It’s Time the Arab Leaders Ended Their Silence on the ‘Holocaust’ Imposture

Robert Faurisson

Five introductory remarks:

1. I do mean “the leaders,” and not: “the intellectuals, the academics, the journalists,” some of whom have already expressed themselves on the matter;
2. The word “Holocaust” (always to be placed in quotation marks) designates the triple myth of the alleged genocide of the Jews, the alleged Nazi gas chambers, and the alleged number of six million Jewish victims of the Second World War. In the course of a history full of fury, blood, and fire, humanity has known a hundred holocausts, that is, appalling losses of human life or bloody catastrophes (presented, at the origin of the word’s use in this manner, as a sort of offering demanded by some superior forces); but our contemporaries have been conditioned to keep in mind only one holocaust, that of the Jews; it is written today with a capital letter, and has become unique: there is no longer the need to add “of the Jews.” None of the previous holocausts has given rise to any financial indemnity, reparation, or compensation to match that which the Jews have claimed and obtained for a catastrophe, or “Shoah,” which they describe as unique and unprecedented, and which would indeed be so if its three components (genocide, Nazi gas chambers, and six million victims) had been real. If many European Jews suffered and died during the war, without that suffering amounting to what today’s Jews mean by the term “Holocaust,” many other peoples and communities, in particular the Germans, the Japanese, the Russians, and the Chinese, suffered, in reality, a fate far worse than that of the Jews; let us but think of the phosphorous- or nuclear-fueled firestorms in which at least a million Germans and Japanese met an atrocious death (and what of the wounded and mutilated?). It is, moreover, fitting to add that millions of European Jews survived this alleged policy of physical extermination to go on to enjoy, after the war, a power and a prosperity without precedent in their history. To privilege, as is thus done nowadays, the alleged “Holocaust” is to inflate Jewish suffering beyond all measure in both quality and quantity and to reduce, in direct proportion, the suffering of all others, none of whose ordeals receives even so much as a specific name;
3. Imposture is an imposed lie; here it is a question of a historical lie, meaning that, forged by liars or fabricators of outlandish tales, it has subsequently been adopted by an ever-expanding number of people who, in good faith or bad, have peddled it; in the event, we are thus dealing with a tiny number of liars and a plethora of peddlers;
4. The opposite of such a lie, fabricated or peddled, is the factual truth. Still, as the word “truth” is vague and overused, I prefer “exactitude.” Revisionism consists in trying to examine and correct what is generally accepted, with a view to establishing with exactitude the nature of an object; the reality of a fact; the worth of a figure; the authenticity, the veracity, and the import of a text or document;
5. Zionism is an ideology, while revisionism is a method. As a revisionist I shall be making a judgment less of Zionism itself (at the dawn of the twenty-first century) than on the use which it makes of the “Holocaust” imposture.

If the leaders of the Muslim states planned to quit their silence on this imposture and if, in so doing, they put a challenge to the Jewish and Zionist lobby, they would obviously need first a) to assess the adversary correctly, then b) to decide on an appropriate strategy and, finally, c) to determine the exact area on which to concentrate their attacks. To discuss these three points, I shall divide my talk into three parts.

In a first part, in order to avoid any mistakes as to the opponents’ identity and to ensure that they are correctly sized up, I shall expound on what are, in my view, the seeming weak points of the Jews and Zionists, then on their true weak points. In a second part, concerning the strategy to adopt, I shall sum up certain conclusions that I reached, in November 2000, during my visit to Teheran, in the company of representatives of the Center of Strategic Studies of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Finally, in a third part, I shall designate the precise target to hit: “the magical Nazi gas chamber” (as Louis-Ferdinand Céline put it).

I. The Jewish and Zionist Adversary

A deceitful adversary may display fears that he does not really feel. He may expose to the view of all certain weak points which in fact are not such and try to hide what it is that causes him real disquiet. In so doing he will be attacked where it does not bother him in the least, and be spared an attack that would truly do him harm. Here, the adversary is almost indifferently Jewish or Zionist. The Jews are undeniably diverse (“Two Jews, three synagogues,” says the Yiddish proverb) and, politically speaking, they have never formed a single bloc, not even against Hitler; but, without Jews, there is no Zionism (“Zionism is to the Jew what the hammer is to the carpenter,” as Ahmed Rami thinks) and, except for some rare instances, the Jew will feel solidarity with the Zionist and the Zionist with the Jew if both notice that their common “Holocaust” myth is in peril; this is why the distinction that usually deserves to be made between the two hardly belongs here.

a) The adversary’s false fears and seeming weak points:

1. Despite their display of fear of a military attack on the state of Israel, the Zionists who rule that state and the Diaspora Jews who support them do not really dread the enemy’s military strength, for they know that the enemy in question will always be outclassed by the Israeli army, thanks to the technology and money supplied from abroad, especially by the Americans and the Germans;
2. They do not really fear the variety of anti-Judaism improperly called anti-Semitism; on the contrary, they feed on it; they need to be able to cry out against anti-Semitism, if only to collect more money in the Diaspora; in general, moaning is of vital necessity to them: “The more I sob, the more I get; the more I get, the more I sob”;
3. Jews and Zionists are not really afraid of the Jewish denunciations of “Shoah business” and the “Holocaust industry” made by the Peter Novicks, Tim Coles, or Norman Finkelsteins, for there it is a matter, paradoxically, of more or less kosher denunciations in which care is taken to show reverence for the “Holocaust” itself; it will be noted, moreover, that if the industrial or commercial exploitation of the real or supposed sufferings of the Jews constitutes a lucrative line of business, criticism of this exploitation has over the last few years become another such line; but these two lines of business, especially the latter, happen to be strictly reserved for Jews; they are “off limits,” and a Gentile who ventured to imitate Finkelstein in his denunciation of the “Holocaust” mafia would immediately be set upon by a pack of its watchful henchmen;
4. They do not really fear anti-Zionism as such; at times they even authorize its expression;
5. In particular, they have not much cause to worry about a now commonplace form of anti-Semitism which consists in attacking all of the founding myths of Israel except that which has become essential for them: the “Holocaust”;
6. They need not be anxious about accusations of racism, imperialism, and Judeo-Nazism since such accusations, even if at times founded, resemble ritual, mechanically uttered slogans, coined in outdated language. To see the Jews being compared to Hitler, then hear it said that the Zionists are, like the Nazis, carrying out a policy of “genocide” is not altogether disagreeable to the Jews and Zionists, for it serves to reinforce the images of Hitler and the Nazis that they themselves have succeeded in fabricating; this helps them to fix firmly in all minds the illusion, first and foremost, of a “genocide” of the Jews. In reality, Hitler was no more a monster, as his Jewish enemies claim, than was Napoleon an “ogre,” as English propaganda used to have it. Although a racialist, and hostile to internationalist Jews (but not to Zionist ones), Hitler never ordered or allowed the killing of anyone on account of his or her race or religion; moreover, his military tribunals or courts martial meted out sentences – sometimes the death sentence – to German soldiers, officers, or civil servants who had been found guilty of killing a single Jewish man or woman (even in regard to acts committed, during the war, in Poland, Russia, or Hungary); here is a point of history that has been shrouded by the exterminationist historians and regrettably overlooked by revisionist authors. If Hitler had been such a monstrous racist as described, never would so prestigious an Arab and Muslim personality as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (the Palestinian Haj Amin al Husseini) have remained on his side until the end. Despite the episode of the Germano-Soviet pact (August 1939–June 1941), Hitler was essentially hostile to Stalinism and to what he called, because of the decisive Jewish contribution to Bolshevism, “Judeo-Bolshevism.” The German soldier, like the European, Russian, Asian, or Muslim volunteer who fought beside him, had but Moscow-style Communism as his essential enemy;
7. Although they pretend the contrary, the Jews and Zionists laugh – not without reason – at those who talk of a “Jewish plot” or a “conspiracy of Auschwitz,” since there is no “Jewish plot” (any more than a Masonic, Jesuit, papal, American, or Communist plot) but a Jewish power, or influence; in the same manner, there is no “Auschwitz conspiracy” but rather an Auschwitz lie; incidentally, ideas of plot or conspiracy, dear to the Jewish tradition, ought to remain the privilege of the latter; we should be wrong to turn to them.

b) The adversary’s true fears and actual weak points:

1. In Israel-Palestine, Jews and Zionists truly fear the weapons of the poor (children’s stones, their slingshots like that of David against the giant Goliath, the suicide attacks), and all that may endanger persons and business; they fear a demeaning of their image; they dread having to choose one day between the suitcase and the coffin;
2. But they are above all apprehensive of “the poor man’s atomic bomb,” that is, the disintegration, by historical revisionism, of the lie of the gas chambers, the genocide, and the six million; they dread this weapon that kills no one but that would not fail, if properly used, to explode their Big Lie like a bag of hot air;
3. They fear seeing revealed before the eyes of the world that it is the imposture of the “Holocaust” that permitted, in the wake of the Second World War, the creation in the land of Palestine of a Jewish colony called Israel, and this at a time when, throughout the globe (except in the Communist empire), a gigantic decolonization movement was well under way;
4. They know that to lose the “Holocaust” is to lose the sword and the shield of Israel as well as a formidable instrument of political and financial blackmail; Yad Vashem, which, in Jerusalem, is a “Holocaust” memorial and museum all in one (now undergoing expansion), is still more precious to them than the Wailing Wall; every foreign personality who visits Israel for political or financial dealings is, before all other business, obliged to call at this museum of horrors so as to be well imbued with a feeling of guilt which will render him more malleable; sometimes there is a dispensation from this formality for representatives of those rare nations which the Jews and Zionists, try as they might, cannot rebuke for an active or passive role in the alleged “Holocaust”; it is then amusing to notice the Israeli officials complaining about the difficulty in dealing with partners whom they have not been able to condition beforehand;
5. They are aware that “were the Holocaust shown to be a hoax, the number one weapon in Israel’s propaganda armory disappears [sic]” (letter of W. D. Rubinstein, professor at Deakin University, Melbourne, in Nation Review, June 21, 1979, p. 639);
6. They know only too well of “the fact that, if the Holocaust can be shown to be a ‘Zionist myth,’ the strongest of all weapons in Israel’s propaganda armory collapses” (the same academic in “The Left, the Right and the Jews,” Quadrant, September 1979, p. 27);
7. They nearly faint at the thought that the general public might finally learn of the sum of iniquities represented by all the purges: the cases brought in the style of the judicial masquerades of Nuremberg; the confessions extorted on the subject of gas chambers or gas vans which had, in fact, never existed; or the further confessions about implausible killings imputed to the Einsatzgruppen; the hunting down of old men, even patients in homes for the aged, more than half a century after their alleged crimes; the indoctrination of all minds, from primary school to university, in books, newspapers, on radio and television, on every continent, morning, noon, afternoon, evening, night; all this is accompanied by a fierce repression of the revisionists, carried on especially in a Germany subjugated to its conquerors (and with which no peace treaty has yet been signed); these revisionists have committed the awful crime of simply demanding the right to verify either staggering accusations devoid of proof or testimonies received as truthful, albeit in the absence of examination and cross-examination concerning the material nature of the purported facts and without, beforehand, a single investigation of the alleged weapon of the alleged crime;
8. To sum up, the nightmare of these Jews and Zionists would be to have to hear repeated everywhere a certain sixty-word sentence pronounced on the air more than twenty years ago on Radio Europe 1, before the journalist Yvan Levaï, by a French revisionist, disciple of Paul Rassinier. Here is that sentence which, at the time, was to earn me a heavy fine in a Paris court:

The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle the main beneficiaries of which are the state of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.

II. How to Wage the Struggle to End This Silence

1. In November 2000, I spent a week in Iran at the invitation of the Center of Strategic Studies, a body directly attached to the office of the president of the Islamic Republic, Mr. Mohammed Khatami. I had no contact with the country’s press, radio, or television, but only with a few personalities who were well-informed about revisionism. I delivered no public lecture but enjoyed an interview of several hours with the head of the Institute for Scientific Political Research, Professor Soroush-Nejad, and a few of his colleagues. There again, I was struck by the knowledge of revisionism that certain Iranians could have. At about that time, the Swiss revisionist Jürgen Graf made his appearance in Iran, and I am indeed pleased that, some months later, thanks to his intense activity and to the contacts which I, at my end, had maintained with the Iranian authorities after returning to France, the Teheran Times undertook the publication of a series of revisionist articles, the first of which was to bear the signature of Professor Soroush-Nejad.
2. In exchange for the information which I had been able to provide him, I asked my main partner in discussion within the Center why, up to the present, revisionism seemed not to have found much of an echo in the Arab and Muslim countries. He willingly listed eight reasons. Some of these, in light of the quite recent events in Palestine, appeared to each of us, by and by, to be no longer valid; others seemed to be imputable to misunderstandings; other reasons, in the end, unhappily retained all of their force, in particular the following: in the Western countries, who ought to preach by example before complaining of the silence of others, there were but a laughably small number of revisionists who had resolutely committed themselves, in their own names and without any reservations or skilful maneuvering, to following the road opened up by Rassinier;
3. I attempted to explain that this deplorable record was largely due to what one must call the fear (metus Judaeorum) inspired everywhere by the groaning and threatening Jew (which Cicero felt in 59 B.C.). I added that no political figure of today, be he Iranian, Lebanese, Chinese, or Japanese, could avoid feeling this fear in the face of a community so rich and powerful in the Western world that its leaders have the means with which, at any moment, to invade the media with their grievances and recriminations in order to demand, in the end, the economic boycott of whichever nation’s leaders failed to make a rapid enough act of “repentance” or resisted Jewish demands;
4. I then went over the reasons why the leaders of the Muslim states must nonetheless, as a proper policy, quit their silence and how, in my opinion, they could do so. I shall not expound on those reasons here but shall in the following words sum up my feelings as to the path to follow: one or more of these leaders should cross the Rubicon resolutely and, above all, without the least thought of turning back. My long experience of the Jews or Zionists in this regard has convinced me that the hoaxers are disconcerted by the hardiness of anyone who dares to confront them in the open. Just as the false witness, if one can catch his glance, must be questioned eye to eye, so must the Edgar Bronfmans, the Elie Wiesels, the Simon Wiesenthals (the latter two hate and envy one another more Judaico), or the rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, be defied in direct proportion to their habitual threats;
5. I warned my hosts against the temptation to resort, be it only at the first stages, to a form of bastardized revisionism; here again, experience has proved that wet-dog revisionism leads to defeat. One must also, in order to take a firmly revisionist stand, be well acquainted with the physical, chemical, documentary, and historical argumentation of revisionism. I reminded them, for example, that the myth of the alleged Nazi gas chambers had already died on February 21, 1979, when, in the daily Le Monde, thirty-four French historians showed themselves to be unable to take up my challenge concerning the technical impossibilities of those absurd chemical slaughterhouses. The general public is unaware of that event, just as it is unaware of the succession of defeats and debacles suffered by the “Holocaust” historians in their entirety since 1985 (the date of the first Zündel trial in Toronto). It is now up to the leaders of the Muslim states to bring out into the light of day information like this, which is still being kept under a bushel;
6. In these different countries, institutes of history, sociology, or political studies ought to equip themselves with a section specializing in historical revisionism. Research resources and archives would enable scholars from around the world who have been chased out of their respective countries’ universities, centers of research, or libraries because of their revisionist opinions or tendencies to come to work at the side of their colleagues of the Muslim lands. The various ministries of education, research, culture, foreign affairs, and information would collaborate on this project of international scope;
7. If one takes into account the fact that the “Holocaust” religionists harbor and maintain not only lies but also hatred, it will seem appropriate to plan the establishment on an international level of a “movement against the imposture of the ‘Holocaust’ and for friendship among peoples”;
8. It would be fitting to try to bring some equilibrium to the balance of forces in international relations by inviting the political or diplomatic personnel of the great powers to show more modesty; these people, who never spare the rest of the world their morality lessons, should be reminded that they themselves bow a bit too low before an international mafia that specializes in lies, swindles, and contempt for human rights; the so-called international community, which constantly invokes those rights, should re-establish them in the cases of revisionists before rebuking the Arab or Muslim countries for intolerance or obscurantism. Such accusations could easily be turned against those states which, intolerant of challenges to a legend become official history and now protected by special laws, forbid their citizens from casting light on certain historical subjects;
9. A new and powerful medium of information, the Internet, allows an accelerated diffusion of revisionism (see, in particular, the sites attributed to Ahmed Rami, with their sections in Arabic); here is a chance for the Arab and Muslim intellectuals, overly influenced by the dominant ideology in the Western universities where they have often been educated, to become detoxified from the “Holocaust” drug;
10. In sum, the feeling of grave disquiet shown by the Jewish and Zionist leaders in the face of both the Intifada of young Palestinians living in destitution and of the activities of revisionists possessing nowhere near the economic or financial resources at the disposal of the Great “Holocaust” Mafia reminds one of the ancestral fear that the rich feel in the face of the poor, the colonizers before the colonized, and the masters at the sight of their slaves. The Jewish and Zionist leaders groan, threaten, and strike. They see themselves as rich (never rich enough, of course), armed with all sorts of weapons (including blackmail and racketeering as well as military weapons), and they know how to make themselves feared by all the leaders of the most privileged nations; they are, in particular, aware that the German leaders are devoted to them, willing even to expend the blood of German soldiers against the foes of Israel, and ready to intensify their repression of revisionism all the more unmercifully. Yet Jews and Zionists are haunted by the thought of having to confront the courage of those who no longer have anything to lose in the double Intifada, Palestinian and revisionist. The rich and mighty are enraged to see that they can be defied as they are by the Palestinians, armed only with stones, and by the revisionists, armed only with pens.

III. The Main Target: ‘The Magical Gas Chamber’ (Céline)

Let us learn to take aim. Let us not scatter our efforts. Let us apply ourselves to setting our attention on the center of the adversary’s operation. The center of the huge edifice forming the religion of the “Holocaust” is none other than the Auschwitz lie. And the heart of the Auschwitz lie is, in turn, the prodigious “gas chamber.” That is where we must aim. Placards waved by Palestinian or other Arab demonstrators bearing the words “The ‘Holocaust’ of the Jews is a lie,” or “The six million are a lie,” would of course worry the “extor-Zionists,” but those formulations are still too vague; they are less vivid, less precise, and less striking than “The gas chambers are a lie.”

No one is able to show us, at Auschwitz or anywhere else, even one of these chemical slaughterhouses. No one is capable of describing to us their exact appearance and workings. Neither a trace nor a hint of their existence is to be found. Not one document, not one study, not one drawing. Nothing. Nothing but some occasional, pitiful “evidence,” which vanishes, like a mirage, as soon as one draws near, and which the Jewish historians themselves, in recent years, have finally been obliged to repudiate. Sometimes, as at Auschwitz, tourists are shown around an alleged “reconstituted” gas chamber, but the historians, and the Auschwitz museum authorities too, know quite well that, in the words of the French anti-revisionist historian Eric Conan, “Everything in it is false” (“Auschwitz : la mémoire du mal,” L’Express, January 19–25, 1995, p. 68).

Still, the Jews are lucky. They are believed on their word. Almost nobody asks to see the technological prodigy that a Nazi gas chamber would have been, a veritable large-scale chemical slaughterhouse. Imagine that someone has told you about an airplane capable of transporting two or three thousand passengers from Paris to New York in one half hour (according to the exterminationist vulgate, in a single alleged gas chamber at Auschwitz, a batch of two or three thousand Jews could be killed in half an hour). Would you not, in order to begin to believe it, demand to see at least an image of something that would constitute a technological leap forward such as science has never known? Are we not in an age of exact sciences and of the audio-visual? Why this sudden shyness when it comes to our gas chamber?

The peddlers have an easy game. They show you the equivalent of either your garage or your shower and tell you: “Here is the place where the Germans gassed the Jews in groups of a hundred or a thousand.” And you believe it. You are shown human hair like that which you could see at a barber’s or a wig maker’s and told, without the least proof, that it is the hair of gassing victims. You are offered shoes and they are labeled “shoes of gassing victims.” You are presented with photographs of dead bodies and you believe that you see victims of gassing. You are made to shudder at the sight of crematory ovens which are in fact perfectly unexceptional. There exists a very simple means by which to show that we are being fooled about the prodigious yields of German crematory ovens in the 1940s: it is simply to compare them to the present-day yield of the most modern crematoria.

I also know an irrefutable way to prove that the alleged gas chambers for the killing of Jews with hydrogen cyanide gas could not have existed: it entails visiting today, as I myself did in 1979, the execution gas chamber of an American penitentiary, or otherwise acquainting oneself with the highly complex nature of the gas chamber, its very complicated structure, and the quite draconian procedure of an execution by gassing, in the 1940s or ’50s, in the prisons of Carson City, Nevada; Baltimore, Maryland; or Parchman, Mississippi; to be precise, those executions were and still are carried out with hydrogen cyanide gas. They are so dreadfully dangerous for the executioners that the putting to death of one individual requires drastic precautions and a most complex technology (quite aside from the recently achieved sophistication due either to technological progress or to a multitude of safety measures).

On the alleged Nazi gas chambers, let us listen to … Céline! I hold Louis-Ferdinand Céline (1894–1961) to be the loftiest genius of French literature in the twentieth century. His force, his finesse, his clear-sightedness were incomparable. His life, unhappily, was largely one of hardship. From the day in 1937 when he began to display the fear of seeing a new world war flare up, he brought on his own doom. Seriously wounded during the First World War, he feared a new butchery with all his body and soul. France’s Jews, for their part, did not see things that way. Most of their leaders clamored for a crusade against Hitler. Céline then condemned their feverish desire to punish Germany, their frantic warmongering. He foresaw the catastrophe, and later, when Great Britain and France had taken it upon themselves to go to war with Germany, he could only remark in what “fine bed-sheets” France was lying. In 1944, he narrowly escaped the summary justice then being administered, in particular, by Jews and Communists. He fled to Germany in its agony of the final months of the war, then to Denmark, where for nearly a year and a half he was imprisoned in the worst conditions. When he eventually returned to France, it was to live the life of an outcast. France is a particularly cruel land for its great writers. It is still the case today, sixty years after their respective publication in 1937, 1938, and 1941, that three of his works, masterly satires detested by the Jews, remain prohibited de facto. No law, in principle, prevents their republication, but everyone knows that the Jewish organizations would go on the warpath should Céline’s widow, still living, authorize their appearance. Such is the unwritten law of the modern Talmud.

Other examples of this Jewish privilege are well known. Thus, to cite the case of an academic guilty of having once written a revisionist sentence, Bernard Notin has, since 1990, been prohibited from lecturing at his faculty at the University of Lyon. No law has been passed, no judicial or administrative decision has been issued, that would render this prohibition official. Today, at the same university, it is the turn of Professor Jean-Paul Allard to be branded with the mark of Cain for having presided, more than fifteen years ago, during the oral examination of a revisionist doctoral candidate. A great hue and cry has been mounted against Allard.

Formerly, if one remarked to the Jews that they tracked down the revisionists like wild animals, they would protest, boldly denying anything of the sort. But times have changed. The Jews no longer conceal this practice of theirs, and proudly assert responsibility for such violent actions. On March 1, 2001, the weekly Actualité Juive headed one of its articles: “La chasse à Jean-Paul Allard est ouverte” (“The Hunt for Jean-Paul Allard Is On”). The contents of the piece amounted to an incitement to kill. The Jewish organizations cynically intend to make themselves feared, and it is correct to say, today more than ever, “metus regnat Judaeorum” (fear of the Jews reigns). In Allard’s case they seem to be reaching their goal: just recently, this professor, exhausted by the chase, has been hospitalized for a stroke and has lost his capacity for normal speech. Lately the Jews and their friends have also succeeded in attempts to have the revisionist Serge Thion, sociologist and historian of merit, removed from his post at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), and this by means of a procedure so openly arbitrary that the most arrogant of employers would not use it against his humblest employee, lest he have to pay heavy damages. I shall say nothing of the suffering endured by the revisionists who have fought openly, in their own name, the most admirable of them being, for his intelligence and his heart, in my view, the German Ernst Zündel. For forty years a resident of Canada, he has waged a titanic struggle against the international “Holocaust” lobby, aiming in particular to obtain justice for his maligned homeland. Without him revisionism would have continued to live in semidarkness. But one cannot swim up the Niagara Falls, and, in the face of an almighty coalition of political, financial, and judicial forces, Zündel has recently been obliged, in spite of several brilliant victories, to leave Canada. In his new exile, he continues, with the aid of his German-American wife, Ingrid Rimland, to fight for a just cause.

If, towards the end of this talk, I have called to mind the lofty figure of the author of Journey to the End of Night, it is because Céline, by one of his customary strokes of genius, had already suspected, just five years after the war, that the alleged physical extermination of the Jews might be but a fable, a work of trickery. It must be said that from 1945 on, floods of Jews from Central Europe, who were thought to have been exterminated, headed for France, when they had not headed for other Western countries or for Palestine; in France, they had just reinforced a Jewish community of which four fifths were spared the wartime deportation measures. In November 1950, upon a reading of Paul Rassinier’s first sizeable work, Le Mensonge d’Ulysse, Céline wrote to his friend Albert Paraz:

Rassinier is certainly an honest man […]. His book, admirable, is going to cause quite a stir – after all, it tends to cast doubt on the magical gas chamber! no small matter! A whole world of hatreds is going to be compelled to yelp at the Iconoclast! It was everything, the gas chamber! It permitted everything!

As for us, we can only admire this lucid and scintillating vision of things, this foresight.

Yes, the gas chamber really is “magical.” As I have often remarked, no one, in the end, has proved capable of showing or even of drawing one in reply to my challenge, “Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber!” No one has been able to explain its operation to us. No one has been able to tell us how, at Auschwitz, the Germans could pour pellets of Zyklon B, a powerful hydrogen cyanide-based insecticide, into alleged holes made in the roof of the “gas chamber,” for this alleged gas chamber (in reality, a cold storage room for corpses awaiting cremation) has, as a careful look at the ruins shows, never possessed even a single such orifice, a fact that has permitted me to state the four-word conclusion “No holes, no ‘Holocaust’!” No one has been able to reveal to us the mystery, implied by the standard version, of how the Sonderkommando, the squads of Jews under the orders of the Germans, could enter that great gas chamber with impunity so soon after the alleged mass killings, to remove energetically, day after day, the thousands of corpses lying in tangled heaps.

Hydrogen cyanide gas is difficult to remove by ventilation, which is a time-consuming process; it penetrates and lingers within plaster, brick, concrete, wood, paint, and, above all, the skin and the mucus of humans; thus one could not enter, move about, and do such work in what would have been an ocean of deadly poison, handling corpses which, infused with that poison, would poison whoever touched them. It is, furthermore, well known to specialists in the field of disinfection (or disinfestation) that it is essential, in such an atmosphere, to avoid physical effort for, if such effort is made, the breathing quickens and the gas mask filter will then allow the poison to pass through, killing the wearer. Finally, no one has been able to instruct us as to how those amazing Jews of the Sonderkommando, ever dragging out the corpses of their co-religionists, could perform such exploits while eating and smoking (in one version of the “confession” ascribed to Rudolf Höss, the best known of the successive Auschwitz commandants); for, if one understands correctly, they did not even wear gas masks, and smoked amidst the noxious fumes of an explosive gas.

Like the imaginary flower dreamt of by the French symbolist poet Stéphane Mallarmé (1842–1898), who wrote of “the one missing from every bouquet,” the Nazi gas chamber, capable of astounding work, is “missing from all reality.” It remains truly magical, but of a sinister and nauseating magic; it is nothing other than a nightmare that dwells in Jewish brains, while, for their part, the high priests of the “Holocaust” work to make this gruesome illusion haunt the world for eternity, and to hold humankind in a state of near-hypnosis: their livelihood depends on it.

Céline is right again to add, on the subject of the magical gas chamber, that it is “no small matter!” In reality, as he says further on, it is everything and it permits everything. Without it, the “Holocaust” edifice would collapse totally. Pierre Vidal-Naquet, sorry herald of the anti-revisionist struggle, has himself acknowledged as much. Noting that some of his friends, grown weary of the struggle, were decidedly tempted to discard the cumbersome gas chambers without further ado, he beseeched them not to, and voiced this cry of alarm: “I beg your pardon: that would be to surrender in open country” (“Le Secret partagé,” Le Nouvel Observateur, September 21, 1984, p. 80). The Nazi gas chamber is said to be the only tangible (but in fact impossible to find) evidence of a physical extermination (that never took place) and that is, moreover, brazenly described to us as having been concerted, planned, and of a monstrously industrial nature, with production yields worthy of the name “death factories.”

Céline, finally, is right to conclude “A whole world of hatreds is going to be compelled to yelp at the Iconoclast!” For my part, I should add, more than half a century after that prognosis, or prophecy, that the yelps, increasingly deafening, have not ceased for an instant against those iconoclasts who are the revisionists. In today’s France, the latter are labeled with the barbarous term “négationnistes,” whereas they negate or deny nothing. On the contrary, at the end of their research, they affirm that a gigantic historical imposture holds sway.

Conclusion

The revisionists haunt the days and nights of the upholders of Jewish law, and of those who Céline – again – called “the martyrs’ trust.” To revisionists who seek to defend themselves against it, the trust shows no mercy. It drives some to suicide, causes physical injury and disfigurement, it kills, or forces others into exile. It sets fire to houses and burns books. It has the police, the judges, the prison authorities do its bidding. It applies pressure, it extorts and steals. It sets the dogs of the press on us, it throws us out of our jobs, it heaps insults upon us. On our side, not one among us has ever, to my knowledge, struck one of these perpetual law enforcers. On April 25, 1995, in Munich, a German revisionist killed himself, burning himself alive. He meant this act to be a protest against “the Niagara of lies” showered upon his people. In his suicide letter, he stated his hope that the flames which consumed his body would burn as a beacon for the generations to come. The German police proceeded to arrest the persons who soon afterwards came to leave a bouquet at the spot where Reinhold Elstner had immolated himself. On May 13, 2000, the German political science professor Werner Pfeiffenberger, 58, ended his own life after having long endured a legal persecution launched against him by a Jewish journalist in Vienna, one Karl Pfeifer, who had detected a whiff of revisionism (called, of course, neo-Nazism) in the academic’s writings.

The revisionists live a life of hardship, and the Palestinians are living a tragedy. In particular, many Palestinian children are destined for a sorrowful fate. Their Israeli killers are, on a modest scale, the worthy successors of the American air force, the military corps which, in all of a cruel human history, has contributed to killing, mutilating, disfiguring, or starving more children than any other, first in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, then in Japan, in Vietnam and in much of the rest of Asia, then in the Near and Middle East and in many other places in the world, whenever the American soldier receives from his superiors the order to hunt down a new “Hitler” and to prevent a new “genocide.”

May the leaders of the Muslim states hear the Palestinians’ and the revisionists’ appeals! Our ordeals are similar and our Intifadas identical.

May those leaders finally end their silence on the biggest imposture of modern times: that of the “Holocaust”!

May they, especially, denounce the lie of the alleged Nazi gas chambers! After all, not one of the leaders on the winning side of the Second World War, despite their hatred of Hitler’s Germany, stooped so low as to claim that such gas chambers had existed. During that war, in their speeches, as afterwards in their memoirs, not once did Churchill, or de Gaulle, or Eisenhower mention this diabolical horror which they surely saw propaganda agencies tirelessly peddling during the war. A quarter of a century ago, in a masterly book, the American professor Arthur Robert Butz called the grand imposture “the Hoax of the Twentieth Century.” That century is over; now its hoax must vanish into the rubbish bins of history.

The tragedy of the Palestinians demands it, the ordeal of the revisionists makes it essential, and the cause of humanity as a whole makes it our historical, political, and moral duty: the Grand Imposture must be condemned. It is a fomenter of hatred and war. It is in everyone’s interest that the leaders of the Muslim states end their silence on the imposture of the “Holocaust.”

– March 22, 2001

About the author

Robert Faurisson is Europe’s foremost Holocaust revisionist scholar. Born in 1929, educated at the Sorbonne, Professor Faurisson taught at the University of Lyon from 1974 until 1990. Specializing in close textual analysis, Faurisson won widespread acclaim for his studies of poems by Rimbaud and Lautréamont. After years of private research and study, Faurisson revealed his skepticism of the “Holocaust” gas chambers in articles published in 1978 and 1979 in the French daily Le Monde. He has written numerous articles on all aspects of the “Holocaust,” many of which have appeared in this journal. A four-volume collection of many of his revisionist writings, Écrits Révisionnistes (1974–1998), was published in 1999. This article is slightly adapted from Dr. Faurisson’s lecture for delivery to the projected March 2001 Beirut conference on revisionism and Zionism, which was cancelled by the Lebanese government under Jewish pressure.