Faurisson on Revisionism in 2004

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 4:57 am

Faurisson on Revisionism in 2004

Postby montague » 1 decade 6 years ago (Thu Feb 26, 2004 6:04 am)

From: "Adelaide Institute" <[email protected]> | This is Spam | Add to Address Book
To: "Adelaide Institute" <[email protected]>
Subject: Professor Robert Faurisson's Summing-Up of what Revisionism is all about
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:08:26 +1030


2 February 2004

[To the authors of the brochure Exactitude, Festschrift for Robert Faurisson]

Sombre Appraisal of Historical Revisionism. New Perspective.

On the occasion of my 75th birthday, each of you contributed to this
booklet a piece for which I cannot thank you enough. My gratitude goes first of
all to the two Scandinavian authors who, I am told, had the idea of this
initiative, and then to Germar Rudolf and Robert H. Countess, who took up the task of
gathering these texts and publishing them alongside photographs, some of
which are new to me.

I hope that none of the other contributing authors will hold it against
me if I say that the article by Arthur Robert Butz has particularly captured my
attention. I appreciate its discernment, keen insight and balanced character.
It seems to me that his essay sheds light on my efforts, with regard either
to their successes or their failures, a light that will let the reader better
understand the intellectual adventure on which I have found myself carried off,
as it were, since the 1960s and, especially, from 1974.

At this late hour in my life, the time appears right to draw up, with
forthrightness, an appraisal of revisionism. I shall therefore expose here my
feelings on what, not long ago, I still used to call “the great intellectual
adventure of the late 20th and early 21st centuries”, an adventure that seems to
me to be approaching defeat, at least a temporary one.

In the past I have never nursed illusions on revisionism’s chances. Not
for an instant have I ever believed in its imminent victory, and especially not
in 1996 when, in the midst of the Abbé Pierre-Roger Garaudy tomfoolery, a
weekly magazine, although quite hostile to us, announced on its cover “The
Victory of the Revisionists”. Already in 1993, Serge Thion had produced in his Une
Allumette sur la banquise (“A Match to the Ice-floe”) a book whose title was
free of ambiguity. The ice-floe was that of the dark, immense, cold block of
generally accepted ideas, the match that of his own revisionist work. S. Thion
thought then that neither the light nor the heat of his match risked
illuminating or melting that huge mass of ice. For me, what was true of his attempt was
also true of all other revisionist writings. But, in my scepticism, I still
did not go so far as to imagine the degree of disrepair that, in these last few
years, the revisionism of the “Holocaust” has reached, especially in Europe.
In the early 1980s, Wilhelm Stäglich had confessed to me his pessimism
regarding the future of our common endeavour. That upright man, a judge by
profession, was mindful not to mislead anyone on the subject, above all not his close
friends. It must be said that being German, he was well placed to take full
stock of his country’s defeat and of the victor’s hold on things. He considered
that the pitiless victor had annihilated not only a political regime — like all
regimes a transient phenomenon — but also the very soul and substance of the
great Germanic community. Today Germany, disgraced, insulted and with whom
still no peace treaty has been signed seems to take a growing delight in
recalling her alleged crimes. In truth, the people themselves can find no pleasure in
the practice but no one asks for their opinion. In Germany and Austria the
repression demanded by the Jews is so fierce and so meticulous that I do not see
how revisionism proper might have any chance of success in those forlorn
countries, which find themselves under even fuller submission to the Jewish thought
police than the State of Israel itself. From this point of view, an
intellectual or a historian is far freer in Tel-Aviv or in Jerusalem than in Berlin,
Munich or Vienna.

