The UN decides a universal ban on revisionism

On November 1st, unanimously and without a vote, the representatives of the 191 nations making up the UN adopted – or let be adopted – an Israeli-drafted resolution proclaiming January 27th “International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust”. Moreover, the resolution Rejects any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full or in part. Historical revisionism thus sees its existence acknowledged by the whole world, a fact proving that it has some life in it, but, at the same time, this decision means that the revisionists find themselves struck with the reprobation of all the countries of the world. As for the State of the Vatican, which has no seat at the UN, it had, as early as in 1992, declared: “There is no historical revisionism that can call into question the inhuman abyss of the Holocaust” (“Non c’è revisionismo storico che possa rimettere in discussione l’abisso disumano dell’Olocausto”) (L’Osservatore Romano, 7 November 1992).

The history of human societies and religions is rich in prohibitions, bannings, excommunications but, whereas, up to a recent past, the victims could, at least in principle, hope to find a refuge outside of their land or group of origin, here the condemnation is, for the first time ever, of universal character. It is thus confirmed that historical revisionism is a phenomenon of exceptional nature and also that the Jews, yet once more, have been able to obtain exorbitant privileges.

A sleight of hand by the Jews

It was through a sleight of hand that the Israeli delegation succeeded in getting this resolution passed. It proceeded in a manner like that of certain associations which, in France, under cover of a campaign against paedophilia, have obtained a law prohibiting, on the Internet, communication relating to paedophilia and to revisionism! To begin, they asked: “Is paedophilia not a horror in itself?” The response was “yes”. Their second step was to add: “Is paedophilia on the Internet not to be banned by a specific law?” The response, there again, was “yes”. As a third step the associations concluded: “Let’s fight, accordingly, to obtain a law against paedophilia and revisionism [which they called ’negationism’]”. For his part, the President of the General Assembly, the Swede Jan Ellasion, had the deftness on November 1st to ask orally whether anyone was opposed to the resolution aimed at commemorating the “Holocaust”. No hands being raised, he declared, without prior recourse to a vote of any kind, that the resolution was thereby adopted, the text of which contained in one of its provisions the condemnation of any form of “Holocaust” revisionism. The draft was approved by the United States in utter disregard of the guarantees of freedom of opinion provided by the first amendment to its constitution. And, most remarkably, this Israeli text was accepted by the Arabo-Moslem countries, including Iran. All those present approved, or let pass with soft verbal restrictions, a resolution originating from the Jews that goes so far as to condemn the right of free research on a historical subject. The UN act assumes only a political and not a juridical character. Still, since it provides that the Secretary General will have to report on the measures subsequently taken within the framework of the resolution, the revisionists will have reason to fear consequences for themselves of a judicial or administrative nature, for instance, as regards border and airport police, authorisation to enter and stay in certain countries or the issuing of visas. The resolution will serve morally to justify and facilitate extradition measures taken against revisionists. Precedents are not lacking, what with 1) the European arrest warrant; 2) the virtual handing over of revisionist René-Louis Berclaz by Serbia to Switzerland; 3) the handing over of revisionist Ernst Zündel by the United States to Canada, then by Canada to Germany; 4) the handing over of Belgian revisionist Siegfried Verbeke by the Netherlands to Germany; 5) the handing over of revisionist Germar Rudolf to Germany by the United States. In Austria, on November 11, the semi-revisionist David Irving, a British citizen, was arrested by traffic police on a motorway and is now in detention in Vienna. For any noted revisionist it is already risky to leave the confines of his home country. In doing so, he exposes himself to a request for extradition made to the country of transit by either Israel or Germany. There is at present a bill in committee at the Knesset that will authorise Israel to demand the handing over of any revisionist in order to bring him before a court, sitting in Jerusalem, that will apply the 1986 Jewish anti-revisionist law against him.

The Jewish State’s offensive

A fortnight ago, Philippe Bolopion, United Nations correspondent for Le Monde, wrote a particularly informative article on the successes achieved at the UN by the Jewish State since June 2004 (“L’offensive de charme d’Israël à l’ONU rencontre un certain succès”, Le Monde, November 4, 2005, p. 3). He listed six recent accomplishments of that State: 1) in June 2004, Kofi Annan called for an acknowledgement “that the United Nations’ record on anti-Semitism has at times fallen short of our ideals”; 2) in October of the same year, a resolution including a condemnation of antisemitism was adopted; 3) in January 2005, a special session of the General Assembly marked the 60th anniversary of “the liberation of the death camps”; 4) in June, an Israeli ambassador was elected vice-president of the General Assembly – the first Israeli in fifty-three years; 5) in September, on a visit to the UN for a gathering of heads of state and government, Ariel Sharon shook hands with Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, while the Israeli delegation made numerous new contacts; 6) in October, the Security Council was quick to condemn the Iranian calls, which were nothing new, for the Jewish State to be erased from the map.

The Jewish State’s incomparable gall

These successes are all the more striking as no nation in the world has made fun of the UN like “Israel”, a state that, however, owes its creation to the UN. The Jewish State, with an incomparable gall (in Jewish parlance: chutzpah), has thrown a record number of United Nations “resolutions” straight into the bin. In violation of international law, this State, founded on the colossal lie of the “Holocaust”, practises colonialism, racism, apartheid, military occupation and torture. We may add that it possesses an arsenal of atomic weapons and on this score has, for example, in the last few years been supplied by Germany, free of charge, in the name of the said “Holocaust”, with three ultra-modern submarines fitted out for nuclear armament. The collusion between, on the one hand, the Jewish State and armed forces and, on the other hand, the German State and armed forces has become such that the German mail service has just released a stamp, for the most regular rate of postage, depicting, on the left, the Israeli flag, then, on the right, the German flag and, finally, linking the two, a strand of barbed wire, symbol of the perpetual “Holocaust”. Germany is becoming the Jewish State’s “Guantanamo”.

On October 5, 2003, Israeli ambassador to the UN Dan Gillerman had warned the Security Council members that the God of the Jews was “watching” them and, on July 16, 2004, annoyed at the behaviour of some Arab states, flung the remark at his colleagues in the General Assembly that things had “reached a point where the inmates are running the asylum”. On the other hand, on October 31 of this year, he said that he was “moved” when presenting the “Holocaust Day” text, his country’s first successful draft resolution ever. He declared: “I feel moved and privileged to present this historic resolution today, as an Israeli, a Jew, a human being and a child of a family of Holocaust victims”. That is understandable. The next day, the “adoption” of his resolution marked the triumph of the “Holocaust” sham. For the occasion, one may say that as far as gall, dishonest procedure, spirit of domination and intolerance are concerned, the Jewish State has outdone itself.

This extraordinary UN resolution also constitutes proof that historical revisionism is a reality that can no longer be bypassed, denied or played down. Its notoriety has become global. Still, let us take care to recognise that the revisionist researchers who remain active are now but a handful and, with each passing year, their future grows darker.

November 17, 2005