| |

In spite of the repression, revisionism will win

The other day, July 25, I was notified by a Paris judge of three criminal proceedings brought against me, essentially for having taken part in the international conference in Tehran on “the Holocaust”. I shall remind the reader that at that conference, held on December 11 and 12, 2006, all participants without exception, whether believers or disputers of the new religion, were able to have their arguments heard freely. On December 13, 2006, Jacques Chirac, then president of the French Republic, had decried my participation in the conference and announced his request that a judicial inquiry be opened against me. It is precisely that inquiry that has resulted now, five and a half years on, in my triple prosecution. One must also note that certain pious organisations have since joined their own legal complaints to the initiative of “Superliar” who, as was quite normal, had hurried to the rescue of a Superlie in distress.[1]

Furthermore, today, July 28, I have received a police summons for questioning on July 31. Having inquired of local officers by telephone, I know that it concerns revisionist remarks that I seem to have made recently on the Internet.

I usually comply with the summonses of investigating magistrates or police officers but I never answer their questions, apart from those about my identity. Even if the person in charge balks and grumbles, I always have him record in the minutes my brief ritual statement: “I refuse to collaborate with the French police and justice system in the repression of historical revisionism”. I warn him beforehand that should he refuse to write down that sentence I will not sign the minutes.

The ineluctable victory of revisionism

On the strictly scientific and historical plane the revisionists’ victory is already total but the news must still be brought to the knowledge of the general public, which is no small matter.

In any case, there is necessarily a considerable time lag between the moment when a staggering scientific find occurs and the moment when public opinion finally decides to accept that find. In former times it could take centuries but nowadays, especially thanks to the Internet, two or three generations may suffice (from 66 to 99 years after 1945!). Some day researchers from all backgrounds will work together to publish on the Internet an interminable Encyclopaedia of Lies of the Holocaust, a huge Collection of Holocaust Howlers, a vast inventory of fakes and falsifications by the “true falsifiers of history”. With sources or references to hand, readers will discover the names and works of those who have dishonoured themselves either by lies, slanders and false testimony or by calls for repression against revisionists. Future generations will see, in the actual evidence, how a certain type of universal religion largely founded on hatred, fraud and lucre is born, lives and dies. No plot or conspiracy has been needed to turn out these holocaustic abjections; the self-assurance of a victor with unlimited power, his insolence, cynicism and taste for vengeance, on the one hand, and the exploitation of Stupidity, Lies and Credulity, on the other, have been enough.

On the victories won thus far by revisionism and most often hidden from the general public see my studies of December 11, 2006 (The Victories of Revisionism) and September 11, 2011 (“The Victories of Revisionism – continued”). Here I shall call the reader’s attention to the part of the latter text headed “The coup de grâce given, on December 27, 2009, to the myth of the Nazi ‘gas chambers’”. It deals with Robert Jan van Pelt, whom I sometimes call “the last of the Mohicans of the exterminationist cause”. Van Pelt is a Jewish researcher who, war-weary, has come to acknowledge that there exists at Auschwitz, capital of “the Holocaust”, no EVIDENCE of an extermination of the Jews but only “testimonies” (sic). He recommends that the entire site of Auschwitz and Birkenau be surrendered to nature. In other words, if I understand correctly, the tens of millions of tourists or pilgrims who have visited the place have been and continue to be fooled with an abundance of false evidence. For me, the exploiters of the Auschwitz myth are not just making fools of the living but are also mocking the dead, whose real sufferings are thus relegated to make way for phantasmagorical tales born of sick brains and turned to profit by swindlers.

I confirm it here: today – since December 27, 2009, in fact – no-one is to be found putting forth any scientific evidence to support this cause built both on the victims’ too real pain and on too many “facts [not] established” and, consequently, “bound for the rubbish bins of history”. The admission is Jean-Claude Pressac’s. Still reeling from the defeat that he had had to endure during my trial of May 9, 1995, where barrister Eric Delcroix and I had subpoenaed him, the man signed that admission a month later, on June 15, 1995, at the end of a text of nearly forty pages. This capitulation by a former employee of the Klarsfeld couple was first kept under seal for five years. Then the piece was finally revealed by Valerie Igounet, in small print towards the very end of her book, Histoire du négationnisme en France (Seuil, Paris 2000, p. 613-652).

Sic transit gloria turpis mendacii! (So passes the glory of the foul lie!).

The Auschwitz swindle has had its day. As for the repression exerted by the swindlers, it is a sign that they have run out of arguments. They were asked for “one proof, one single proof” to support their terrible accusation: according to them, for over four years Germany had perpetrated against the Jewish people a crime without precedent in the history of mankind and, for all that time, the whole world, except for a handful of “Righteous” ones, had remained indifferent to the unspeakable horror. At first, the swindlers provided an abundance of “evidence”, all of which proved to be fallacious, so much so that later, from 1979 on, they had to conclude that there was, after all, no need to prove the obvious![2] It only remained for them to strike blows at the recalcitrant and strike they did. They have struck by producing, along with their cinema and novels, books in which guesswork vies with speculation, by promoting their fraud relentlessly in the media and, at times, by carrying out physical violence, all with the aid of the unjust power of the law. And all a waste of effort. Revisionism will win.

 July 28, 2012


[1] “Superliar” was for a long time the nickname given to Jacques Chirac in a highly popular comical programme on French television devoted to current affairs – translator’s note.
[2] La politique hitlérienne d’extermination : une déclaration des historiens françaisLe Monde, February 21, 1979, p. 23.