I shall give only a broad sketch of the current state of revisionism in
the rest of the world. Not one of the countries freed from the Communist yoke
has an active revisionist author. In Russia people are often anti-Jewish, but
revisionism has not moved a single author to call into question the greatest
myth of our time, that of an alleged “Holocaust” of the European Jews; from his
vantage point in Moscow J. Graf may easily note this fact. Spain has had no
more revisionists since Enrique Aynat, her most brilliant, withdrew from the
arena. Greece no longer has any. Italy has only one revisionist author worthy of
the name: Carlo Mattogno. Belgium has hardly any, for Siegfried Verbeke has
withdrawn from the fight and other revisionists are stricken by age or illness.
The government of Switzerland, where revisionism had nonetheless experienced
a revival in recent years after Mariette Paschoud’s abandonment, has employed
the most radical means to kill it off. The Netherlands have never really had
any revisionists. The Scandinavian countries have but a handful and in
Stockholm the heroic Ahmed Rami is more and more isolated in the face of the forces of
repression; following complaints and actions taken by Jews, several of his
website addresses have recently been eliminated from the Internet. Britain no
longer has any revisionists, and certainly none in David Irving who, in recent
years, has more or less rallied to Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s theory according to
which the Germans have a natural propensity for evil, which would explain
their responsibility in the so-called “Hitlerite crimes” (see Adelaide Institute
Online, December 1996, p. 17). During his lawsuit against Deborah Lipstadt he
did not wish to call on revisionists for help, and that cost him dearly: with
a rather weak grasp of the subject, he lost his footing; he made manifold
concessions; to give yet another pledge of good faith to his adversary, he
invoked, as usual, the “Bruns document”, a text devoid of the slightest testimonial
value; physically robust, D. Irving gave the display of a fragile man.

“And in France?”, one may ask. The answer is that in the land of Paul
Rassinier, there are now no more than three or four of us involved in the
business of research or production. If the father of French revisionism were to
return to this world, he would be dismayed at seeing that he had admirers, of
course, but barely a handful of followers ready to repeat after him, clearly and
without the least ambiguity, that the Nazi gas chambers and genocide of the
Jews made up one and the same historical imposture. Still in France, it may be
noted that the vile antirevisionist law, labelled “Fabius-Gayssot”, no longer
sees a single political personality apt to denounce it: Bruno Mégret has just
let it be known that he believes in the “gas chambers” and Jean-Marie Le Pen,
for his part, no longer calls for the repeal of a law that he formerly termed
“freedom-killing”. According to the latest reports, the law is set to be
reinforced and J.-M. Le Pen dare not censure this impudent repeat offence against
the freedom of thought and of research.

In the Arabo-Moslem world, whatever the Jews may tell us, revisionism has
not found a lasting resonance and I am still waiting for a single Palestinian
demonstrator to be allowed by his fellows to wave, instead of the inept
placard with “Sharon = Hitler”, a banner reading: “The ‘Holocaust’ of the Jews is
a Hoax!” or: “Gas Chambers = Bogus!” Australia’s lone real revisionist is
Fredrick Töben. New Zealand is persecuting, as if he were still active, a
half-Jewish semi-revisionist who has long since done penance. South America has no
more active revisionists to speak of. Central America has never had any. The
United States remains the only country in the world where revisionism meets
with some success, but not without many setbacks as well. In Canada, the foremost
revisionist activist, my very dear friend Ernst Zündel, is in a high-security
prison, held in conditions worthy of Guantanamo Bay. In Japan, virulent
Judeo-American interventions have cut short revisionist endeavours. Communist China
should hardly be expected to allow revisionism: the regime there fosters the
myth of the Chinese as being a sort of “Jew”, victim of Japan, a country
formerly allied with Germany; it expects Japan in future to pay indemnities to
China as Germany pays indemnities to the Jews, that is, by the billions and till
the end of time; in harbouring such hopes it is asking for disappointment for,
since in the eyes of the international community, only the Jews really
suffered during the war and, on that account, only they have the right to bleed a
defeated country white or to steal the lands and belongings of others, as they
do in Palestine.

I shall perhaps be accused of defeatism. Some will remind me of
revisionism’s presence on the Internet, asserting that our fiercest adversaries are
alarmed at the progress of revisionism there, a fact that, they will tell me,
ought normally to give me solace.

On the subject of the Internet, I reply that the merits of this
communication technique are undeniable. In future, it is in this quarter that the
revisionists, chased out of all other forums, will have found their last refuge,
although this area of freedom might well, under pressure of Jewish censorship,
shrink away before long. But it must also be admitted that the Internet, in
keeping with the consumerist society, is something of a lure to ensnarement. It
tends to give the illusion of activity both to those who manage websites and to
those who visit them. It snows one under, it lulls. It keeps one glued to the
screen. It numbs. Or else it incites to chatter. Too much daydreaming is done
whilst gazing into the electronic aquarium. People give themselves the
illusion of doing a lot for the cause but, ensconced at the desk, they are above all
enjoying comfort. They find refuge behind the screen or they drown in it.
They no longer take the risk of going before the prison gates or into the
courtroom to support a revisionist in trouble. They no longer distribute fliers or
put up posters. They no longer venture out where — not without physical risk, it
is true — more could be learnt about the adversary, in the flesh: that is, at
the congresses, conferences and demonstrations held against “Holocaust
denial”. They open their wallets for revisionists in need all the less as, on the
Internet, they have made the effort of asking others to open theirs. Thousands
of e-mails carry the call for a general mobilisation outside a revisionist’s
jail, but the number of demonstrators in favour of E. Zündel near Toronto
amounts, the first time, to a total of twelve (organisers included), and the second,
to fifteen.

