Dr. Robert Faurisson on Guillaume Faye

People who run out of arguments turn to violence. Prof. Faurisson after an attack by Jewish thugs, Sept. 16, 1989. Source.

This is a translation [thank you again, Fred Scrooby] of Dr. Faurisson’s press communique (here).

Press release from Robert Faurisson, July 19, 2007

Guillaume Faye has just published “The New Jewish Question” (published by du Lore, [June] 2007, 401 p., 26 euros).

On the dust jacket we’re told he’s “one of the European racial-nationalist movement’s [‘la mouvance identitaire et nationaliste européenne’] most important writers.”

Chapter VI of this book levels charges against revisionists. In this chapter the author denounces “the absurdity of anti-revisionist laws,” but it’s because, in his opinion, “the anti-revisionist laws have greatly harmed the Jews” (p. 186). He writes, “The utter stupidity of the anti-revisionist laws is seen clearly in the enormous worldwide publicity they’ve given revisionism itself and the dispute over the Shoah” (p. 186). He writes, “It would’ve been better if those who oppose the theories of Faurisson and the others in regard to the non-existence of the Shoah had furnished themselves with the means to prove the emptiness of revisionist theory. […] In repressing the revisionists (or Holocaust-deniers) they’ve only provided them with a spring-board. In insisting on re-casting the Shoah as revealed religious truth they’ve unintentionally taken away its status as a historical reality. Which it nonetheless was …” (p. 187).

G. Faye writes that he has never quite understood exactly what the revisionists were saying, but he nevertheless knows they are surely mistaken! Referring to them, he asks, “What are they disputing? Just the execution gas chambers, or the deportations? Or the exterminations? Or National Socialism’s anti-Jewish policy? Or the criteria for internment in concentration camps?” And he concludes, “I’ve never quite understood.” Although by his own admission he’s somewhat in a fog, a state of confusion, and is no longer able to comprehend anything about the matter, it is against the revisionists that he levels the charge of “a certain confusion,” “a fog where no one understands anything any more.”

“They’ve discredited themselves,” he says. “They’re engaging in irrelevant hair-splitting” or “They’re suffering from political idiocy” (p. 192). He writes further, “I’ve always wondered if the revisionists actually believe what they are saying” (p. 193).

He states that during the ’70s and ’80s he met Frenchmen, Italians, and Germans who “had been functionaries in the National Socialist state apparatus or combatants in SS units, who’d never themselves taken part in harsh treatments of non-combatant civilians but agreed with the ideology of the time. All were agreed in affirming that the Shoah — the effort to eliminate Europe’s Jews — had indeed been a reality, that they approved of it, and that it couldn’t plausibly be denied, even in the interest of National Socialism’s future reputation,” and he concludes, “It is thanks to them we know the revisionists need to go back to their books and study this further” (p. 193). It would be interesting to learn who these men were who (without having committed or, likely, witnessed harsh treatments) affirmed the Shoah had been a reality. But the writer takes the precaution of telling us that these unknowns — how many there were we don’t know — whose testimony he cites “are all now deceased.”

He goes on to say, “revisionism has spread throughout racial-nationalist circles” and the revisionists have “committed a big error in terms of ‘communication’ ” (p. 194). He concludes, “What discredits revisionism is its transformation from a technical dispute over the execution gas chambers into an indefensible dispute over the Shoah itself” (p. 195).

He deplores the revisionists’ “insinuating,” “provocative,” “outright inappropriate” remarks and the “idle reflections on the Shoah, the gas chambers, and the Second World War” of “Le Pen, Gollnisch, and the others” (p. 199).

He calls Iranian president Ahmadinejad “a pathological fanatic” who, he says, “organized a revisionist conference in Teheran in December, 2006″ and, he says, dared “to call for Israel’s destruction, the deportation of Israel’s Jews to the West, and the radical casting of doubt over the Shoah” (p. 188). Actually, the conference in question was open to all, including for once the revisionists, and well before the conference the Iranian president had repeated the imam Khomeyni’s statement according to which the “régime” occupying Jerusalem would disappear “from the page of time” as had happened to the communist régime in Russia; the Jews could continue to live in Palestine but on the same level as the Muslims and Christians; those who refused to accept this could move, or return, to the West; in any case if, during the Second World War, Europe had undertaken to exterminate the Jews, it was Europe that had to make amends for the crime. For his part, the Iranian president considered this gigantic criminal undertaking to be on the order of a “myth.”

If Faye wants to know what the revisionists are saying exactly, he has only to read them, after which he’ll know whereof he speaks when he passes judgment on their writing. He could also read the many works (whose existence he seems not to know of) in which those who accept the truth of the Shoah have striven unsuccessfully to “prove the emptiness,” not of the “theories” of the revisionists, but of their conclusions. He would then understand that if Shoah-believers resort so readily to laws which he, for his part, characterizes as “foolishness” or “absurd” it’s not from lack of reflection but from need: when one cannot answer revisionist arguments by means of reason one calls upon the unjust force of law, upon the gendarme and the judge, when one isn’t calling upon physical violence, which Faye doesn’t talk about.

P.S. Just today [July 19, 2007], revisionist Georges Theil appeared in a Grenoble courtroom before sentencing judge Marie Thévenet who indicated he was going to have to serve six months in prison (and pay crushing financial penalties). He asked to be sentenced to wear an electronic bracelet instead of jail. The decision will be handed down in October following a second appearance before the sentencing judge in the presence of the public prosecutor. Are we to understand that, as Faye sees things, the position in which this revisionist finds himself is worrisome … for the Jews and their Shoah?

Robert Faurisson