Paul Rassinier - "Freedom Belongs To Everyone"

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
PLAYWRIGHT
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 262
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 12:17 pm
Location: Milwaukee

Paul Rassinier - "Freedom Belongs To Everyone"

Postby PLAYWRIGHT » 1 decade 3 years ago (Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:26 am)

The more I study this guy, the more impressed I become - not so much with his historical skills, but his sheer humanity.

I would like to be clearly understood. I, too, condemn National Socialism, Fascism, Bolshevism, and in general all doctrines that, on the pretext of arousing a revolutionary spirit, preach insurrection and the seizure of power, by means of subversion by terrorism, doctrines to which, after success has been achieved in a blood bath, their followers are held fast by more or less open, and always ferocious, repression. But my purely philosophical censure is separated by a gulf from the condemnation of legal authority. I disapprove of their conception of life and their methods, but I also disapprove of the use of coercion against National Socialism, Bolshevism, Fascism, etc. to prevent them from expressing themselves, or to send them to the gallows, if by chance they lose the play-off in a tied match. In the name of that special liberty which belonged only to those who had won it, Saint Just killed the French Revolution. Freedom belongs to everyone, even to those who fight against it. All these disoriented people are, furthermore, only the product of disoriented societies, whether it is a question of Spartacus or Hitler, Mussolini or Castro, Lenin or Franco. To call the one lot criminals and the other benefactors is only a political viewpoint, and will not stand up under examination. It is the same sociological problem for all, in that all are morally or philosophically culpable; they are all juridically innocent, which cannot be said of the social structures themselves, which are all morally, philosophically and juridically culpable. As long as there are societies which oppress, there will be rebels to resist with violence, and - alas! - many more rebels who are taken for revolutionaries, than there are true revolutionaries. Therefore, it is societies which must be attacked, not men. The guillotine, according to the wisdom of the ancients, can eliminate the criminal, but not the crime; nothing could be truer.

Paul Rassinier, The Real Eichmann Trial, Chapter III, Conspiracy and Crimes Against Peace

Vlad
Member
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:25 am

Postby Vlad » 1 decade 1 year ago (Tue Oct 21, 2008 6:21 am)

Times columnist David Aaronovitch, not surprisingly, is less enamoured with Rassinier:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 761132.ece

At the weekend I was tidying up some footnotes for my book on conspiracy theories, which is to be published next spring. In one chapter I deal fleetingly with a dead American conspiracist called Harry Elmer Barnes, and mention his affinity with/for a French Holocaust denier called Paul Rassinier. I was after a date and found it after a quick Google, but not before noticing that the Rassinier biography on Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, was a little bit odd. I let it go. Then, yesterday, I read Berners-Lee's comments and returned to the site.

I was right -- righter, in fact, than I had realised. The biography begins with what seems to be a neutral introduction, but is in fact a selective description of Rassinier as a pacifist, activist, as anti-Nazi, a former concentration camp prisoner, and then, at the end of the introduction, comments that Rassinier has “come to be remembered for his views on the Holocaust, which have caused some to call him the ‘father of Holocaust Denial'”. Note that “some”, as opposed to the positive things -- pacifist, activist, prisoner -- that Rassinier can be called without qualification.

What then happens is a process whereby the entry's authors suggest a scholarly neutrality while, at the same time, normalising Rassinier's easily refutable views on the Holocaust. For example, Rassinier believed there was no deliberate Nazi policy of extermination of the Jews and no gas chambers. And we find, in the text, some support for this view cited in the works of “Princeton historian, Arno J. Mayer”. There is a short extract from Mayer's own book, warning readers that “sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable”, that “there is no denying the many contradictions, ambiguities, and errors in the existing sources” and that “most of what is known is based on the deposition of Nazi officials and executioners at postwar trials and on the memory of survivors and bystanders”.

It's pretty clear what you're supposed to take from this: that Rassinier's argument about there being no gas chambers should be taken seriously. So I then Googled Mayer. The first thing I discovered was that exactly this selection of quotes from Mayer's work appeared on Holocaust-denial and neo-Nazi websites. The next thing I found out was that Mayer himself is a deeply controversial historian of the period, having argued that more Jews died of diseases in the camps than were murdered, and that the extermination was more a consequence of Nazi anti-Bolshevism than of anti-Semitism. The first contention is unsupported, the second is ludicrous.