As to our adversaries’ mad imaginings of the revisionist “beast” which,
they claim, is steadily rising up and spreading its tentacles all the way to
the primary schools and, in particular, to the younger generation of Moslem
background, I reply that one must not be taken in by the show. The Jews have
always been adept at crying wolf or at warning against monsters. As a habit, they
lie about the numbers, the wealth and the power of those whom they hate and
would like to see dead or in prison. For them, the revisionists are the most
unpleasant breed of being and, consequently, in more or less good faith, the Jews
claim to detect the presence of the revisionist spectre in the slightest
verbal divergence, the slightest noise, the slightest encounter. In December 2003
two Jews, Alex Grobman and Rafael Medoff, published the results of their
inquiry into what they call “Holocaust denial in the world”; in appearance, they
have taken in a rich harvest; in reality, an attentive reader will become aware
that the two authors have included the least hint and the least sprig of
information on the subject: using anything that might come to hand, they have
presented a picture of current revisionist activity worldwide that is largely
devoid of substance and fact (“Holocaust Denial: A Global Survey 2003” at

In this respect the example of Lyon is eloquent. That city, with Paris,
is the only one in France where revisionism has ever shone with any lustre
(Nantes got talked about only with regard to the Roques affair which erupted in
1986). A perusal of the Lyon press in early 2004 might lead one to believe that
France’s second city was currently in full revisionist commotion. The local
media constantly bring up the supposed indulgence shown by the Universities
Lyon-II and Lyon-III (especially the latter) to their “Holocaust-denying”
(“négationniste”) professors. But a close look will reveal that the number of these
professors amounts exactly to nought. In reality the anti-Holocaust-deniers,
taken with a near-volcanic fever, and having, for some time now, no longer had
any Holocaust-denier to sink their teeth into, are calling one another deniers
and tearing themselves apart. The spectacle is, at bottom, quite informative:
it demonstrates the extent to which, with the help of the media, monstrosities
can be fabricated from nothing, not even an inception of existence. Observe
how today in Lyon revisionist bogymen are created and you will see how it was
possible to forge the myth of the magical Nazi gas chambers, universally
present in the mind and strictly absent from concrete reality. In Lyon academics,
journalists, politicians, in the face of repeated bursts of anger on the part of
the activist Alain Jakubowicz, himself a lawyer, tremble at the thought of
appearing suspect in the eyes of certain associations, Jewish or non-Jewish.
Perpetually on the hunt and ever in a rage, this individual cries out incessantly
against the scandal of Holocaust-denial and describes the state of things as
if the city, former “capital of the Resistance” (which it never was), had
suddenly become the “capital of revisionism” (which it assuredly is not). And a
whole array of imitators lend their voices to a choir of upholders of the law.
In this choir one or two rightwing professors sing especially well: in the
past, upon finding themselves being called “revisionists”, they protested
vehemently, brought lawsuits, won them, gloried in the success and now would just
barely stop short of proclaiming themselves to be former soldiers in the
anti-Holocaust-denial struggle. In the entire Lyon region one may detect the
presence of a sole revisionist, Jean Plantin. He by no means works at the University
and leads a particularly reserved existence. His main crime is to have earned,
in the early 1990s, degrees in contemporary history which, following a public
campaign, were taken away a decade later but which, nonetheless, had to be
restored at the end of a legal battle finally won in January of this year. It
remains, however, that J. Plantin has been convicted for the publication of
revisionist writings (a press offence!) and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment
without remission, a sentence that he will have to serve if, one day not very
far off, the Cour de Cassation in Paris denies his final appeal. When he had
to go to court for his last hearing, we tried to find some young people in Lyon
who might serve as escort. In a city of 1.2 million, we got hold of only one
volunteer who, without giving any warning, pulled out at the last minute, on
the very day of the hearing. His place had to be taken by a sixty-year-old. Who
could fail to see here yet more proof, material and flagrant, that
revisionism is in tatters? I shall refrain from relating other examples, just as

