The 14th revisionist conference in Los Angeles (2002)

The Institute for Historical Review held its 14^th conference in Los Angeles over the weekend of June 21-23. In light of the events of September 11, 2001, interest in revising the tiresome “Holocaust” of the Jews seems to have lessened. Mark Weber has pointed out that, with the outbreak or threat of a new world war, everything related to the last world war suddenly seems to have become irrelevant or outdated.

Thus did First World War revisionism virtually disappear in September 1939, and today, the name of French-British revisionist Jean Norton Cru – to mention but one example – is, except for specialists, “less than wind, shadow, smoke, and dream” (Mellin de Saint-Gelais, 1491-1558). It is possible that the Jewish organisations themselves are currently giving priority to what they call the “World War on Terrorism”, obviously without relinquishing either the rites of the “Holocaust” religion or their repression of revisionism.

Still, according to M. Weber, the time has come for a revisionist renewal. As for myself, I would like to add that after the disappearance of the State of Israel a new legend – that of the “Second Holocaust” – will arise and in its turn necessitate a revision of its lies.

Gloomy record

Of “Holocaust” revisionism, which is still that of Paul Rassinier, it will perhaps be said one day that it won every single battle but lost the war. Surely, on an intellectual level, revisionism has triumphed in all its battles and all but crushed its adversary: at one point, during one of the hearings of the first Zündel trial in Toronto (1985), Raul Hilberg, the pope of the exterminationists, was obliged to concede: “I am at a loss.”

He is today definitively “at a loss” with his theory about a genocide without an order, and without a plan, allegedly brought about by… “an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus mind-reading by a far-flung [German] bureaucracy”. But the pedlars of Jewish illusions have come to the rescue of the “Holocaust” historians with their films, theatrical pieces, media campaigns, ceremonies, monuments and incantations. And here, the revisionists have been unable to stand their ground. They have simply been overwhelmed by the flood.

In the USA Bradley Smith embarked on an ingenious media action to win access to newspapers, radio and TV stations, but the revisionist community did not lend him the assistance he had hoped for, and which would have been a drop in the ocean anyway, compared with the deafening “Holocaust” propaganda of the Western media.

Moreover, it would be senseless to hide the fact that revisionists are afraid. Repression gives them no breather. It can assume both the most open and the most insidious forms. To be sure, it does not have the character of political struggle, with torture, long prison terms or assassination, but it is above all vicious, tiresome, gnawing. The tyranny wielded by the children of Israel is deceitful. It does not have the brutal frankness of the tyrant who openly boasts of his power and his strength and demands obedience. But it is a tyranny nevertheless.

The “Holocaust” bully makes himself heard from afar with his sobs and his heart-breaking cries. He appears on your threshold, wrapped in a beggar’s robe, and is admitted into the house where he touches the hearts of all with his pathetic tales of torment and grief to which no other can be compared. Once comfortably installed, he begins to act as he pleases, but still sobbing, for sobs pay. He will strike blows for what he wants, but while striking he will cry out so loudly that his own cries will drown those of his victims. He will make it clear that the children of Israel have suffered so much that they are rightfully entitled to compensation and special privileges, and that it would be callous to expose their lies and their tyranny.

Thus a taboo has arisen which is the real shield of David, and a sword into the bargain. There is nothing so daunting as a taboo. A real taboo is mightier than all policemen and all judges. It inspires an irrational fear that is particularly difficult to overcome. To defy it, one needs “a heart mailed with oak and triple brass”, as Horace said of the first man who dared to sail the sea. Who can boast such a heart?

The revisionists are tired. They see the most hackneyed lies, including those which the “Holocaust” historians themselves have finally been forced to acknowledge as lies, flourishing today as when they were first told. When revisionists attack these lies they are taken aback at finding the same arguments and, with some minor variations, the same “evidence” as before. They ask themselves why they should stubbornly continue their struggle, like Sisyphus or Don Quixote.

What a singular business it is to harp on a sixty-year-old conflict! How can the young (and the not-so-young) of today possibly be interested in those bygone days? It appears to be a waste of effort to inform them that the present day world, their world, is based on a gigantic lie which over time has lost nothing of its strength, and looks to be growing even stronger. The present does not care about the past. Ironically, revisionists have become as tiresome as the Jews. After all, we both deal with the same subject, and we never stop dealing with it.

But is there not a grain of wisdom in the general indifference to both the Jewish myths and the revisionist demystifications that oppose them? Is real life not to be found elsewhere than in those revolting Talmudic inventions, whether one takes them at face value or tries to demolish them?

In its present form, revisionism is facing a crisis.

July 6, 2002