But even given that, the Mayer quote was doctored. Mayer certainly believed that the gas chambers were real and that untold thousands had been killed in the death camps, but the nature of Mayer's qualification was withheld from Wikipedia readers. As was the fact that Rassinier's biographer, Jean Plantin, whose work was used for much of the Wikipedia entry, was fined and given a suspended prison sentence in Lyons in 1999 for Holocaust denial. You have to go to the French edition of Wikipedia to find that out.

So it took me an instinct, one morning, three hours, and a background in this material, to realise that the Rassinier Wikipedia biography -- the first item on Rassinier that appears when you search for his name -- had probably been written by someone with sympathies for the Holocaust denial camp of David Irving. The uninitiated, however, would never know, for not once does this poisonous bias break cover.


One might call this a declaration of edit war.

full text:
From The Times

September 16, 2008

Easily caught in a web of sinister untruths
The inventor of the internet is worried about the spread of conspiracy theories. A quick Google proved him right

David Aaronovitch
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 761132.ece

This, mostly, is the story of one morning spent on the internet, and what I found out. But let me first tell you why I was searching at all.

Yesterday Sir Tim Berners-Lee, one of the genius originators of the World Wide Web, announced the setting up of a new foundation, rather artlessly called the “World Wide Web Foundation”, which body intends to research what has been happening on the internet, and make suggestions on how to improve it. Which is a very good idea.

Anyway, in the lead-up to the foundation of the foundation Sir Tim mentioned his worries about one aspect of weblife, the fact that, using the net, “a cult which was 12 people who had some deep personal issues suddenly find a formula which is very believable - a sort of conspiracy theory of sorts and which you can imagine spreading to thousands of people and being deeply damaging”.

Of course, the dissemination of stupid ideas, and their equation with sensible ones, didn't need the internet. There are books and academics. When I recently referred to the “barking” theories of an American theologian concerning President Bush's supposed complicity in the 9/11 attacks, a senior professional in the psychiatric business wrote to me saying that he had found the theologian's works meticulously researched and “scholarly”.
Background

In fact what they were was “scholarish” in that they referenced dozens of sources and contained hundreds of footnotes. Once you chased down those references and sources you discovered that they were partial, distorted and, very often, referred back to the works of other conspiracy theorists. There was nothing scholarly about them.

The great MMR scare was, largely, a print panic caused by ignorant journalists and media folk who were unable to distinguish between an unsubstantiated theory on the one hand and a scientific consensus built around significant studies on the other. The result was an absolutely unnecessary loss of herd immunity from measles in some communities. Someone should be sued.

The MMR business, like aspects of the climate change debate, was aided by a boneheaded refusal to discriminate between better and worse arguments. On the one hand a scientist says X, on the other hand another one says Y, so X and Y are roughly to be accorded equal respect. You get this in the creationist versus evolution debate. For example one BBC News website item last week, “Who are the British creationists?”, concluded its even-handed coverage of the debate by quoting a creationist vicar saying: “Evolution is a worldview that leads to futility. It's no wonder people are dissatisfied with it.”

But “evolution” is simply not a worldview, It is, rather, the best scientific hypothesis we have, by miles, for how species develop. By contrast both creationism and its sly relative, intelligent design, are readily falsifiable by scientific method. Evolution stands up.

But you know, folks, why don't we just teach people what they want to hear? A bit of intelligent design next to evolution in biology, a bit of flat Earth versus round Earth in physics, a bit of anti-Semitism versus Judaism in RE. That'd be fair.

Speaking of which, here's my tale. At the weekend I was tidying up some footnotes for my book on conspiracy theories, which is to be published next spring. In one chapter I deal fleetingly with a dead American conspiracist called Harry Elmer Barnes, and mention his affinity with/for a French Holocaust denier called Paul Rassinier. I was after a date and found it after a quick Google, but not before noticing that the Rassinier biography on Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, was a little bit odd. I let it go. Then, yesterday, I read Berners-Lee's comments and returned to the site.

I was right - righter, in fact, than I had realised. The biography begins with what seems to be a neutral introduction, but is in fact a selective description of Rassinier as a pacifist, activist, as anti-Nazi, a former concentration camp prisoner, and then, at the end of the introduction, comments that Rassinier has “come to be remembered for his views on the Holocaust, which have caused some to call him the ‘father of Holocaust Denial'”. Note that “some”, as opposed to the positive things - pacifist, activist, prisoner - that Rassinier can be called without qualification.

What then happens is a process whereby the entry's authors suggest a scholarly neutrality while, at the same time, normalising Rassinier's easily refutable views on the Holocaust. For example, Rassinier believed there was no deliberate Nazi policy of extermination of the Jews and no gas chambers. And we find, in the text, some support for this view cited in the works of “Princeton historian, Arno J. Mayer”. There is a short extract from Mayer's own book, warning readers that “sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable”, that “there is no denying the many contradictions, ambiguities, and errors in the existing sources” and that “most of what is known is based on the deposition of Nazi officials and executioners at postwar trials and on the memory of survivors and bystanders”.

It's pretty clear what you're supposed to take from this: that Rassinier's argument about there being no gas chambers should be taken seriously. So I then Googled Mayer. The first thing I discovered was that exactly this selection of quotes from Mayer's work appeared on Holocaust-denial and neo-Nazi websites. The next thing I found out was that Mayer himself is a deeply controversial historian of the period, having argued that more Jews died of diseases in the camps than were murdered, and that the extermination was more a consequence of Nazi anti-Bolshevism than of anti-Semitism. The first contention is unsupported, the second is ludicrous.

But even given that, the Mayer quote was doctored. Mayer certainly believed that the gas chambers were real and that untold thousands had been killed in the death camps, but the nature of Mayer's qualification was withheld from Wikipedia readers. As was the fact that Rassinier's biographer, Jean Plantin, whose work was used for much of the Wikipedia entry, was fined and given a suspended prison sentence in Lyons in 1999 for Holocaust denial. You have to go to the French edition of Wikipedia to find that out.

So it took me an instinct, one morning, three hours, and a background in this material, to realise that the Rassinier Wikipedia biography - the first item on Rassinier that appears when you search for his name - had probably been written by someone with sympathies for the Holocaust denial camp of David Irving. The uninitiated, however, would never know, for not once does this poisonous bias break cover.

One of Berners-Lee's ideas was for a kind of Kitemark - or series of Kitemarks - of website quality. This wouldn't be centrally administered, but, presumably, would be applied by organisations wanting their websites to satisfy certain standards. Certainly widely used sites such as Wikipedia should have some method for expert evaluation and certification or, where sites have not been evaluated, for adding a serious intellectual health warning. Of course people must learn to discriminate themselves, but it would be naive to suppose that they won't need some help. Yesterday's small trawl suggests to me that it can't come a moment too soon.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2362
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 1 year ago (Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:02 pm)

Rassinier is arguably the founder of revisionism, and yet few revisionists have ever read him. Partly because he's so early and cutting edge. To give you an idea of how early: He died in 1967. Butz learned about him in 1969.
In 1969, a short book was published in the United States, The Myth of the Six
Million, attributed to an anonymous author. While some things can be said in fa-
vor of this book, e.g. I learned of Rassinier there, it also contains so many errors
of fact that it illustrates that it is not enough that a book’s thesis be correct, for
quite a few people who used it as a basis for prosecuting public controversy got
burned as a result.

Arthur Butz, Hoax of the 20th Century. page 26


The point being Rassinier wrote revisionist books and died before revisionist pioneer Butz ever heard about him.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9921
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 1 year ago (Tue Oct 21, 2008 3:04 pm)

Judeo-supremacist Aaronovitch makes unsupportable statements:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 761132.ece:
[1] The next thing I found out was that Mayer himself is a deeply controversial historian of the period, having argued that more Jews died of diseases in the camps than were murdered, and that the extermination was more a consequence of Nazi anti-Bolshevism than of anti-Semitism. The first contention is unsupported, the second is ludicrous.

[2] But even given that, the Mayer quote was doctored. Mayer certainly believed that the gas chambers were real and that untold thousands had been killed in the death camps, but the nature of Mayer's qualification was withheld from Wikipedia readers. As was the fact that Rassinier's biographer, Jean Plantin, whose work was used for much of the Wikipedia entry, was fined and given a suspended prison sentence in Lyons in 1999 for Holocaust denial. You have to go to the French edition of Wikipedia to find that out.

1 Aaronovitch engages in fraudulent word play by using the word "extermination" as a set-up. There was no "extermination".
Aaronovitch is embarrassing and utterly wrong. The death books of Auschwitz clearly state cause of death, disease is number one. He cannot produce the names and proof of a single person who was gassed by the Germans, not one. He cannot show us a single, verifiable mass grave as alleged, not one.

2. Doctored? Aaronovitch merely says so. If Mayer really "believed that the gas chambers were real and that untold thousands had been killed in the death camps", then where is the proof? Why would Mayer have said "sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable"?

You gotta love Aaronovitch's use of the term "believed".

Behold, Judeo-supremacist Aaronovitch, a bizarro True Believer.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

PLAYWRIGHT
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 262
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 12:17 pm
Location: Milwaukee

Postby PLAYWRIGHT » 1 decade 1 year ago (Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:20 pm)

Aaronovitch has his own entry on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Aaronovitch

He is the son of a rabid Communist known for publishing anti-American comic books.

His is a college failure who spent a lot of his time engaging in bizarre protests on the debating team, which tells you how serious his debating skills are.

He is also a rabid Zionist, and a big wheel in Communist organizations, famous for his skills as an agitator. That would explain why he doesn’t like Rassinier. A great deal of Rassinier’s writings detail Communist collaboration with the Nazis at Buchenwald and Dora.

In the future, we can expect articles from him that also denounce Captain Christopher Burney, who described the Communist leadership in Buchenwald as “Nazis painted red”. I bet that makes him mad.

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 766
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Postby Breker » 1 decade 1 year ago (Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:45 pm)

on Aaronovitch:
He is the son of a rabid Communist known for publishing anti-American comic books.

His is a college failure who spent a lot of his time engaging in bizarre protests on the debating team, which tells you how serious his debating skills are.

He is also a rabid Zionist, and a big wheel in Communist organizations, famous for his skills as an agitator. That would explain why he doesn’t like Rassinier. A great deal of Rassinier’s writings detail Communist collaboration with the Nazis at Buchenwald and Dora.

One must question the motive of The Times when they sanction and pay this sort.
David Aaronovitch is a writer, broadcaster and commentator on international politics and the media. He writes for The Times Comment page on Tuesdays. He has previously written for The Guardian, The Observer and The Independent, winning numerous accolades, including Columnist of the Year 2003 and the 2001 Orwell prize for journalism. He has appeared on the satirical TV current affairs programme Have I Got News For You and made radio broadcasts on historical topics

Columnist / communist of the Year, numerous accolades? But who gives the accolades and awards? Who decides? What is their criteria and agenda?
Breker

Vlad
Member
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:25 am

Postby Vlad » 1 decade 1 year ago (Tue Oct 21, 2008 8:33 pm)

According to Wikipedia, he failed the German part of his History exams. What more can you say?

gbrecht
Member
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:43 am

Postby gbrecht » 1 decade 1 year ago (Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:53 am)

Does anyone know of any good books by this paul rassinier?

I admit i know little in the way of the holocau$t other than the basics, wouldn't mind learning more.

grenadier
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 9:07 am

Postby grenadier » 1 decade 1 year ago (Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:36 am)

gbrecht:
Does anyone know of any good books by this paul rassinier?

There is an online English translation of what's for me Rassinier's most important work, "The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses".
http://www.ihr.org/main/booksonline.shtml

User avatar
Roscov
Member
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:14 am

Postby Roscov » 1 decade 1 year ago (Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:29 am)

David Aaronovitch is a writer, broadcaster and commentator on international politics and the media. He writes for The Times Comment page on Tuesdays. He has previously written for The Guardian, The Observer and The Independent, winning numerous accolades, including Columnist of the Year 2003 and the 2001 Orwell prize for journalism. He has appeared on the satirical TV current affairs programme Have I Got News For You and made radio broadcasts on historical topics


Now that just makes me laugh at the irony! :lol: :lol:


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest