, we realize that it was the case
also by Yvan Blot . However, the Ministry of the Interior is of course the police and the gendarmerie (and therefore
the army). But it is also the General Directorate of Internal Security ( DGSI ), that is to say the
domestic intelligence services, equivalent to the US FBI. In other words, the services
inner secrets, place of all political manipulation in the service of the elite. The interested
would certainly answer that they were not assigned to the DGSI, but to very ordinary tasks
in other services. But when a senior official is at the Ministry of the Interior, one cannot
be sure of nothing. In fact, with all that we have seen above, we can be fairly sure that they were indeed
DGSI or something like that.
While looking, we also discover that Yvan Blot is the son of Camille Blot, naval officer ,
member of the Combat network during WWII.
This is also the case for Henri de Lesquen, who is the son of Brigadier General Pierre de Lesquen.
Again, it raises a red flag. As said before, Miles Mathis has shown that
agents of influence often have relatives in the military. So we have an additional element
indicating that they are in fact agents of the elite.
Henri de Lesquen is also a member of the nobility. So he probably has some connection with
the elite on that side.
Otherwise, we have seen on this blog that the 2nd world war was a conflict whose course has
been entirely planned and controlled by the elite, with false oppositions (all belligerents
being in fact agents of the elite). So the French resistance movements were necessarily
cans themselves. And we can be sure that they were creations of the French secret services of
the time. So this was obviously the case with the Combat movement (the most important of the various
resistance movements). This is an additional clue leading to believe that Yvan's father
Blot was an elite agent.
The professional career of le Gallou, Blot and Lesquen is also bizarre. While he is known
since 1974 they are far-right, they are allowed to hold important positions in ministries of
foreground (and of strategic importance for the Ministry of the Interior). Which means they
will be able to spread their propaganda there and forge links quietly. It is evident that if they
were what they appeared to be, they would have been confined to subordinate positions and
second-rate ministries.
For example, for de Lesquen , it says on Wikipedia : [Page 130]
" He was then assigned to the budget department, to the Ministry of Finance, as head of the office
energy, raw materials and chemicals (1979-1983).
In parallel to these activities, he was, from 1978 to 1987, lecturer in economics at the Institut
of political studies in Paris. "
So while he is certainly known as someone at least close to the far right, and
that the left passed in the 1981 elections, bringing with it a total intolerance towards
anything that is far-right or close to her doesn't affect her career in the slightest.
Ministry of Finance. In addition, the IEP of Paris (Science Po) was at the time the temple of the left
centrist, and rejects everything that is near or far to the extreme right. But no problem
for de Lesquen to be a lecturer until 1987.
Regarding Le Gallou , we learn on his Wikipedia page : " He joined with Bruno Mégret to the FN to
fall 1985. "
" Coming from the body of civil administrators, then member of the General Inspectorate of Administration,
he became inspector general of administration in 2007. "
" He was also a lecturer at the Institute of Political Studies in Paris from 1977 to 1983. "
So, here too, his political opinions did not affect his career, since he was promoted to inspector
general in 2007. In addition, we note that he too was a lecturer at Science Po, and
this until 1983, i.e. after the passage of the left in 1981.
By the way, it always surprised me that some guys could go to Polytechnique and then ENA.
The problem is, it doesn't require the same qualities at all. Polytechnique is the
mathematics, science. While the ENA is above all the ability to express oneself on any
what an idea in a fairly wavy and brilliant way (therefore, having excellent rhetoric skills
and eloquence), they are extensive knowledge in history, politics, economics and a little
philosophy. Moreover, the majority of enarques made Science-Po, which precisely offers
this kind of training and selects this type of profile.
So, before, I told myself that it was because they were ultra shiny. But it still remained
astonishing. But, with what we've seen here, maybe there is another possibility. It's possible that
those who do Polytechnique + ENA are in fact members of the elite. At one time (from
1970s), Polytechnique began to open fewer doors than ENA. So for members
of the elite, it became interesting to combine the two.
Likewise, we can assume that at least some of the ENA students who finish in the
"boot" are in fact boosted because they are part of the elite. So that those who are also
in the boot, but without being boosted will very likely have less successful careers than
the former because they will still be favored after their studies. [Page 131]
Indeed, the origin of this law dates back more or less to 1987. As we have seen, Jean-Marie le Pen comes out
at that time "the detail". Following this, the newspaper Le Monde announces in its editorial of the 18
September 1987 that contestation of Nazi crimes is on the way to becoming a crime.
In reality, not much is happening right now. Charles Pasqua, then Minister of
inside, proposes to punish children's newspapers advocating discrimination based on
on the race. More or less at the same time, a decree is about to pass prohibiting the sale
and the wearing of Nazi insignia. And it stays there. But the idea is launched.
It was especially in 1988 that things became clearer. On April 2, Laurent Fabius (then a simple deputy) and
George Sarre propose a law to fight the negationist theses (it is Sarre who deposits it).
She says in substance (Valérie Igounet "History of negationnism in France" (note 116)):
" those who, by one of the means listed [...], will have provoked discrimination, hatred or
violence against a person or group of persons because of their origin or
belonging or not belonging to an ethnic group, nation, race or religion
determined, or which will have damaged the memory or honor of the victims of the Nazi Holocaust by trying to deny it or minimize its impact , will be punished with one month's imprisonment
to one year and a fine of 2,000 to 300,000 F or one of these two penalties only, and
publication, at their expense, of the judgment in the press. "
The Gayssot law is just this law with some changes. So the Gayssot law is the law
Fabius / Sarre. Or rather, the Fabius law quite simply, since Sarre was only to be a straw man
in the case.
The Gayssot law says in fact:
" Shall be punished with the penalties provided for in the sixth paragraph of Article 24 those who have contested , by a of the means set out in Article 23, the existence of one or more crimes against humanity such as are defined by Article 6 of the Statute of the International Military Tribunal annexed to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 and which were committed either by members of an organization declared criminal in
application of Article 9 of the said statute, or by a person convicted of such crimes by a
French or international jurisdiction. "
As we can see, it is practically the same as the bill of April 2, 1988. [Page 132]
In short, if we refer to the official history, the Gayssot law clearly comes from Laurent Fabius.
So not only is it quite justified to call it the Fabius-Gayssot law, but in fact it should be
rather call it Fabius law for short.
So, you could say it's just an irrelevant point of detail. But it's not so
only that. Indeed, Fabius is Jewish. Some anti-revisionists say that technically they are not.
But hey, that does not convince many people. So, it is obvious that it makes a dependent element
against the Jews, which will serve to stir up resentment against them.
But of course, with what we have seen so far, it is clear that it is not Fabius himself who is a
the origin of this law. It was created by a secret service cell. If the elite put forward
Fabius as being its creator, it was therefore to better present the Jews as tyrants.
Because for people who became Judeo-critical, it was going to be obvious that it was the Jewish elite who were
behind the Jew Fabius. And that the Jewish leaders had enough power to do such a thing validated
all the theories of the Jewish conspiracy.
It is obvious that if the elite had wanted Rassinier's book to continue to be banned during the
judgment of cassation, it would have been. Since justice is entirely controlled by it, it does not
was no problem. If it no longer was, it is because the elite decided it so. Same thing for the
that it was banned first, then allowed later. It was done on purpose to make him feel
publicity, and to give Rassinier an aura both scandalous and martyred.
But even before their ban, we can see that if Bardèche and Rassinier were read by
many people at the time, it is because, as for Faurisson, their books were the subject of
huge publicity. Without that, Bardèche would certainly have sold only 1000 or 2000
copies of "Nuremberg or the Promised Land". Same thing for Rassinier and his "Lie
Ulysses. " So they would have remained practically unknown. [Page 133]
Otherwise, we can see that Rassinier's book was much more explosive than Bardèche's. So,
there was no reason why we finally authorize Rassinier's book and not Bardèche's, which
is still currently banned. By leaving it in nature, the first risked influencing well
more people than the second. But in fact, it's precisely because he was the most explosive that we have
authorized the publication of Rassinier's book in cassation. The elite wanted the free edition of this book
allows to explain the emergence of new French revisionists (in particular Faurisson).
" Above all, we should understand one thing, namely that I am certainly not extreme
right and that I was not on Ciel mon Tuesday . I had long hair, and there was
on the other hand, a far-right activist with a shaved neck who bawled " that he was not with this
sir ". The gentleman in question was me. Of which act. Me, I have never been to school, I
am reformed from military service, I am not a Catholic and I was excommunicated by
renaming, and during the few years that I frequented extreme right-wing circles I
spent my time telling them that I was not on the extreme right . In 1992 there were tea towels
far right who called on their activists to beat me up on sight . Oh well, I'm extreme
right me?
I also gave in particular a long interview to Michel Marmin, in 2003, so there are more than ten
years, in the newspaper Elements, where I explain at length that I have NEVER been extreme
right . "
In this article written by himself, at a time (1987), when he had not yet moved away from
the extreme right, we have a different story than that given since 1990. Already, it confirms well
which he wrote in the journals cited above:
" I signed in Rivarol, Ecrits de Paris, Marianne, Aspects de la France, the Nouvelle Revue de Paris,
I understood everything, Elements, Panorama, Matulu, Spectacle du monde, Present, National-Hebdo,
Itineraries, Minute, and abroad, in Elemente, Vouloir, Directions. Today i find myself
to Europa-Kervreizh by Yann-Ber Tillenon , and I just published my first article in Diaspad. "
If these publications appealed to his pen for 5 years, it was because it had to be appreciated. But if,
from the outset, he asserted to anyone who would listen that he was not on the extreme right and that he had
hate each time, the other newspapers would necessarily have learned it (the nationalist world is
petit) and have reportedly refused to use such services. It's not the extreme journalists
right missing. Strictly speaking, if everything had happened over a few months, he could have cheated all his
world. But here, we are talking about a collaboration over 5 years in almost twenty
far-right publications. So we can think that he was esteemed. And if he was, then he had to [Page 134] to be far-right anyway. He was not to declare all day long that he was not
of this trend.
(By the way, Yann-Ber Tillenon , whom he was apparently appreciated in 1987, was first hired to
the extreme left in the 70s (he was the lover of Joëlle Aubron of the terrorist group Action
Direct), before moving to the extreme right in the 80s. This is the type of course that we
found almost only in agents of influence. At the time (80s), he was friends with
Serge Ayoub or Guillaume Faye, figures of the extreme right and very clearly agents.
And he was still with Ayoub in 2007, since a journalist, Matt Block, interviewed him in the bar
of the last. And in 2006 he participated in a conference on "the future of the white world" in Russia in
alongside Guillaume Faye. And if he attended them for so long (in the 25 years), it is because
he was also an agent. So again, we clearly have an elite influence agent.)
Mathieu continues about his childhood:
" It was about studying Latin, Greek and German - European languages - and reading Drieu, Rebatet, Brasillach, Vallès, Sorel and Céline. It was about what, from the age of four, I had said;
"I am a fascist". The adults smiled or took offense. I let smile and take offense. "
If he prides himself on having read far-right authors like Brasillach, Rebatet and Drieu (more or
less), and to have said that he was fascist at 4 years old, without specifying that he had moved on since,
one can think that in 1987 he had serious extreme right-wing tendencies, even if he claimed
to be a "free" spirit.
" Obliged, for financial reasons , to collaborate with newspapers which I absolutely did not share
ideology, I was afraid of getting bogged down in it, which fortunately led to brutal ruptures (for
example when I left the Reagano-Papist newspaper Present by triggering a controversy during
the publication of an article by me in issue 1 of I understand everything), with this or that press organ
of the Western system, but not with this system itself. "
So, in fact, he left Present because he considered him Reagano-Papist, not because this journal
was far-right per se. And so, we understand between the lines that he was pagan and pro-European.
That's why he was against the Present line. But, that doesn't make him someone who isn't
far-right. It just makes it someone who was of a different far-right lean than
that of Present. In general, reading his interviews, we can see that if he does not declare himself
of the extreme right, it is by playing on words. He is not a classic far-right. There are some
ideas with which he does not agree. But he is largely far-right.
In addition, he said he was obliged to collaborate with newspapers whose ideology he did not share for
financial reasons. And as luck would have it, he chooses far-right newspapers. Well then. So,
he will probably tell us that it is because he already had knowledge in the field and that
it happened step by step. But if he had acquaintances in the business and who appreciated him enough
to offer him this kind of job, it was because he had to share a good part of their ideas. They
had to consider him ideologically reliable enough to offer him this type of post. If he had expressed
far-left ideas (we imagine him rather badly socialist or centrist, too bland for him), they do not
would not have recommended it to these newspapers. [Page 135]
Especially since it is illogical. He says he was forced to collaborate with these newspapers for financial reasons. So he knowingly agreed to put aside his political views (besides, he did not
never specifies precisely what these are) to earn money. But, he broke with
these newspapers for ideological reasons. Which means that he would rather starve than
work for them. So why, in the first place, did he agree to work for these newspapers?
And how did he manage to live afterwards, since he had no money? The financial problem had
a priori not disappeared in 3 or 4 years. Logically, he should have continued to hustle over these
publications. But he did not do it. So, one wonders, how he managed to live after 1990,
since his income apparently came mainly from his articles published in newspapers
far-right. His books should not have a large readership. And his family is not
supposed to be rich, since it is said in his Wikipedia file that he lived a poor childhood. So,
normally he was unable to obtain an inheritance or financial assistance from his family. So from where
come his income?
What if it was only financial, that he wasn't far-right and that he had nothing to do with
ideology, why not go and work in mainstream newspapers? It would certainly have
much better paid and he would have had much better career prospects. Since it is
apparently very intelligent, he would not have had great difficulty in offering his services to
more politically correct newspapers. Strictly speaking, he could have started in newspapers of
hard right, if he had acquaintances in this sphere, then go to softer newspapers.
Many others have done it, finishing in Figaro for example. And he could also have worked in
lots of other unmarked newspapers. Alain Soral, another agent of the system, has
worked in newspapers for teenage girls.
But, he continued to work for this type of newspaper. So he had to approve at least in
part what they were saying. In fact, from what appears, he went to publications that had
political opinions closer to his own. But they were still far-right newspapers.
So his political ideas were those of this milieu. It just had to be more of a
extreme right-wing pagan and Europeanist kind GREECE, Alain de Benoist and Guillaume Faye, how many
the Christian far-right and Atlanticist genre Present.
This is what we can say to ourselves by reading the following passage:
"From the moment it turned out that I could not truly express myself, nor only process
the subjects of my choice nowhere, I had certainly gradually decided to give up journalism,
but without being able to resolve myself completely. It was then that I met GREECE and
Alain de Benoist , in whom I first deeply and sincerely believed. Pagan, I always had been .
But too long prostration in reactionary circles began, I confess
willingly, to make me vulnerable to the deceptive seductions of the Euro-Western system. I owe to
GREECE, and more particularly to Guillaume Faye for remaining faithful to my childhood intuitions,
as for the opposition, the war, the antinomy which exists between Europe and the West . "
The problem is still the fact that he wrote a biography of Abel Bonnard, personality
far-right (Maurassian, then fascist, figure of collaboration during the war) published in
1989. If he was not far-right, and his collaborations in the newspapers of this tendency,
were purely food, why write a book about a far-right celebrity? It is not [Page 136] the kind of book you make a lot of money with. He would have gained much more in
writing articles. So, we write this type of book mainly because it is close to heart. And
necessarily, you have to be a minimum of extreme right for that.
We can also read that he was let go by GREECE, probably towards the beginning of 1987. This then
that apparently things were going well enough for him so far. It was certainly for
participate in Mathieu's money laundering operation vis-à-vis the far right. By pushing it aside, he
could say after 1990 that he had never been on the extreme right, putting forward as proof the fact
that he had been released by GREECE in 1987.
We note that he liked Guillaume Faye . However, this one stank of the agent 100 km around. It was a
member of GREECE from 1970 to 1986. But above all, when this guy was clearly of the extreme right
and known as such, he began to work, around 1990, on Skyrock radio alongside Arthur, a Zionist Jewish radio and TV host extremely well known in France, in the morning show "les zigotos ". It was a joke thing aimed at teenagers. And he gets to work at Skyrock thanks to his friendship with Pierre Bellanger, CEO of the radio and of Jewish origin. In short, he was working with guys who, at the time, should have been the first to hate him and absolutely refuse to frequent it. So, it is said that his extreme right-wing orientation was not known to them.
But, given the knowledge attributed to Jewish networks, he should have been unmasked in a week
and fired immediately. And in Skyrock his role was to play a straightener of wrong named Skyman, a pure
buffoonery. The delirium ! How to justify the passage from the seriousness of GREECE to this role of buffoon for
teenagers? He also contributes to the echo of the savannas a clearly left-wing comic book journal. And also to
Télématin from the France2 television channel (1991-1993). Even better, he participates in the review
homosexual "Gaie France". In short, while as a figure of the extreme right, he should be
excluded from all these radio stations, newspapers and TV channels controlled by the elite, there can be
years without problem. Yes, when you are an elite agent, it is possible. And Mathieu was a
friend of this agent.
His abandonment of the far-right movement was of course planned from the start. That's why,
according to Mathieu himself, during the program "Ciel mon mardi", another type of extreme right would have
claimed that the latter had nothing to do with them. And Mathieu puts forward this statement for
drive the point home that he was not from that background.
Wikipedia goes in this direction with the following passage:
" His relations with the far right are nevertheless tumultuous , and his engagements in several
newspapers earned him strong enmities : he left the daily newspaper Present, with which he considered that he had nothing in common, and is fired from the newspaper Minute. The president of the Belgian National Front (FN), Daniel Féret, threatened him publicly in 1990 with reprisals in the main French-speaking daily,
The evening. "
With regard to the general public, that is not enough to completely clear them of the accusation of having been
of the extreme right in his youth, especially given his participation in many newspapers of this
political trend. But let's say that, given its atypical side, it leaves enough openness to
doubts that he can continue his writing career without being too worried.
On the other hand, concerning the fact that he was a revisionist, there, he does not say that he never was. We
remains at the previous step, namely that it was, but that he moved away from it. The justification he puts
forward is apparently that he likes to defend lost causes, to be in the movements
hated by the system. And then, it would be an artistic posture. So somehow he defended
revisionism as it could have defended the baby seals. It wouldn't have been truly
revisionist in itself.
His sentence to 18 months in prison in Belgium in April 1991 must have served to actually clear him. In
Indeed, he could better justify the fact of having broken with all his knowledge of extreme right and revisionists in Belgium. And even in France, since it is said that he then left for Italy, then Spain. So in reality, far from being a misfortune, his conviction was doing him a service.
It allowed him to be forgotten for quite a while, and then reappear, having left his far-right type costume and donned a new writer's whimsical, paradoxical, original, unconventional, unclassifiable, provocative, situationist, dadaist,
etc ... [Page 138]
From what we understand from some of his post-1990 interviews, he would have done entryism for
to spread the revisionist thesis within the extreme right-wing newspapers, but without sharing the ideas
of these. Already, you have to be damn motivated to do that when you are not extreme
right. Above all, there was no indication that they were in favor of this theory. Apparently it was
taboo also on the extreme right. They did not advertise revisionism. So that
seemed pretty lost in advance. So why go to enterism for this objective in these
newspapers? It was of no interest. It meant wasting a lot of time for success
extremely hypothetical. And although at first he might have thought he had a chance of success,
he should have seen after only 6 months that it was doomed. So he should have stopped everything
that very quickly, and not continue for years. So, if he worked for these
newspapers for a long time, it is most likely because he agreed with a good part
of what they said. In any case, that's what we can say to ourselves if we don't make more assumptions
conspirators about it.
And then, suddenly, it introduces a new version of the story. On the one hand, he says he did this for
money, without any qualms. And there he says he did it out of pure ideology, for the love of the truth.
In this version, he was such a paladin of truth that he was prepared to rub shoulders with for years
people with whom he had nothing to do and who did not please him at all. So he has to lie
on one of the versions (but in fact he is certainly lying on both).
Moreover, nowhere does he seem to say that he was very disappointed with the failure of this project to influence the nationalist newspapers of the interior. However, he should have mentioned it, since it must have been very important to him. heart for a whole time. So this story of infiltration to spread revisionism there
seems completely untrue.
" at the time, in 1990, the CSA protested to Christophe Dechavanne. The latter had been
reprimand. We therefore do not necessarily understand why the images of TF1 in 1990, which
had suffered the wrath of the high authority of the CSA, are now rebroadcast, in 2015, at a
prime time, by TMC (subsidiary of TF1). What does the CSA think? "
(Note: the CSA is an official television censorship body. It is generally quite soft.
But as soon as we touch on important political issues, it can harden considerably).
Oh yes, how is it that the CSA lets that go when he reprimanded Dechavanne at
the time. The answer is that the elite want the French to review the passage in question.
Finally, in 1990, this guy was therefore out of bounds with the extreme right and even revisionism,
since he will cut ties with this world just after the Dechavanne broadcast. But what is he doing?
He agrees to go and play suicide bombers in this program, declaring himself a revisionist and presenting in fact as far-right (considering the subject of the program and seeing that in it, he was on the side of the plateau where the far-right people were). Kamikaze, because he was going inevitably become a bastard of fascist and anti-Semitic revisionist to the general public, which [Page 139] amounted to effectively destroying any possibility of a professional career other than the extreme right (and even social life). Why go voluntarily on the side of the outcasts, when we have nothing to do with them ? It's like someone who more or less presented himself as a communist or very close to them under McCarthyism in the USA in 1950, or Jewish and Communist in 1941 in Germany,
this when he would not have been. You'd have to be completely crazy to do that ... or be an agent
influence.
Already, there is the problem of his deportation from Canada because of the fact that he did not have Canadian nationality. How could this be done, since he had been in Canada for 40 years? Well,
coincidentally, he had never been able to obtain Canadian nationality. He did well 2
requests in 1966 and 1994, but none were successful. However, if in 1994, his revisionist activities
were well known, he did not have any in the 60s. And if he did have any in the late 70s, he
remained unknown, since he wrote under a pseudonym. It was not until the early 1980s, around 1981,
that he was identified by the authorities as a revisionist.
So he had plenty of time to acquire Canadian nationality between 1958 and 1981. But no, he
did not insist. Weird. But quite normal if the goal was to justify his expulsion to
Germany in 2005.
In fact, logically, given his revisionist activities, he should have moved to the USA as quickly as possible, where he would not have feared any legal action for his ideas. Especially when we learn
in Wikipedia that his brother was a lawyer in the USA. He could have helped him strongly to get his green card. But no, he remained in Canada where he was in danger of being subjected to the laws of
censorship. But, if he was an agent, it makes sense. Staying in Canada made it possible to justify in the future
his arrest for a crime of thought and his deportation to Germany.
The charge of "threat to national security" for his deportation to Germany was purely grotesque. It was clear that this was a pretext which was of the utmost arbitrariness and therefore had to push the general public to regard him as a victim.
The trial in Germany was also well done to generate sympathy for the
revisionists. Zündel's sentence was 5 years; the maximum penalty for this type of offense
of opinion. It was done so that a few years later it was considered scandalous and
worthy of the worst dictatorships, and that the revisionists are once again considered
martyrs. [Page 140]
Then, once released (in 2010), Canada refused to let him return, still under the ridiculous
pretext of attacking national security. It is certain that Zündel, with its 120 kg and its 71 years
posed an extreme threat to Canada. Here again, the disproportion of the reaction
participated in making him a victim.
In March 2017, the US also refused to host it. On Wikipedia, it is said that the reason
was that a person sentenced to a 5 year prison term cannot normally enter
to USA. And one exemption was deemed unjustified because of the "history of incitement to hatred
racial, ethnic and religious of Zündel ". It is added that: " The legal writer and professor of
law Eugene Volokh expressed the opinion that although his exclusion from the United States for
hateful remarks is not a violation of the First Amendment, it could be a bad
application of current immigration law ".
And indeed, apparently, it is wrong. According to this site , it is possible if the person has been convicted for several crimes for which the cumulative prison sentences represent 5 years or more in prison. But
purely political crimes are excluded. However, the offenses alleged against Zündel were clearly
policies. So the ban seemed to be illegal. Moreover, it was clearly a violation of the first amendment. But, once again, it served to make him a martyr.
He also participated in the writing of a neo-Nazi book "The Hitler We Loved and Why", in 1977.
At that time, he also promoted the hollow earth theory.
On the other hand, while he wrote this kind of crap, he wrote no revisionist books. Who would go waste time writing such debilitates when, moreover, at the same time, there is a important area of research where there are still very few books that have been published?
And one cannot defend the idea that he would have been afraid of the consequences. He could have done it under
pseudonym, since he had already done it for his books on ufology. Moreover, he was not afraid of publish revisionist books by his publishing house and write a book praising Hitler.
Obviously Zündel could not believe these grotesque stories (I am speaking here of the Nazi side of the
flying saucers and Nazi polar expeditions). Is a seeker of truth who is ready to
to take very great risks to disseminate it would also write books that it could be
lying? Of course not.
However, once again, it fits very well with what an influencer would do. These
love to mess around with morons like this. [Page 141]
Even assuming that the ideas he was defending may be partly true on some points (like the presence of flying saucers and the fact that they were actually built by humans), it was anyway impossible for an ordinary guy like Zündel to know at this time. There is only one member of the elite who could have access to any information secret on this subject. And indeed, it seems that it happens that members of the elite have fun publish books containing some true information among a certain amount of information false. Information that only they can decipher. So even though there were a few elements correct in a whole bunch of false elements, it would indicate even more clearly that Zündel was a agent or / and a member of the elite. They are the only ones who do that.
So whether this is totally false or partially true, it indicates anyway that Zündel was
an agent.
We also have this information: " According to Bonokoski, Ernst's ex-wife, Irene Zündel, claimed that the
the possibility of being at least partially Jewish bothered Zündel so much that he returned to
Germany in the 1960s in search of his family's Ariernachweis, a certificate from
Third Reich of pure Aryan blood, but could not find such a document for his family. "
Again in Wikipedia, we have:
" In 1997, Zündel gave an interview to Tsadok Yecheskeli of the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth,
which includes the following exchange:
Zundel: If you are looking for political information, my father was a social democrat, my mother
a simple Christian woman. His father had been a trade union organizer in Bavaria, in the union of
garment workers. His name got him in trouble because it was Isadore Mayer and, of course,
people called him Izzy and thought he ...
Yecheskeli: Was he Jewish?
Zundel: No, I don't ... think so.
Yecheskeli: Are you sure there is no Jewish blood in your family?
Zundel: no "
The answer is weird. Zündel is apparently about to say that people thought his grandfather was Jewish because of his name. And in this case, either he determined it was wrong or it was true. But we imagine that he discovered that it was wrong and that he will say why it is. In anyway, apparently, the logical continuation of his sentences had to be "was Jewish". However, the journalist cuts and completes the sentence exactly in the sense that one could imagine. And there, we expect that Zündel confirms that this was what he was going to say and then demonstrates that his grandfather was not Jewish. We do not see why this should have bothered him, since it was he who had approached the [Page 142] subject spontaneously. But no, Zündel gives a negative answer. In this case, he should have completed by saying that it was not "was Jewish" that he wanted to add, but something else (we do not see too much what, but hey). But no, instead of saying what that other thing was, he adds "I don't believe". This
which means that he was going to add "was Jewish", and that there, he gives an answer to this question. And the
So the answer is, "no, I don't believe he was Jewish". So that confirms that he was going to complete his
sentence with "was Jewish". So he should have answered "yes" to Yecheskeli, and not "no". And then he
should have expanded by saying why he thought he wasn't.
So this muddled way of answering is very fishy. It makes guy very embarrassed by the question.
Except that once again, it was he who brought the subject to the table. So we don't see why
he would have been embarrassed. So this embarrassed twist seems to have been staged by Zündel and
Yecheskeli to tell those who can read between the lines that he was indeed a Jew.
But, it is not sure that it was. It might still be a scam inside a scam. The
the purpose was perhaps to make believe that he was in the Jewish general public, and to chuckle
the latter stupidly at the idea that a revisionist could be Jewish, and is ashamed of it.
Or, it is a note of humor from the elite to highlight this paradox of being revisionist
and Jewish.
Moreover, if the elite had wanted, they could very well have obscured their biography and erased their
ancestors with Jewish names.
So it is quite possible that he was Jewish (seeing his head). But it is also possible that these clues
were put there by the elite just for fun and it wasn't. But I would rather look at the
makes it so.
But in the 90s his ideas changed dramatically, and then he went to the extreme-
right. The thing became clear in 1998 when he wrote an article in a German newspaper considered
as far-right (even if he disputes the name): Junge Freiheit. Journal where we
find who among the contributors? Alain de Benoist ! In August 2000 he joined the National Party [Page 143] Democrat of Germany (NPD), a far-right German party and openly supports their
ideas. In the 2000s, he also became a revisionist.
Otherwise, when we see him, we say to ourselves that he has the face of a Jew. The name Mahler is often worn by
Jews. In addition, his father was a dentist, a profession highly prized by Jews. I know a dentist who
told me that about 80% of French dentists were. In Germany, there must be less
now. But, for his father, we speak of the period before the 2nd world war. Now if he was
indeed Jewish, one wonders why he would have gone to the extreme right and to the
revisionism from the 2000s.
Besides, after thinking that, I discovered at the end of the Wikipedia page on Mahler: " In a 2005 interview with Israeli journalist Naftali Glicksberg, Mahler claimed to be in part of Jewish origin. He recounted how his mother, bursting into tears, told him and her brothers,
that they had Jewish ancestry and that they were one-eighth of Jews . "So that was not a
delirium on my part.
And we are told that his parents were militant Nazis. It's hard to see how they could have been
if part of the family was Jewish and their children were one-eighth of them.
Having said that, if you analyze things from a conspiratorial perspective, it is quite possible that they
have been. If Horst Mahler is an elite agent, his parents had to be. So it is possible
that at the time, they were Nazis. They were playing their role of agents in the context of the time, as
Horst played his in the backdrop of the '70s (as a far-left person) before
to play another in the 2000s (as a far-right person).
One might think that this is why it is "revealed" that he was an eighth of a Jew. If he had been a watch
Jewish or half-Jewish, the fact that his parents were Nazis would have seemed too fantastic to be true.
Whereas by saying that he is an eighth of a Jew, it can vaguely pass. People will think that the
the non-Jewish part of the family rejected the Jewish part (and they will not think about the problem that their
children were one-eighth of Jews).
So here we have a guy, son of Nazis, who went from the revolutionary armed far left to
the revisionist and Judeo-critical far-right. The very fishy thing (and even more fishy when you
can see that many far-left personalities are doing this). It makes you think of a
agent of influence who changes roles according to the needs of the elite. In the 1970s, the elite
needed lefties and he played the leftist. And in the 2000s she needed
far-right people and he played the far-right guy.
And so, Zundel decides to appeal to him for his trial. Now, it's weird that he calls for a
such a fanatic. In addition, given Mahler's commitment to the extreme right, it could only be
German judges.
But hey, anyway, Mahler ultimately did nothing, since he was challenged at the start of the
trial (November 2005), because his authorization to practice the profession of lawyer had been withdrawn
on April 8, 2004, and because in January 2005, he was sentenced to 9 months in prison for inciting
racial hatred. [Page 144] There remained then the famous Sylvia Stolz. And who was Sylvia Stolz? Quite simply Mahler's wife. Everything intersects. So if Mahler is an agent, then Stolz certainly is too.
She asserted during the trial that " the Allied International Military Tribunal was nothing else
that a Talmudic inquisition led by enemies of Germany, which produced
fabricated testimonies and the depositions of the Jews could never be
proof or authenticated ". She also said to conclude that " the Holocaust is the most
great lie in the history of the world ".
She also said that the judges deserved the death penalty for " offering help to the enemy " and
signed a document titled " Heil Hitler ". According to her, Germany is under " a foreign occupation
which has portrayed Adolf Hitler as a devil for 60 years, but that is not true . "And after ignoring
the judge, Stolz had to be physically expelled from court.
It is clear that these statements were made by Stolz for the purpose of prosecution and conviction.
A lawyer is used to weighing her words. And at 42, even older. So, it is very unlikely
that she could have said them under the influence of an uncontrollable emotion. It was knowingly that she made these
statements. By being put in prison for 5 years for one or two revisionist sentences, again
once the martyrdom of the revisionists continued.
And besides, Roques tells us that they realized it, since there are no less than 6 versions of the
text, with modifications or deletions of some too incredible parts. But if they have
understood that the text was not credible on many points, why not have revised it
in large widths? Why not have written in secret a unique text, redacted from all
exaggerations, physical impossibilities and contradictions? Well because they wanted the
public see these exaggerations (via revisionist analysis).
So, since he is an agent of influence, Roques' explanation to prevent people from
start to make the same thoughts as me is that the different services of the army and services
Western secrets acted independently of each other, without cooperation and that is
why there would be several versions of the text, each making its own sauce in its corner. [Page 145]
Only, with the progress of conspiracy, we now know that the conspiracy is global.
So, the text has necessarily been designed in a single place, in the same think tank. And his
different versions too, at the same time .
So the fact that there have been different versions is obviously an artificial construction coming from
this same service, decided from the start. It served to introduce doubt in the general public on the
validity of the text in question. Indeed, if the supposed different secret services have themselves
doubted the initial version to such an extent that they felt the need to revise it, it was because it was
clearly not credible. Especially since we were in a time of extreme exaggerations concerning
the camps. So, for the secret services to consider certain parts of this text as
improbable is that we were really sinking into the grotesque. This is what the educated public
had to think. Which means that this think tank has voluntarily oriented the public towards the
revisionism, not only by the incredible side of the text, but also by the fact of having
presented 6 versions. But if we know that the conspiracy is global, it all becomes proof that
the elite wanted part of the public to become revisionist and therefore, that revisionism a
movement launched by her.
With Roques' thesis, not only are the public left with the idea that the text was not produced
not a single think tank, but that it was originally created by Gerstein. If there had been only one text,
with Gerstein committing suicide in his cell, people who think might have wondered if it wasn't
the secret services which were at the origin. With several texts, people think that there has been
one or more early texts by Gerstein, and that other versions have simply been reworked
by the secret services. Otherwise, why make six different texts?
Moreover, Roques reveals to us on page 190 of his thesis that the text was only known to the general public
from 1951. Before, it was only a very small number of people: " officers of
Allied intelligence, magistrates of different nationalities and a few rare journalists . "So,
if we stick more or less to the revisionist version, the secret services had plenty of time to
create a unique text and make the others disappear or rearrange them so that they are very close
in their content. No one would have known. The fact that they did not do so still indicates a
once the elite wanted part of the people to realize the official lie.
And of course, the various intelligence services would have made sure that no one
authorized cannot access the different versions of the text (or else, only those which
were not too much of a problem). So Roques could never have obtained them. If he could do it,
it is because the secret services wanted it. And they wanted it to add new
arguments to revisionist theory.
And compared to the fact that it was released in 1951, we cannot claim that we were still in the
delirious testimonies of the end of the war. There we were 6 years later. So Gerstein's testimony
should appear even less credible at that time and the secret service should have
even less wanting to make it searchable by researchers and the media.
So the work of the think tank that wrote Roques' thesis was subtle. They let it be understood that
the Gerstein report was false; but by ensuring that the informed public cannot become aware that the text and its different versions were conceived at the same time by a [Page 146] only propaganda service and that therefore, the many absurdities were put there intentionally to eventually cast doubt on part of public opinion on the veracity of the Shoah.
Another element that is wrong: Gerstein's first testimony dates from 1942, to Von Otter
(who confirmed it). The problem that if this was all an invention then he was clearly a liar
pathological, since there he would not have limited himself to lying during his interrogation, but
before, when he had no reason to. Only he didn't seem to have been a
also a mythomaniac. This kind of guy is often the crook, talkative type, which he was
not. And people quickly realize this pathology, since this kind of character
tends to lie about everything. So, he should have been known as such by many people.
But we do not have any testimony to this effect. And then sick liars do this kind of
thing with a hope of financial or social gain. There, in 1942, there was no prospect of winning,
but on the contrary a risk of falling on someone who would have denounced him, which meant prison
or even death. And it makes sense that the Secret Service was not presented as a
storyteller. It would have destroyed the value of his testimony. However, it had to be credible to
make an official camp hero.
Only, thanks to revisionism, we know that his testimony concerning the camps is false. So,
he lied to Von Otter. But this lie to Von Otter, as early as 1942, made no sense. Why go
invent that when you're not a mythomaniac? Especially since he did not know him from Eve nor
Adam, and that he also said that he was very careful not to behave suspiciously.
Well, it was actually a necessary part of the story invented by the Secret Service. It was necessary
that he had already told Von Otter about the holocaust so that he would appear as a paladin of truth and
not like a guy who just wanted to save his own life in 1945. With the fact that he wasn't known
like a pathological liar, that was the only other element that made him credible.
So we had to introduce the episode with Von Otter. But obviously, with revisionist theory, this
passage becomes absurd.
But if this episode comes from the secret services and not from an isolated individual, then they would not have never had to let pass a testimony as delirious as that of Gerstein.
Suddenly, the secret services had a problem with Roques's thesis (written by them of course).
He could have said that all of Gerstein's testimony was an outright invention of the services
secrets and that Gerstein was a straw man, or even never existed (see below). But
so, this story should never have been invented at the start. Indeed, it would be very difficult
imagined the Secret Service to be dumb enough to craft such an unreliable story, unless
to want it not to be called into question sooner or later, which led to the idea of ??a second level
conspiracy where in reality, the "discovery" of the lie was planned from the start. So Roques
had to stick to the idea that the official story was telling the truth about the "Gerstein" part. Otherwise it was open the conspiratorial Pandora's box.
Especially since if the discovery of the lie was planned at the base, then the first person
whoever brought it to light had to be an agent. Now that person was Roques. [Page 147]
So, there was a second reason for not saying that the case was designed by
the secret services.
In summary, there were five steps in creating this logic bomb:
1) Creation of the text and its different versions by a think tank of counter intelligence
2) Availability of the text for historians and journalists from 1951
3) 1951-1985: writing of books by official historians presenting Gerstein as a
saint and his report as valuable proof of the reality of the holocaust
4) 1985: demonstration of the existence of six versions and explanation of why
variations from one text to another by Roques. Presentation of exaggerations, impossibilities
physical or logical and therefore demonstration that the testimony is false; what
deals an additional blow to the credibility of the official camp.
5) 1996-97: development of the Internet and therefore possibility for the general public to discover the
Roques thesis and understand that once again, the official camp lied.
This is also noticed in the book "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century", written by Arthur Butz,
page 347:
" Around 1972 or 1973, there was an international development, by nature unnoticed at the time, which remains fundamentally mysterious. What I am referring to is the fact that a number of
people in several countries, practically simultaneously and completely independently
each other (in fact each was not even aware of the existence of the others), decided to
question the received caption, in the manner appropriate to their own situation, and publish
its conclusions. Thies Christophersen's libretto Die Auschwitz Luege, based on his memories of his
own stay near Auschwitz during the war, and with an introduction by Manfred Roeder, was
published in Germany in 1973, and it was soon followed by the short article by Dr Wilhelm Stäglich in
the monthly Nation Europa, also based on his memories of his mission during the war in
Auschwitz. The year 1973 also saw the publication in the United States of the brochure of Dr.Austin J.
App, The Six Million Swindle.
Richard Harwood's brochure titled Did Six Million Really Die? was published in Great-
Brittany in the spring of 1974, and later the same year, there was an uproar at the Sorbonne as a result
from a letter from Dr. Robert Faurisson, so the two worked on this subject in 1973, if not before. My
work started in 1972 and my book was published in Great Britain in the spring of 1976 and
translated into German a year later. "
Here, we also learn that no one was aware of the existence of the others. So we can't even
not to say that some were influenced by others. And we discovered another name, namely Thies
Christophersen (1973, "The Lie of Auschwitz"). So it's downright 5 people in 4 countries
different ones that suddenly appeared.
Such a spontaneous generation is very surprising to say the least.
Suddenly, one can wonder why the elite chose to make them appear in the 70s and
not the 50s or 60s?
So, in absolute terms, the elite could have done without. They could have made a revisionism having its
final form in the 70s, with a first revisionist inspiring the 4 or 5 others before
appear at that time. But it would have been weirder.
The problem is that it couldn't be a nationalist or a fascist since it would have marked
extreme right-wing revisionism from the start, which would have prevented its development.
But if it had been a type of left, it would have been very strange if he had been able to
cause the official truth without any predecessor. No one would have ever wondered about
the Holocaust. The extreme right-wing conspiracy persisted only among a few thousand
no one in the world, and he was virtually non-existent on the left. On the contrary, on the left the idea
of conspiracy was totally rejected, because it was seen as something
Nazi leading to 2 nd World War. The idea, among socialists and communists, was
that basically all social problems came from the "system", economic theories and
policies, beliefs, social structures in place, etc ... It absolutely could not come
of a global conspiracy. And all of a sudden, bam, some guy on the left would've gone all out
conspiracy and would have been so great that he would have discovered everything on his own. he
would not have been at all afraid of being professionally and socially slaughtered. And it would have been
strong enough to convince 4 or 5 other people in less than 5 years in various corners of the world,
who, too, would have started to speak without a pseudonym. A little too good to be true. It
could have caused suspicion in some people.
And of course, starting revisionism in its current form in the 1950s would have been
premature. And it would have been very fishy for ordinary people to have understood everything right from the start.
departure.
The solution with a first round of revisionists in the 1950s, then a second in the
70s inspired by its predecessors, seemed more elegant, although it brought its fair share of
oddities.
Further analysis would be required to determine more precisely how an alternative solution
that the one chosen by the elite would have been sub-optimal. But, whatever the case, the elite chose to have
a first and a second wave of revisionism. And that implied a spacing in the
relatively long time.
Already, concerning the first wave of revisionists, they could not introduce it in 1945. That
would have seemed a little too extraordinary to be true that we had revisionists appearing
also soon after the war. So they had to introduce it around 1949-1950.
And they had to be immediately banned from speaking. Otherwise it would have looked fishy. And that
would have seemed odd that we did not immediately have other revisionists following in their footsteps. But
there still had to be at least one whose book was re-authorized after a certain [Page 150] time. So until they were banned, then re-authorized, 5 or 6 years had to pass.
This is what happened to Rassinier, who was authorized again in 1955.
Then it would have been weird for various people to understand right away. It had to
take within 10-15 years. And it took at least 5 years before these people completed their
research and were able to write a first book. So we were about 20 or 25 years between
the appearance of the revisionists 1.0 and 2.0.
And then, the first official retreats could not happen immediately. At least 15
years after the end of the war before bringing them, that is to say in the Sixties. However, they were
necessary for a revisionism more advanced than that of Rassinier and Bardèche to appear. It
also, it participated in the establishment of revisionism 2.0 well after the 1950s.
We can see that from the 70s, we went from a left rather centered on the fight
classes, improvement of material and professional well-being, development of democracy
and from communism or socialism in the world, to a left essentially for freedom
sexual and mores in general, pro-immigration, pro-miscegenation, pro-Jewish, multiculturalist,
seeking to abolish borders, seeking to eradicate all the misery of the world. We passed
from a rather rational, intellectual, technocratic and economically-centered left, to a
very emotional left, even hysterical and centered on the problems of racial discrimination,
sexual and religious. Before, all this existed, but was in the background and considered in a more
asked.
And the right was also impacted by this change of era. Little by little, the line aligned itself with the
societal level on the moral principles of the left. The left was the forerunner, but the right has
follow-up 10 or 15 years apart.
Same thing in movies and TV series, more and more lecturing on bad guys
racists, good Jews, good blacks, good gays, etc ...
This is largely why the elite invented AIDS, a disease that actually has no reality.
(see the AIDS dissidence for that). Homosexuals had to be made victims, tragic beings,
to be able to better impose new sexualities. Before AIDS, homosexuals, in the minds of
people, they were a bunch of crazy ridiculous people, not people who were taken seriously and who could be
presented as priests of the new morality. With AIDS, we couldn't laugh anymore [Page 151] at them, because we do not make fun of people affected by such a tragedy. AIDS, it was a bit
shoah of gays. Suddenly they became untouchable. Gayification of homosexuals, described
by Soral (an influencer) also participated in this. The elite made sure to replace the image
homo party animal, superficial, eccentric, on the fringes of society and single, multiplying
adventures; by the gay, serious, responsible, integrated, sporty, healthy, in couple and faithful.
We have also made sure that the youth acquire a very important influence. Now it is of course well
easier to hysterize youth. The destruction of paternal authority and more generally
parenting has enabled young people to gain more and more confidence and to be good
the elite, who make them swallow whatever they want.
So of course some conspiracy and nationalists are partly aware of this. But they
believe it was to push the satanic (for conspiracy) or immigrationist agenda
(for nationalists). When in fact, the real reason is different.
Before the years 65-70, we were not in this state of mind. Suddenly, the period was less favorable
to the persecution of the revisionists. And the Jews were much less prominent. So we
could less connect the Jews and the persecution of the revisionists.
But, such a return was not possible during the period from the 1950s to the early 1980s.
70. Indeed, it was necessary to make Europe and the USA attractive with full employment and the advantages
social organizations to bring in large numbers of immigrants. And without unemployment, it was difficult to justify
rise of far-right movements.
And then, in the 1960s, there were still few immigrants in Western countries. So the
still, it was difficult to justify a progression of far-right movements.
It was not until the early 1980s, with the persistence since 1974 of mass unemployment,
and the increasing presence of immigrants that it was possible to justify the surge
(planned of course) nationalist movements in elections in some countries.
However, the advance of the extreme right was very important to justify the persecution of
revisionists. It made it possible to train in the overwhelming majority of the population the fear of
return of the 1930s, and therefore total hysteria towards everything on the far right. And
precisely, revisionism was quickly associated with the extreme right, as we have seen.
So this hysteria was also directed against him, which made it possible to justify behaviors
anti-democratic and scandalous court decisions. [Page 152]
So in the 1970s, the time was becoming ideal for the revisionist project. Like the ultra-side
libertarian baba-cool of the period 65-75 was already only a memory, the time was not liberal enough so that they are allowed to express themselves fully. But, like the French extreme right
was still a small group, it was still small enough to justify the fact that the revisionists
French were not immediately put in prison and that there were some interviews with some
of them in the official media.
Then, at the beginning of the 1980s (precisely 1983 in France), with pro-Jewish and pro-immigrant hysteria
anti-nationalist, as well as that on the holocaust, fueled by the comeback of the nationalists, we
could set up a real witch hunt against the revisionists in various countries
Europeans (and in Canada for the American continent). Witch hunt that had to allow
long after passing the revisionists for martyrs and the Jews for the wicked of
history in the eyes of a large part of the population.
The fact of gradually no longer talking mainly about Jews concerning the gassings of the
world war ii, was useful for the elite plan. Revisionism therefore concentrated
mainly on the massacre of the Jews. And the martyrdom of the revisionists then became clearly
caused by the Jews (via their associations). Whereas before, it was mainly used by the Communists and the
associations of former deportees.
With the change in mentality mentioned above, the elite killed three birds with one stone. She
allowed Muslim mass immigration to Europe, necessary to obtain the camp
"Islamist" during the 3 rd World War (as seen on this blog). It allowed the
martyr of the revisionists. And also that of the nationalists to a lesser extent.
So, it was much more interesting for the elite to launch revisionism a little after this change.
of mentality (which started in the late 60s) than before.
In fact, communism had to be liquidated during the 25 years following the war. And for that, he had to
appears powerful and dangerous. It had to be THE threat of the time. However, that, that agreed
evil of a resurgence of the extreme right.
Moreover, the victims of the camps were supposed to be quite diverse. At that time, the Jews
were just one of several groups that had been subjected to mass massacres in the camps and
persecutions in general. An important group, but far from being the only one. They shared this state with
communists (mainly), homosexuals, gypsies, etc ...
Difficult to launch hysteria on the Jews and their holocaust under these conditions. So we had to do
forget about other death camp victims and combatants. But, it couldn't be done
in one day. It took a while before we started to talk less about soldiers, resistance fighters and
Communists and that the Jews end up being the chief victims, the stars of the 2nd world war. It must have taken at least 20 or 25 years.
With these libertarian movements and the slogan "forbidden to prohibit", it would have been inappropriate to censor
revisionists in Europe (and particularly in France, a university professor close to
far left activists). So it was better to bring it in at the end of the 1970s, when
the spirit of the Sixties had already practically disappeared.
The problem of developing revisionism in the USA in the years 45-70
And that would have been particularly the case in the USA. Between 1945 and 1955, there was an anti-communism
very marked condition (including McCarthyism between 1950 and 1954). And the USA was in a state of
cold war against the USSR. However, revisionism would have made it possible to question the USSR,
since she was heavily involved in the Holocaust lie. It would have been a
wonderful opportunity to show that the Communists were liars. And besides, a
much of the mass massacres in the camps concerned Communists. So the
questioning was not a problem, since they belonged to the enemy camp. [Page 154]
So in the USA, revisionism, without necessarily being supported by the state, should not have been seen from an evil eye by this one during the years 45-60.
Then the elite could have justified a possible hostility of the government towards the revisionists to
because of the fact that in the gassings there were also many Jews. Yes, but a lot of Jews
were Communists. And the US was in a state of cold war with the Communists. So he
was difficult to make this argument.
Moreover, thanks to the 1st Amendment, revisionism could not have been banned in the USA. Gold,
as there was a good part of the population which was anti-communist, it should have spread
quite widely. Even if the state had been wary of revisionism, it would have been
much less the case of the people, some of whom would have been enthusiastic about these ideas. So the
revisionism could have had some success at that time, which the elite did not want.
In addition, at that time, in the USA in particular, revisionism would have mostly discredited the
Communists, and less the Jews. But since the final aim of revisionism was to attract hatred on
Jews specifically, this was another reason why revisionism did not appear
not at that time in the USA.
Of course, since the movement was completely under control, the elite would have had no difficulty in
make sure it does not grow. But, it would have been weird for the movement to stagnate for
25 years. Especially since being launched in the USA, it should have spread in Great Britain and also in
various European countries, given the cultural influence the USA had on Europe at that time.
In fact, that shouldn't happen in the 1960s in the USA either, because the Communists
were still the enemy. In addition, in the victims of the holocaust, we continued to talk
many of the Communists. And there was still the problem of the 1st amendment.
On the other hand, in the 70s, it became possible, because there had been the change of
mentality driven by the elite in the late 1960s, with pro-Jewish hysteria increasingly taking hold
more. And concerning the victims of the camps, we now spoke much more of the Jews than of the
communists. Moreover, those who were most put forward to talk about mass gassings
were Jewish associations, Jewish personalities, Jewish survivors, etc ...
And if that wasn't enough, the revisionists were going in that direction. The first revisionist book 2.0
was released by Austin App in 1973 and was titled "The six million swindle". The one who followed, at
Spring 1974, written by Richard E. Harwood was titled "Did Six Million Really Die? The Truth At
Last ". The third, published in 1976 by Arthur Butz was entitled:" The Hoax of the Twentieth
Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry ". And Faurisson of his
side, tackled the impossibility of the gas chambers at Auschwitz, where the most
large number of Jews. So the new revisionists were mainly centered on
massacres of the Jews.
It is true that the USSR was still the enemy of the USA (it will be until 1989). But the hysteria
anticommunist began to pass. We were no longer in a time of relaxation. USSR
was still viewed as disturbing. But, it was no longer the full expansionist empire
ranging from the 30s to the 50s. The ascension period was over. Besides, there was no longer in his head
only elderly and breathless hierarchs. In 1975 Leonid Brezhnev was 69 years old. He will die in [Page 155]
1982. He is replaced by Yuri Andropov, who dies 15 months later, in February 1984. He succeeds him
then Konstantin Tchernenko who died 11 months later in March 1985.
And anyway, given that for the gassings, we no longer spoke much of the Communists, that
posed much less problems vis-à-vis revisionism that the USSR was still the enemy
principal of the USA.
The problem is, in a plan like this, you often have to compromise. And the fact of
doing so introduced inconsistencies and quirks.
Well, already, in Italy or in Germany, it was out of the question since they had been the
wicked during the war. So, Italian or German revisionists would not have been
credible. And then there they should have been banned immediately, without any latency
like in France.
In Spain and Portugal there were far-right governments. So, there too, it would not have
not been credible.
In the countries of the Eastern bloc, it is not even mentioned. Since the Soviets were very much
accepting the lie of the Holocaust and that there was no freedom of speech in these countries, he
could not be revisionists there.
The Nordic countries are generally kept out of European political problems. It
was still the case here.
So there were only England and France left.
Both had been heavily impacted by the war, which could justify an anti-revisionist hysteria and therefore a rapid ban on them. None had an equivalent of the 1 st
American amendment. So they could immediately censor the early revisionists
under any pretext. [Page 156]
But France had a number of advantages over England in creating the
first revisionists.
The Communists were powerful there. However, at the beginning, the holocaust was supposed to concern
almost as much the Communists as the Jews. Challenging the holocaust, that was then
questioning the martyrdom of the communists. So, in France, we could easily justify a
prohibition of the first revisionists. The recent trauma of the occupation also made the
very sensitive subject.
There were movements of former prisoners from the powerful camps too (probably more than
England). It also made it possible to justify a ban on the revisionists.
In addition, there had been many French prisoners in the German camps among the most
hard. So we could invent a character like Rassinier . Something less easy for the English,
who mostly had prisoners of war who were in different camps, not
supposed to be extermination camps (and protected by the Geneva Convention).
And there had been powerful far-right movements in France for 50 years, which
made it possible to justify the existence of someone like Bardèche , that is to say a revisionist
far-right, something that was more difficult to achieve in England, where even during their brief
peak in the 1930s, they hadn't meant much. Now it was going to be important
then to have had one of the first two revisionists who is far-right, to link the two
movements in the 80s.
In short, in France, it was easier to present both a guy who lived in a very hard camp
(Rassinier) and a guy (Bardèche) from the extreme right.
Concerning the treatment of the revisionists, in this kind of French intermediate situation,
with at the same time the hysteria of the purification still close and the side country of the freedom, that
allowed to have a situation justifying at the beginning a heavy condemnation of the revisionists and
an authorization from Rassinier's book after a few years.
And then, the fact that the first revisionists were French made it possible to justify that they did not
been known to Anglo-Saxons for 20 years and therefore there were no American revisionists
or English before the 1970s. While it would have been more difficult to do with revisionists
English language 1.0.
Finally, as France has a significant amount of expelling Jews during the 3 rd war
world, it was logical that the revisionist movement should be powerful there, in order to be able to
eventually impose anti-Semitic measures and thus force the Jews to leave for Israel. So that
further justified the fact that the first revisionists appeared there. This is why the
revisionism was very strong there, while it was much less so in Great Britain.
The case of Sylvia Stolz and other women (Michèle Renouf, Mariette Paschoud, Françoise Pichard
(known as Chard), Monika Schaefer, Alison Chabloz, Maria Poumier, Diane King, Carolyn Yeager and Ursula
Haverbeck) is still made to provoke outrage towards the official camp and pity
towards the revisionists. It is true that Stolz expressed revisionist opinions and therefore falls
within the law. But she was not a theorist of revisionism and had made her
statements under the influence of emotion (officially of course). So the official camp could and should have
override, if only by simple strategy. But they didn't and sentenced him to 5 years [Page 158] from prison. However, people do not like to be attacked against women. And even less for
trivia. So this was all done to make the official camp even more heinous than it appeared
already. And suddenly, these women appear a bit like new Joan of Arc.
We can also say that the elite must despise those who have not switched to revisionism. They their
have put all the evidence of the scam in front of them, and they continue to believe the official version.
It's a bit like a dumb dinner.
Only, it is enough that the elite no longer supports the "exterminationists" for everything to collapse from the
official side. Of course, this one will do things more finely. She is going to let go a little more;
but she's not going to do it totally.
In the beginning, the elite held the bridle firmly, in other words, they instilled such intellectual terror.
that no one dared to inquire. And she made it so that hardly anyone could
procure revisionist works.
Currently, it frees the floor in certain circles and gives access to revisionist information
to all. This is why there are plenty of revisionist sites and videos that remain accessible without
problem, while the elite could have removed them very easily.
And in the future, she will let go a little more, by freeing up the floor even more in the
conspiracy and Muslim circles, while keeping it banned in other circles.
Thus, when the conspiratorial / Muslim camp takes power in certain countries (France,
Germany, Italy, etc.), there will be state hostility towards the Jews. And these won't be able to go
in supposedly friendly countries (like England) because they will practice a policy
zero immigration. So they will be forced to go to Israel.
So there would have been 5 other assaults before the one in 1989. But, unfortunately, he would not have
taken photos to testify to their reality. Yet it could have created a movement of
sympathy for revisionism. And since in a number of cases it was
moved for trials or conferences, there must be, the same day or the following, friends
having cameras ready to photograph him to witness the event. But no, there
never had anyone to do it.
Anyway, with 10 assaults, from rabid guys, in groups, and many more
young than him, apparently come to kill him, or at least seriously injure him,
Faurisson miraculously manages either to escape or to be only slightly affected. And even
when he can't escape, and he's about to be slaughtered, there's a good guy
of 2 meters which intervenes just in time to save him. This is luck.
Otherwise, we can say that if the elite chose a specialist in literature, it is to be able to justify
that Faurisson was able to discover revisionism, at a time when the latter was practically
unknown. Apart from someone very politicized (and rather on the extreme right for the discovery of
Bardèche in 1949), there could only be one great reader of literature who could
justify the fact that, reading a lot and having a great intellectual curiosity, he came across
authors like Rassinier or Bardèche.
2) The aftermath of the revisionist affair in France in the 1980s: the Henri Roques case
As the case of Faurisson alone could not sustain the debate on revisionism for 12
years (until the Fabius-Gayssot law in 1990), and that he had to be emulated to give
the impression that revisionism was spreading in intellectual circles, new
cases appear after the great wave of the Faurisson affair, which lasted roughly until 1983.
Of course, we continued to talk about Faurisson throughout the 1980s. But the great period, that
summer 1978-1983. Afterwards, it was more episodic.
So, first very strange element, he writes a thesis at 62 years old. Already nothing that is very suspicious.
Who passes theses at 62?
Another question is: how did he pass his thesis? Normally, to pass one, it
must register for a doctorate (3 rd cycle of university). And for that, you must have a university degree from
2 nd cycle. At the time, you needed a DEA (Diploma of Advanced Studies), that is to say, for readers
non French, the equivalent of bac +5 (you take the bac exam in the year of your 17-18 years). Of our
days the name has changed; it is now called a master.
Another problem was that Roques had to be sure that he would not be stopped in his tracks. He would have very
well could be discovered en route and then be expelled. So there was a significant risk of
doing it all for nothing. At 62, you don't embark on such a risky plan.
And it's hard to see how a guy outside of academia could have had
all of a sudden this eccentric idea; and above all to have the assurance that it can work . Only one guy having complicity at the highest level of the university could have a reasonable hope of to pull off such a blow. And he had to have those supports before he started. He couldn't count
on the fact that he was going to find support along the way by chance.
And we see that a good part of the members of the jury and the thesis director were members
or close to GREECE . What is GREECE? It is a more or less extreme circle of reflection.
right (some members are of the hard classic right, others of the extreme right, others
navigating between far-right and sometimes left-wing ideas). Gender is different from the club
the clock, but both are located far to the right. And some members of the clock club were
members of GREECE (at least temporarily), including Yvan Blot, president of the clock club. And
like the clock club, it is something that smacks of freemasonry 100 km away. Moreover, during the
First 10 years of its existence, Alain de Benoist is considered to be its thinking head. Gold,
Alain de Benoist is someone who defended Gabriel Matzneff, a notorious pedophile writer (who
boasts in his books). He was also close to the writer and journalist Guy Hocquenghem,
person who militated for the abolition of the sexual majority. Logically, as an agent of
power, he wrote an anti-conspiracy article in 1992, so long before conspiracy
becomes fashionable. How could he know that conspiracy was going to increase,
when the first web browser was not even released yet? Well because he's an agent
and that the elite knew that the internet was coming and had already planned to launch theories
conspirators on this medium. Moreover, he is a very good friend of Louis Pauwels (who participated
to the activities of GRECE), author of the "morning of the magicians" in collaboration with Jacques Bergier, book
clearly occultist. Louis Pauwels had entrusted him with a column in Figaro Magazine (which he
led, and at the head of Le Figaro, there are obviously only elite agents) as well as at the review
"Question". In addition, he has a rather marked Jewish head. And a Jew who is like that
employment is necessarily a member of the elite; he is not a common Jew. And the name "GRECE" makes
probably referring to Greece's elite project in 19 th century.
As we can see, the case was not very well put together by the secret services. We realize that there are inconsistencies all over the place. But the elite had to tell themselves that at the time no one could to think that it was all an invention on his part. And then this story was only supposed to make the newspaper headlines [Page 67] only for a short enough time and be treated as usual in a very emotional. So it doesn't matter that the details are quite inconsistent. As the news went
being centered on it for only a few months (but drowned in the midst of many other
information), it was not a problem.
Another problem, as with the Faurisson affair, once the thesis is supported, the media would not have
obviously not spoken , since their strategy for real dissidents is not to
advertise them. The thesis would have been discreetly canceled. So nothing should have filtered in the
newspapers. And Roques would have remained an illustrious unknown, except in the revisionist group. If it doesn't
not, is that the revisionists were not real dissidents.
Finally, also interesting detail, we learn in this article by Olivier Mathieu of July 23, 1987
than :
Obviously, as the Fabius-Gayssot law dates from 1990, revisionist affairs did not
stopped at that of Roques. It would have created too great a void between the two events. he
New ones were needed to maintain anti-revisionist excitement and thus justify the Gayssot law.
On September 13, 1987 , thanks to Jean-Marie Le Pen (obviously an elite agent too), there was
also the great affair of the " detail " which made it possible to speak again about revisionism and to bind it
on the far right. This story was a huge scandal in France. To the RTL-Le Monde Grand Jury,
Olivier Mazerolle asks Jean-Marie Le Pen this question: " What do you think of the theses of
Messrs Faurisson and Roques? "
3.3) The Durafour crematorium case
The following year, September 2, 1988 , Jean-Marie Le Pen slips again with the word " Durafour
crematorium "which caused a scandal.
3.4) The Claude Autant-Lara affair
In 1989 , there was the Claude Autant-Lara controversy . Indeed, he declares about Simone Veil (a
French Jewish politician, well known in France) to Globe magazine in September 1989 : " Que
like it or not, she is part of a political ethnic group that is trying to establish itself and dominate ...
Oh she plays the mandolin with it [concentration camps]. But she came back, huh? And
she is doing well... Well then when I hear about genocide, I say, in any case, they missed the mother
Veil! "
- Braunberger's response : "not him, but me, it was me that we were looking for "
Otherwise, in September 1989, there was also the attack on Faurisson , on the 16th. Once again, we are talking about
Faurisson and revisionism in the newspapers. We have a trace of it here for example (8 p.m. newspaper Antenne 2, September 16, 1989) and here (journal de FR3, 19/20, September 16, 1989) and here (newspaper on Evening). [Page 77]
Then, in January 1990 , there was the Bernard Notin affair . He is an academic from Lyon III. He writes a
article which was published in December 1989 in the journal Economies et Sociétés (Special issue n ° 32,
Presses Universitaires de Grenoble , review published with the assistance of the CNRS , August 1989 [completed
to print: December 1989], p. 117-133). One of the controversial passages is the following:
Notin was sentenced on July 11, 1990, as we can see here :
On February 6, 1990 , a new affair broke out, this time on television, on TF1, the most
watched around this time, and on the most-watched second half-night show on Tuesdays, at
know "Heaven my Tuesday!". It included a talk-show part where 6 to 8 people were invited
divided into two opposing camps who spoke on various subjects, in front of an audience. The
guests were more or less known. It could be famous people like ordinary people.
That evening, two groups were opposed: the far right versus the far left.
But, in fact, it goes beyond the simple post-1990 estrangement. Later, he bluntly asserted
that in fact, he was never a far-right . This is what we can read in the interview made by Jean-Pierre Fleury:
And, in an interview from 2003, his statements about his positioning on the far right
go even further, since there, he says more or less that in fact, he did all this essentially to
to laugh . This is what we can see in Wikipedia:
In short, Olivier Mathieu is still one of those various personalities who, for a limited time,
take the posture of far-right people, anti-Semites, revisionists,
conspirators, etc ..., and who should be paid handsomely for it (unless they are part of
the elite, in which case they have other sources of income, much more substantial). [Page 85]
Then on the night of May 8-9, 1990 , there was the desecration of the Jewish graves in the cemetery of
Carpentras . The event was even bigger than the others. Of course, the media immediately
linked the case to the National Front by highlighting that it was the ideas conveyed by this party that
had resulted in this desecration, and this while no far-right person was
apprehended at that time. The revisionists were also accused.
Note also that Jean-Marie le Pen was sentenced on May 23, 1990 for the retail affair. So we
further fueled the anti-revisionist hysteria.
So we come to the Fabius-Gayssot law, passed on July 13, 1990, only 2 months later.
the Carpentras case. Law that prohibits public denial of the Holocaust (as defined by the
Nuremberg Tribunal).
It is interesting to know what happened to Faurisson's predecessors in France:
Rassinier and Bardèche. Well, as we have seen, both were heavily condemned, and
even saw their books banned. And that, while no Gayssot law existed. So there was
already sufficient laws to convict Faurisson in 1979.
Faurisson was sentenced on July 3, 1981 during a first trial for defaming Léon.
Poliakov by affirming that he would have "manipulated and fabricated texts" with 2000 F in fines. He must
also pay 1 franc in damages to Leon Poliakov.
And we can notice that the timing of the Fabius-Gayssot law corresponds well to the climb plan of
the anti-Semitism wanted by the elite. One might wonder why the elite did not create the law in
question at the beginning of the 1950s , a little after the books by Rassinier and Bardèche were published. If they had wanted it, it would have been done within an hour. And that would have prevented the publication of any revisionist work subsequently in Europe (because there would have been no problem for the elite to pass this law at European level).
There, with a Rassinier, a Bardèche, a Faurisson, a Vincent Reynouard in France; a Jürgen Graf in Switzerland; a Germar Rudolf, a Horst Mahler and a Sylvia Stolz in Germany, etc., we have a good
a number of martyrs capable of arousing the indignation of crowds towards their persecutors. And their
persecutors, in the minds of the people, are the Jews. Not the everyday Jews; only the elite
Jewish for now. But as at the 3 rd World War, the Jews will be in camp opposed to those with a Judeo-critical discourse, they will be treated as enemies. And as these are
the "anti-Semites" who will win in the beginning, the everyday Jews will be forced to flee to Israel.
This is why Mitterrand and the Socialists had to be re-elected in 1988. There had to be a
left-wing government to justify the passage of the Fabius-Gayssot law. With a government of
right, that would have sounded weird. With a left government, plus the hysteria of the moment, that
passed without problem. Of course, the socialist government was necessary for various other
things like bringing more and more African immigrants to prepare the 3 rd World War.
But he was also important for that.
5) The period 1990-2000: the cases of Garaudy and Ahmed Rami
The Garaudy case is interesting. His first revisionist writings were published in 1995, that is to say 5 years
after the Fabius-Gayssot law.
But hey, all that would only make Garaudy an umpteenth more influencing agent in the sphere
revisionist. But what is interesting here is his conversion to Islam .
This is also why Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared himself in favor of the
revisionism and that there was a revisionist conference in Iran in 2006. It was to continue to
spread revisionism among Muslim crowds.
By the way, if Ahmadinejad wanted to annoy his enemies (USA, Israel, etc.), he could have supported the
other conspiracy theories that already existed in the early 2000s, such as the hoax of
the lunar adventure, of September 11, etc ... But he did not do it because the only thing targeted was the
revisionism.
Around the same time as Garaudy, the Swedish Ahmed Rami appeared on the scene
revisionist with the site Radio Islam.
As the conditions and objectives are not the same for the USA as for Europe
continental, the elite adopted a different strategy.
On the other hand, when the elite wanted revisionism to begin to spread in the USA and
Canada, around the 2010s or beyond, she made sure to provide at least one martyr in a
country close to the USA and having an Anglo-Saxon culture. European revisionist authors
were too far away for their persecution to reach the general American public. That's why there
had the Zündel case in the 2000s in Canada. He decided to flee from this country in January
2000 to avoid conviction for racial hatred. Then living in the USA, he has as per
Chance was arrested for violating immigration rules and returned to Canada in 2003. Then, the
1 st March 2005, he was deported to Germany, his country of birth, as the reason completely
grotesque threat to national security. And it was possible to expel him, since after 40 years
moved to Canada, he still did not have Canadian nationality. In Germany it was
immediately arrested for inciting racial hatred, then sentenced on February 15, 2007, after 2 [Page 100] years of trial, to 5 years in prison for inciting racial hatred (the maximum penalty for this kind
of "crime").
7) Official contradictions and retreats as evidence of the plot
When we are interested in revisionist literature, we quickly learn that the authorities and
historians have repeatedly backed down from the official version. And the official sources are by
elsewhere often contradicted one another.
In 1960 , there was a first huge setback on homicidal gassings. Indeed, the weekly
Die Zeit, no 34, of August 19, 1960, p. 16 (American ed., No.34, August 26, 1960, p. 14) published a
letter from Dr Martin Broszat of the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich entitled: "No
gassing in Dachau ". But in reality, it did not only concern Dachau, but also Bergen-Belsen
and Buchenwald, as can be read in this excerpt from the article.
Likewise, the setbacks on the means of the massacre were a major attack on the credibility of
the official version. We spoke at the beginning of the Shoah by electricity , a version that was quickly
abandoned. same thing for the holocaust by steam ; and again for fire, acid, injection
air, drowning, vacuum pump, pneumatic hammer, boiling water, etc ...
And it was not the first time that the numbers were revised downwards for Auschwitz . On this
page, we can see that the figures range from 630,000 killed to 9 million for 23 perpetrators, authorities or
different historians. This is the big gap.
While researching Auschwitz, I discovered that there had been a very important overhaul
figures also in Majdanek . Basically, the Russian had estimated the number total of 1.7 deaths
million. Then almost immediately they lowered the figure to 1.5 million. Total who was the one
recognized as the divine truth brought to ordinary mortals at Nuremberg. And already, it was diverging,
since just after the liberation of the camp the Illustrated London News spoke of 600,000 to 1 million
dead.
Otherwise, there was also the Katyn massacre , which for 45 years was considered a crime of
German war, an example of Nazi barbarism. And finally it was recognized that it was a Russian war crime.
There were also some very important witnesses who recanted, or who were so put
faced with their contradictions during the trials against the revisionists that it was practically
as a retraction. We especially think of Arnold Friedman and Rudolf Vrba (real name
Walter Rosenberg). As Faurisson says, these were of exceptional importance,
since they were the few rare people claiming to have seen gas chambers in train
being used for massacres and having escaped. However, at the Zündel trial in 1985 in
Toronto (Canada), the first finally retracted without ambiguity, and the second
literally collapsed and ended up with lip service.
In the same article written by Faurisson, we learn that after the Friedman and Vrba disaster, the
"exterminationists" have abandoned the use of cookies:
In the same article, we learn that historian Raul Hilberg refused to come and testify at the trial
of Zündel from 1988.
Otherwise, again in the witnesses who retracted, we have Joseph Hirt , who admitted in 2016 to have
everything made up after a New York historian demonstrated that his testimony was false.
This is what we can see here and here :
We also had testimonies questioned by the media themselves. This is what we can see at
new on Faurisson's blog :
And it was not limited to the Shoah. There have been various cases of assaults on Jews where the victims have
finally recognized that they had made it all up. There was thus the "RER D" affair in France,
2004 , where a Jewess was supposedly assaulted (a certain Marie-Léonie Leblanc), and ended up
admit a few weeks later that she had lied. In 2009 , Paula Oliveira, a Brazilian
resident in Switzerland claimed to have been attacked by 3 neo-Nazis in Zurich. She confessed a week
after she had invented the assault and had scarified herself. In the
two cases, the media widely reported the retraction.
So, it is true that during the emergence of the Internet, the defenders of the official version
forbidden tooth and nail (see the PHDN site ). They put forward counter-arguments; the overwhelming majority
time, bad faith and falsehood, all refuted by the revisionists. But despite everything, they
clung together, and it could impress simple souls. So we could say that if the purpose of
the elite was to question the holocaust, it was counterproductive. But in fact no, because he
only a part of the people had to switch to revisionism. And besides, it was necessary that the side
official seems to resist. Otherwise it would have looked suspicious. There, pretending to fight, the side
official guarded a large part of the mass of sheep, and he maintained the credibility of the fight
between revisionists and supporters of official theory.
8) Same thing for all the obvious lies
So there are official retreats, but there is also a problem with all the big inconsistencies
like mountains, physical impossibilities, absolutely ridiculous stories,
literally grotesque exaggerations. The elite disseminated evidence of the scam virtually
everywhere, so much so that we have the impression that they have given themselves to their heart's content. Such an accumulation
evidence of a lie cannot be the result of chance.
In the same vein, the response of 34 historians to Faurisson in 1979 is worth its weight in gold (here):
A number of testimonials are completely delusional or contain contradictions
or glaring impossibilities. It is obvious that they were made to break down the official theory.
With such rubbish, anyone a little informed and intelligent had to tell themselves that the
official theory was certainly untrue. And we could count on agents of influence
revisionists to put forward all the ridiculous, contradictory elements, etc., of these
"testimonials".
Gerstein's testimony is not more credible with:
Once again, the designers of the scam would never have missed a testimony that
strayed as far from the figures they wanted to impose (6 million) or who would have balanced
such crazy information.
We also have Anne Frank's diary and her 1940s ballpoint pen.
And this is just a small sample of all the evidence of lying that can be found in
revisionist literature.
So, to justify that the incredible figures and information of some false witnesses are
past, various members of the official camp defend the idea that some pathological liars have
added their false testimonies to the other testimonies (supposedly true them), without control, and that the
official camp ended up despite himself with delusional testimonies.
But, until then, it didn't occur to him that all this obviousness of the lie was a little too much.
beautiful to be natural and it was still weird that the elite had made so many mistakes. he
must be said that before conspiracy, no one suspected that the plot could be global
and prepared decades and even hundreds of years in advance. Obviously, it resulted in a
mental block to question revisionism as a spontaneous movement of ideas and
to think that all these inconsistencies and backsliding on the part of the elite were on purpose. Mostly
that this is the most advanced conspiracy, which only appeared in the late 2000s.
So, it wasn't from those years that some people started to think that he
It was not normal that the elite had let go of so much evidence of the lie.
Pressac's case also has its share of illogicalities and oddities. Jean-Claude Pressac was a
French pharmacist who became provisionally revisionist in 1979, then joined the camp
official from 1981, very shortly after working with Faurisson. Towards the end of the 1980s and
the early 90s he became a champion of established theory. But in fact his work at
rather tended to strongly roll back the official claims defended at the end of the years
70. So the result of his action is at the very least very ambiguous and the character is
gradually became troublesome. Moreover, the media and the holocaustic camp have said very little
of his death in 2003.
We have seen that Faurisson's travels were shady. This is also the case for those of Pressac . We
tells us that he would have gone to Auschwitz-Birkenau a second time in 1979, then again in 1980,
by clearly presenting himself as someone who doubted the official truth.
But in fact, we learn in an interview with Pressac ( here ) , that his third trip to Auschwitz,
that of August 1981, was not the last where he presented doubts to the director of the museum: " Returned
in France in September, I had nothing concrete to show to Faurisson, except to tell him
that there were pieces that contradicted his statements, pieces that the opposing parties were
to communicate to him, unfortunately drowned in a jumble of unusable testimonies because
that without historical criticism. I went back twice for quite a long time to the Oswiecim museum where I
began to seriously study the records. During these stays, tense historical discussions opposed me to Iwaszko, because my doubts persisted . "
And even for the next 2 or 3 trips, the thing remains very suspicious. It is true that at that time, Pressac had apparently sided with the official side and was working with Pierre Vidal-Naquet. But the
Communists could take that as a strategy to coax them. So in the doubt the latter would obviously not have agreed to open all these archives revealing
clearly the lie. Why would they trust this neo-Nazi, when there were so many
European historians in charge who can do this work? There was no competent historian in
Poland or the USSR?
Moreover, the history of the 1 st or 2 nd floor of his pharmacy landscaped mini-museum of the 3 rd Reich
very little credible. In the 1970s, the neo-Nazis razed the walls. So never a pharmacist
would have dared to have such a collection of Nazi objects, which would have immediately revealed its tendencies
policies. It could have been the ruin of his pharmacy. When we did such long and difficult
studies to get a pharmacy-like simplicity, take all precautions
so as not to lose it. And that would also have been the end of his social relations. So he never would have done
it.
By the way, the fact that he was still a neo-Nazi in the 80s and 90s makes his idea even more illogical.
course. He was therefore a great admirer of Nazism, anti-Semitic and apparently
conspiratorial. But he spent all his free time showing that his revered Führer, supposed
a good man in reality (and therefore unjustly vilified by the Jews), had actually
willfully a gigantic massacre of the Jews.
Still in relation to his neo-Nazism, apparently, his Jewish connections in the official camp
weren't bothered by it. Which is still amazing. And we can't say that they [Page 122] weren't aware of it, since Zylbermine knew it. And since apparently no one in the
official camp only said that he was amazed when he learned that Pressac was in fact more or less
neo-Nazi, presumably they all knew it. Especially since, anyway, given the importance of
Pressac, the Jewish authorities would certainly have wanted to make an investigation, to find out to whom they
had to do. And with the supposed intelligence capabilities of the Mossad and Jewish leaders in
general, they would have known in a few weeks his political orientations.
Note also that thanks to Pressac, we know that the designers of the scam had therefore been too
beasts to give a consistent version of the location and number of crematoria to
Auschwitz. Oh what a shame. Real nickel-plated feet.
It is also questionable where he found the time to do such in-depth research. The
the profession of pharmacist is demanding; the days are quite long. And after a good day
fulfilled, we do not want to focus on such intellectually demanding work. We have
rather inclined to watch television or see friends, or read magazines or books
entertaining. And on weekends, you have to take care of your wife, your children; hang out with friends or
his parents (and those of his wife). We must go about our administrative obligations, those of the home
(cleaning, laundry, shopping, etc...). We try to have a minimum of fun too, to relieve stress
of the week. And in the 28-35 years period, we are in the midst of the professional boom
and family (young children) very demanding, even exhausting. And he was just in that period
(between 1974-1979, he was between 30 and 35 years old). All this following long and difficult studies, after
which many no longer want to bother with intellectual works. So we [Page 123] do not see how he could have had enough time left for the in-depth analyzes required by the revisionism. Especially since it lasted 15 years. This is one of the things that is not impossible.
But still, it's quite suspicious.
In the same vein, one can say that Pressac was surprisingly conscientious. As he writes
a simple fictional book, he feels the need to go straight to Auschwitz to check a point of
detail. He could very well have relied on the document which seemed to him to be the most authoritative and in
stay here. Or he could have gone to the Center de Documentation Juive Contemporaine in Paris so that we
gives it more precision. There must have been people who knew about it since Faurisson had
drew a certain amount of information. And if it didn't suit him, there, ok, possibly
he could have decided to take a trip to Auschwitz. But no, he has to go directly.
By the way, on Wikipedia, we learn that he was in the military prytaneum of La Flèche. And in this
last there was also, guess who? Pierre Guillaume , Faurisson's revisionist friend! Of them
revisionists from the same military school; very surprising coincidence to say the least.
One can also wonder why the elite created a more or less neo-Nazi character for him. AT
what could it serve him well?
Why did the elite insist on Pressac arriving just after Faurisson? They could have
introduce it from 1981 or 1982 for example. It wouldn't have changed much. But no, there,
they decide to introduce it in 1979, thus inducing oddities and coincidences too good for
be true, such as the fact that he arrives practically at the same time as Faurisson, and this while he
never heard of this one, which is a pretty amazing coincidence to say the least. So he must
there be a reason.
One can also wonder why he worked so little time with Faurisson? Indeed, the
fact that he questioned Faurisson after a few months, it was not terrible level
consistency.
The story of his uchronic novel also allowed him to be presented as neutral in relation to the
revisionism. Whereas otherwise, if he had gotten there through politics or something else, he should have wanted
continue along the revisionist path.
Annex 2: additions to the Clock Club
Another question that we can ask ourselves, why do we want to form an extreme right-wing club when we were
in a phase when this political trend was at its lowest? A priori, in the immediate future, it will not
was useless, since at that time, there was nothing to suggest a comeback in the elections. Unless, [Page 129] of course, the club's creators knew that 10 years later, the far-right would again have a big success. And they did, because in fact it was all organized by the elite.
Annex 3: Gayssot or Fabius-Gayssot law?
Where does the sometimes used name of Fabius-Gayssot law come from? According to the anti-revisionist site PHDN, only
revisionists and nationalists would use this term. Fabius would in fact have nothing to do with this
law. It was only the Communist Jean-Claude Gayssot who would be at the origin. Of course, this is wrong.
He not only participated in writing this law with Gayssot, but in fact, it is apparently he alone.
who created it. Gayssot was only a screen.
Annex 4: the fact that the elite authorized the publication of Rassinier's book
What's also pretty great is that the elite finally allowed the publication of
Rassinier. Indeed, as we have already seen, after a first favorable judgment on May 9, 1951, the
book was banned on appeal on November 2, 1951 (copies were seized and destroyed by the
police), but the cassation court annulled this judgment in 1955. Rassinier therefore released
immediately a new edition of his book, helped by various supports, including that of Henry
Coston. In the end, it's even better than if the book had been authorized directly. There, thanks to the
justice, it received a huge publicity, and it benefited from an ultra sulphurous aura that must have grown
people read it. And this especially since he received support on the left saying that the book was
interesting and Rassinier someone good. And he got some right, thanks to Henry Coston.
Annex 5: more on Olivier Mathieu
To come back to the passage where he said he was never far-right :
It should also be noted that when Mathieu criticizes the world of the extreme right afterwards, in the years
2010, at no time does he say that people like Guillaume Faye or de Benoist, etc., are
agents. Yet, looking back, he should have realized it. If he doesn't say anything like that, it's because
that he's an agent too.
Otherwise, he tells us that until 6 years old, his mother was homeless, slept in a hotel and left regularly
the latter without paying so much she lacked money. We wonder then how his mother
made to receive the famous designer Hergé in 1969 (and probably earlier), when he had
9 years, or 3 years later. She was still to be in an extremely precarious situation and had to
live in a miserable studio in a very poor neighborhood; not the kind of situation where we receive
a very rich guy like Hergé. Strictly speaking, if the latter had been a friend, he would have received her at home.
But he wouldn't have come to her house. But, one can be sure that in reality his so-called poverty is
an invention of Mathieu to pass himself off as someone from the people and that she lived in a
comfortable apartment. This is a classic tactic of these elite agents, who come from
extremely wealthy families. [Page 137]
We learn in his Wikipedia file that " In April 1991, defended by Xavier Hiernaux and Didier de
Quévy, he was sentenced, under the Moureaux law, to eighteen months in prison and
42,000 francs fine by the Brussels Criminal Court for "defamation" against the
journalist Maurice Sarfati said Serge Dumont and for "incitement to racial hatred". Not being
presented at his trial, and having seen his conviction confirmed on appeal, he won France, Italy
then Spain. "
So blog we also have this excellent remark about the reruns of the passage in question:
There are various odd elements or that seem to have been specially put in place to make this one
martyr.
Otherwise, we also learn in his bio that he gave in ufology in the 70s, under the
pseudonyms of Christof Friedrich and Mattern Friedrich. He wrote books saying that
simply flying saucers were secret weapons developed by the 3 rd Reich and based
now in Antarctica. We have for example "Secret Nazi Polar Expeditions" (1978) and "Hitler at the
South Pole "(1979). Also" UFOs: Nazi Secret Weapon? "(1974 or 1975) written with Willibald
Mattern.
Otherwise, when we see Zündel, we say to ourselves that he has the face of a Jew. And, at the end of the Wikipedia page, we learns that his mother was called Gertrude Mayer, and was the daughter of Isadore and Nagal Mayer. Now the name Mayer is often worn by Jews.
He was also married to a certain Janick Larouche. However, the name Larouche is that of an agent
of influence, the famous Lyndon LaRouche.
By the way, he is defended at the beginning by Horst Mahler , a guy who feels the agent of the elite 100 km away. round. Mahler is a founding member of the revolutionary organization Fraction Armée Rouge
created around May / June 1970 (and son of militant Nazis). His stint in violent action lasted very little
long (about 5 months), but he participated in the escape of Andreas Baader on May 14, 1970 and in 2
robberies on September 29, 1970. He was arrested with several other members of the group on October 8
1970. In 1974, he was sentenced to 14 years in prison, where he was placed in solitary confinement (we can be sure that he did not do them). He was released in 1980, thanks to the future German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, then
lawyer (and of course, member of the elite). In 1987 or 88, again thanks to Gerhard Schröder, he was
reinstated at the German bar.
Annex 7: On Gerstein's testimony
The fact that historians have tampered with the text or removed the most incredible passages is
another clear indication that Gerstein lied on numerous occasions. And it reflects on
the designers of the scam. Indeed, if a large part of the official historians noticed that there
had serious credibility concerns in Gerstein's denominations, so members of the
secrets would necessarily have realized this themselves and would have provided a less delusional text.
The failure to disseminate this report to the general public from the start introduces doubt
also regarding his credibility. So we explain this by saying that the secret services
initially thought that Gerstein was an SS trying to save his own skin. Not believing in her
testimony, they did not advertise it. So, it would be rather the situation of Gerstein which
would have led to not believing it, rather than the too extraordinary side of his testimony. But
Obviously, with revisionist analysis, people start to think that if they haven't released it
in the general public initially, it is because they considered the Gerstein report as too
excessive to be accepted by the citizen who reflects a minimum, and all the more with history
of the six versions. And since they ended up revealing it, that means that they are knowingly disseminating what they
thought to be a fake at the start, which further undermines the credibility of the official camp.
Finally, the very existence of Gerstein is doubtful. As if by chance, he killed himself in 1945 in his
cell. He manages to escape the vigilance of his guardians and hang himself while he was supposed to be
a key witness to the holocaust. It is very doubtful. And the prisons had to be overcrowded at this
at that time, because of the huge influx of prisoners. But Gerstein had an individual cell.
How convenient. So, because of the chaos of the war, in fact, we have no proof of
the actual existence of this guy. It could very well be a creation of the elite. And it is certainly the
case. He probably never existed. But in this case, then, it is necessarily the elite who are behind
Gerstein's testimony. So, there is not even to wonder about the course of Gerstein; the
Very visible exaggerations inevitably come from a think tank of counter-intelligence.
Annex 8: why did revisionists 2.0 appear in the 1970s? [Page 148]
We see that Revisionism 2.0 was launched between 1973 and 1978. The first revisionist book
2.0 was released by Austin App in 1973 and was titled "The six million swindle". The one who followed, at
Spring 1974, written by Richard E. Harwood was titled "Did Six Million Really Die? The Truth At
Last ". We have seen that the Faurisson affair actually started in France in 1974. In 1976, Arthur Butz
published: "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of
European Jewry ". The IHR in the USA was created around 1978. In barely 3 years, we have no less than 4
revisionists who appear in 3 different countries. It is a true spontaneous generation.
The choice to have a 1.0 and 2.0 revisionism implied a time lag between them
A first problem is that it was already necessary to introduce revisionism 1.0. Why not pass
directly to 2.0? Well, because it would have seemed weird for revisionists 2.0 [Page 149] suddenly appear from Jupiter's thigh in the 70s. It was better if there was a
antecedent which inspired the revisionists 2.0. And then, it allowed to justify the appearance
spontaneous revisionists in the 1970s (many not familiar with the work of
other). Indeed, which justifies the revisionism of most of them, even in the Anglo-Saxon world, these are Rassinier's books.
Develop revisionism at the same time as the post-1968 mentality change
Moreover, what the elite wanted was to develop revisionism at the same time as they were operating.
a change in mentality in the Western world and that it increasingly put forward the
Jews.
All of this was supported by the artistic world. That's why we got Band Aid, USA for Africa, the
black music becoming more and more present and promoted.
Develop revisionism at the same time as the rise of the extreme right in
Europe
Something that has had a very important influence on the hysterization of mentalities towards
revisionists, it is the return in force of the extreme right.
Another problem with the re-emergence of nationalism is that before the 1980s the
communism being the main enemy, and the extreme right having practically disappeared, we cannot
could not invent a threat coming from the latter. So revisionism could not
be seen as a danger, as it was in the 1980s, when the extreme right
started to spread again. In the 50s and 60s it would have been considered too little
dangerous to influence anyone.
In the years 1945-1965, the Jews were not yet the stars of the 2nd World War
At the start of the post-war era, those who were talked about the most, those who received all the glory, were the
fighters. The stars of the day were the communist or allied soldiers, and in France in [Page 153] particular, the Communist or Gaullist resistance fighters. Victims of persecution and camps
came after.
The sixties were to be largely those of flower-power, baba-cool, non-
violence, sexual liberation, slogans like "forbidden to ban", optimism,
youth, etc. (mainly on the left). This to bring western peoples to have a state
extremely open-minded allowing to introduce on the one hand the acceptance of immigration from
mass, and on the other hand a more depraved society allowing to obtain the "democratic-perverted" camp
for the 3 rd World War.
There was another constraint. The elite not wanting revisionism to spread over the years
50, it was better not to launch it in countries that should have been relatively favorable, or
in which it could not have been banned.
It is therefore for all these reasons that the second wave of revisionists was launched so
clustered in the 70s. The elite plan stood and it was relatively brilliant.
Annex 9: why did you choose France to launch revisionism 1.0
?
We have seen that revisionism 1.0 could not be launched in the USA. What about other Western countries?
Annex 10: miscellaneous [Page 157]
Concerning " the old mole ", the publishing house of Pierre Guillaume, the name may seem eccentric
At first glance. But if we say to ourselves that the newspaper was a creation of the elite, then, it is quite
possible that there is a hidden message behind this name. A mole, in the language of the secret service
French, is an undercover agent in the enemy. So the newspaper title was probably still a
hidden truth but in plain sight. The elite like this kind of thing.
One may wonder why the European revisionists did not go to the USA. Since there is
had no persecution there, they could have been quiet there. But no, they preferred to stay in
Europe. This is because, in the elite plan, they had to become martyrs. So it was
out of the question they leave.
While nowadays with the internet there are hundreds of guys who could potentially
to become new figures of revisionism (especially in the USA), there is hardly anyone. And
this is also valid for conspiracy. As said above, currently, we may be 20
or a maximum of 30 people, who are not agents and who do original work with
conspirators and 4 or 5 under their real name. This while conspiracy is not prohibited
and that millions of people are interested. However, between 1974 and 1979, there were about ten
types who have become revisionists (Faurisson, Pierre-Guillaume, Serge Thion, Pressac, Zundel,
Richard E. Harwood aka Richard Verrall, Arthur R. Butz, Thies Christophersen, Austin Joseph App) at
a time when there was hardly any information on the subject. And many wrote where
acted under their real name. Another clue which suggests that the appearance of all these
revisionists in the 1970s was a little too good to be true and that it was an operation
of the elite.
One may wonder why Faurisson went to the University of Lyon II in 1973. According to some
official versions, it is because he has already started to express revisionist opinions, this
which would have hampered his hierarchy. So he would have been transferred by it. He would not have gone there voluntarily.
In reality, as Lyon II was to be presented as a den of fascists, it was preferable that he
be sent there to reinforce the idea that it was indeed one, and to justify that it was not too
sacked by his hierarchy thereafter.
All of this evidence of the lie is catastrophic for the official version. At the logical level,
this one is completely destroyed. But the elite has intellectual and judicial terror to
impose it, that is to say, the balance of power. With this one she can make no one dare
express critical opinions in public. This is currently happening with the laws of memory.
It may seem surprising that the elite are abandoning a scam that they have worked so hard on.
But what needs to be understood is that the elite are using dynamic scams. When a present
scam is sacrificed (in part or in whole) is that a new one is already being launched.
So they can drop it without a problem. It is already no longer relevant.
First uploaded 4 August 2020. Machine translation, internal links, HTML by Rae West. The ideas, concepts, historical analysis, views, opinions are those of Hexzane527.