I do not claim that the revisionism of the “Holocaust” is dead; it will
never die. But its present state is worrying. The disaster appeared before me
in its full extent in June 2002, during the last conference of the Institute
for Historical Review (IHR) in Los Angeles. Nine months previously, the
Americans had had the traumatic experience of September 11th, 2001. At one blow, it
seemed that the whole world had entered both the third millennium and a third
world war. Simultaneously, as in a gigantic tracking out, the second world war
gave the impression of having abruptly vanished from the horizon. Historical
revisionism, whose principal object was precisely that war which had then
become so remote, seemed in its turn to be stepping aside, at least in part. A few
months later, the IHR entered the final phase of a crisis which, one must
admit, had long been endangering its existence.

Other revisionists have picked up the fallen torch. To all of them,
without distinction, I wish success. They will have my support. Whether they are
called, for example, Germar Rudolf, Walter Mueller, Horst Mahler or Heinz Koppe,
they will find me at their side. But on the one condition that they fight for
a revisionism like Paul Rassinier’s, that is, forthright and whole.

The various forms of degenerate revisionism or of compromise do not
interest me. I recognise that some of those among us practise a revisionism
inspired by caution, tactic, strategy or by what they call the sense of
responsibilities; but, for me, all that is only a kind of salon revisionism, pursued in
comfort or in fear. Some other revisionists care too much about what the Jews may
think of them; should they in passing come across a Jew claiming to be
familiar with the revisionists and who goes so far as to offer them his services,
they nearly swoon: “O behold the wondrous Jew! The precious intelligence! The
boundless courage! Whatever we do, let’s not irritate this oh so exceptional Jew
and, if he says he finds it futile to look into the reality or the non
-reality of the gas chambers or the genocide, above all we mustn’t contradict him but
rather emulate his reserve!” Still other revisionists (?), finally, set their
heart on relatively inoffensive points of the history of the Second World War
and its wake and imagine that they can write about individuals (Churchill,
Pétain, Pius XII,…) or events (terrorism, the war waged against civilians, the
deportations throughout the world, the trials organised by the victors…)
without approaching the basic question of the reality or the non-reality of the
“Holocaust”. To these semi-revisionists I shall no longer be offering my
participation. There remains one last category of revisionists, those who find
consolation in noting that previously little-discussed topics are now the subject of
widely selling books; this is the case, for instance, for the positively
atrocious history of the Anglo-American aerial bombardments in Europe and Japan; it
is also the case for the abominable acts committed by the Allies during the
segment of history that they have named “the liberation of nations” and that
was nothing other than brutal occupation, enormous looting, immense
deportations, a concatenation of massacres and a purge that goes on to this day, nearly
sixty years after the end of the war. But this type of literature, interesting
though it may be, does not undermine the Great Taboo of the “Holocaust”. On
the contrary, it has thus far only performed the role of a firebreak for the
taboo and, moreover, does not run its practitioners the risk of finding
themselves in a high-security prison. Here again, let us not talk fiction to each
another; we must not be put off the scent, and must avoid alibis.

“Adolf Hitler’s weapons of mass destruction (the alleged homicidal gas
chambers and gas vans) cannot have existed any more than Saddam Hussein’s
weapons of mass destruction, for both are the stuff of one and the same fabrication
initiated in 1944 by a Jewish front group (the War Refugee Board) and
recycled in 2002 by another Jewish front group (the Office of Special Plans): same
lie, same liars”. There you have the firm and plain stand, brought into line
with the present circumstances, that I think a Paul Rassinier of today would
adopt. As long as Germar Rudolf, Walter Mueller, Horst Mahler, Heinz Koppe and
other revisionists clearly choose this attitude and stay the course, I shall be
at their side. The current calling into question of Saddam Hussein’s alleged
weapons of mass destruction gives them the unhoped-for occasion to renew the
denunciation of the alleged Destruction of the European Jews (title of Raul
Hilberg’s mendacious magnum opus). Those true revisionists have a right to their
own political or religious convictions just as I have a right to be apolitical
and an atheist. They are free to choose their means of leading the struggle
just as I have chosen mine. I ask no one to follow my example. I preach no
doctrine and do not see myself as the custodian of any orthodoxy. On the other hand,
what I expect of them is that, without compromise and without
misrepresentation, they serve the cause of historical revisionism with the same clarity and
courage as Paul Rassinier. On that condition, I shall continue with them the
combat to which I have already devoted at least thirty years of my existence. I
am not a defeatist for, on the contrary, I prescribe an attack vigorously
centred, or re-centred, on the Mother of all lies of our time: the imposture of
the “Holocaust” or “Shoah”. Jean-Paul Sartre debased himself in lying about
Communism: it seems he did so because he did not want to leave “Billancourt”
(that is, the French working class) bereft of hope. Personally, I am not anxious
to know whether what I write encourages or discourages my reader. What
interests me is being and staying as exact as possible.

