Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
To: "Adelaide Institute" <[email protected]>
Subject: Robert Faurisson adds comments
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:58:11 +0930
At the time, I responded as follows to M. Hoffman : “As for [the] David Irving matter, you are dodging. I hate dodging. Don’t come and say: ‘I choose not to rely on the veracity of the Establishment media’s account.’ There is no question here of any ‘Establishment media’s account’. I gave you the reference; it was a verbatim [one] printed in Adelaide Institute Online. Go and read it. See also the immediate context, the words before and after, with David Irving so typically trying to escape from an ‘Establishment’ interviewer who suddenly reveals to him that his own wife is German and that he did not notice in her such a penchant to evil. Michael, ask Irving yourself! I, for one, do not need to ask him!”
If I personally said that I need not ask D. Irving, it was for reasons that I had set forth to M. Hoffman beforehand in another posting. There I had in particular reminded him that D. Irving had acquired the deplorable habit of using the alleged statements of April 1945 by Generalmajor Walther Bruns, then a prisoner of the British, about the rumours of an enormous massacre of Jews near Riga in 1941. The statements thus attributed to the German general were packed with absurdities; the conditions in which British military security claimed to have garnered such words (thanks to microphones planted in the bushes!) were, for their part, outlandish. When in November 1991 I made the remark to D. Irving at his London home, he disclosed to me that Bruns himself had in fact subsequently denied having said any such nonsense. Unhappily, in the years following 1991, I had to note that D. Irving nonetheless persisted in bringing up the “Bruns testimony” as if it were genuine. That allowed him not to look like a “Holocaust denier” or a “Nazi”. He called this his “trump card”. He has more recently used this marked “trump card” once again, during his lawsuit against Deborah Lipstadt.
To come back to M. Hoffman, I fear that he will henceforth limit himself to a broad and facile condemnation of certain “disgusting characterisations”. I expect that he will go no further than that and will lack the courage to condemn by name all those who, like D. Irving, make use of those “characterisations”, which are, in effect, “disgusting”.
I should like to see a “Holocaust” revisionist find the time some day to draw up a list of all those amongst us, including perhaps myself, who at some moment or other in the adventure of revisionism have, out of fear, weakness, opportunism or ignorance, made blameworthy concessions to the kosher version of Second World War history. Arthur R. Butz, to mention just him, could not appear on such a list for, to my knowledge, at no instant in the course of an exemplary struggle has he yielded in the very least. I hope that in future his example is followed by the part of the revisionist family that remains active.
These alleged 'recorded conversations' are pathetic and easily exposed as frauds.
I too have seen the tendency of some who still want to appease their masters by playing 'holocaust-lite' even though there is no more evidence for their concessions than there is for the points they openly debunk. Irving is classic in that regard, Faurisson has him pegged.
Why accept something there is no evidence for? We must apply logic and science evenly to all aspects of the 'holocau$t' as alleged. There is no reason to throw them a bone.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: fireofice and 7 guests