Such is the taste or the desire for historical exactitude: it persists
even in the final hours of life, even whilst one is hoping for a tranquillity
that one has never known and even when all seems to say that it would be more
reasonable to abandon a one-sided fight.

Note on some minor points: 1) I shall remind A.R. Butz that I published,
in 1980, a Mémoire en défense contre ceux qui m’accusent de falsifier
l’histoire, a book with a foreword by Noam Chomsky; 2) I shall tell F. Töben that his
anecdote of the restaurant (p. 106) shows more of the talent of a novelist
than the circumspection of a historian; 3) I shall remind R.H. Countess that,
for my part, I have never said: “No holes? No gas chambers!” (p.128), but
rather: “No holes ? No ‘Holocaust’!”, since, simply enough, if the alleged Nazi
gas chambers, keystone of the edifice of lies, never existed, it follows that
the alleged “Holocaust” of the Jews cannot be real; 4) I shall point out to E.
Zündel a slight error in dates: the physical assault of which he speaks (p.
130) happened, in fact, a year after the 1988 trial.

Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 3:26 am

Re: Faurisson on Revisionism in 2004

Postby Pogo » 1 decade 6 years ago (Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:19 pm)

The bright side for me is knowing that man is frequently undone by the unintended consequences of his best laid plans.

code yellow
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 8:07 am

Postby code yellow » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sat Feb 28, 2004 12:43 am)

:) He's absolutely right.Although I admire this site for it's courage,let's face it,one of the main reasons why we are all here is because this is one of the few sites that harbors our opinions.It kind of defeats the purpose of a debate site if every one pretty much expresses the same viewpoint.We need to get out into the world and make some noise.When Adolf Hitler joined the party,he didn't like the fact that all they did previous to his joining was gather at the hall and talk about current events.He dared to go out against increadible odds.Well,I am going to a theatre showing The Passion to hand out flyers opposing the protest of the film.

User avatar
Posts: 1715
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Postby Moderator » 1 decade 6 years ago (Mon Mar 01, 2004 2:39 am)

I know Faurisson covered a lot of territory in the initial post here, but let's not get into the origins of WWII and the details of the National Socialists.

Thanks, Moderator
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 3:26 am

A question...

Postby Pogo » 1 decade 6 years ago (Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:50 am)

Moderator wrote:Gents:
I know Faurisson covered a lot of territory in the initial post here, but let's not get into the origins of WWII and the details of the National Socialists.

Thanks, Moderator

It seems to me that it is important to look at the "holocaust" in the context
of the purpose that it serves. In doing this, I think it becomes apparent that it is but one lie in a string of many. Faurisson points this out himself, does he not?

Would it be possible to have a forum where these matters can be discussed in a more generalized fashion?


User avatar
Posts: 1715
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Postby Moderator » 1 decade 6 years ago (Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:55 pm)


You should start a thread which discusses the general impact of the 'holocaust' (or something like that) and have such a discussion.

However, I will not permit wide ranging digressions such as the minutiae of the National Socialists. It must be 'holocaust' connected and that connection must be shown.

Thanks, Moderator
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 1:09 pm

Postby 8x57 » 1 decade 6 years ago (Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:12 pm)

Faurisson's assessment is very disheartening. I almost wish I had not read it, planning, as I am, to attend the April 2004 conference in Sacramento, CA. Apart from the companionship and the exhileration of being with people who are independent and defiant, it's like fiddling on the Titanic while it sinks ever more rapidly beneath the waves.

On the other hand when I see the incredible publicity given to Hutton Gibson and the millions of Christians who defied the Jewish establishment and the ADL to make Mel Gibson's "The Passion" a box office blockbuster, it gives me hope.

Jewish power took a big fall last week.

As dark as things presently look, it is important to keep the spark alive so that it has at least the possiblity of bursting into flame.

Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests