|
Robert Faurisson
June 5, 2008
Geostrategic effects of
Revisionism : the Iranian lesson
The energy crisis is causing worry.
However, Iran, which possesses
huge reserves of oil and gas,
wishes to exploit them better,
with our help, and sell us the
products, a procedure that would
lead to a marked softening of
worldwide petrol, diesel, fuel
oil and gas prices. A good many
nations have an eye on this
great potential wealth and would
be apt to respond favourably to
Tehran’s business proposals. But
the United States has decreed
the boycott of Iran and, up to
now, the world’s policeman has
generally been obeyed. President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can make all
the proposals he likes: he still
finds himself considered a
criminal. His request for a
collaboration that would let him
fully re-equip the country’s
drilling, production and
processing operations is
refused. He goes so far as to
suggest that countries using the
single European currency pay in
euros and no longer in dollars,
but to no avail. People turn
their back to him. Some threaten
him. Even the Pope refuses to
receive him. In many countries,
his embassies and diplomatic
staff are deprived of contact
with the local authorities and
foreign delegations; they have
ended up with pariah status. One
may well ask oneself where such
radical behaviour towards the
Iranians ever originated and why
the international community acts
so obviously against its own
economic interests.
Three grounds are usually brought up
to explain this policy of
boycott and open hostility: 1)
the Iranian president is perhaps
trying to arm his country with
nuclear weapons; 2) it seems he
wants to exterminate the Jews in
Israel; 3) he holds the
extermination of the European
Jews during the Second World War
to be a myth. The first two
grounds do not make much sense;
only the third is serious and,
for that reason, instructive.
In reply to the first ground, it’s
fitting to observe that if
Ahmadinejad’s accusers possessed
the slightest evidence that Iran
was trying to acquire nuclear
weapons, such evidence would
long since have been brandished
before the world; however, up to
now, they have supplied no real
evidence and, in any case, if
Iran had a nuclear bomb at her
disposal, she could not launch
it towards a geographic zone
populated by as many
Palestinians as Jews; her bomb
would kill or maim both
populations without distinction.
The second ground rests on the absurd
manipulation of a text.
Ahmadinejad has had and
continues to have ascribed to
him an incendiary statement
according to which the Jewish
State is to be “wiped off the
map”, words taken to mean the
extermination of the Jews in
Israel. Actually, he’d merely
repeated in 2006 Ayatollah
Khomeyni’s 1979 declaration that
“the regime [in Persian, “rezhime”]
occupying Al Qods [Jerusalem]”
would one day “vanish from the
page of time”. Ahmadinejad took
care to spell out his phrase by
specifying that, if all the
inhabitants of the land of
Palestine – Moslems, Jews and
Christians – had the right one
day to vote freely and opt for a
regime of their choice, the
Zionist regime would disappear
from Palestine just as, for
example, the Communist regime
disappeared from Russia. The
Western media, as a whole, have
reported neither the exact
wording nor the explanation.
The third ground is the true one: if
the Iranian president causes so
much fear, it’s owing to his
revisionism. He has wielded the
sole weapon that can deeply
worry the Jewish State and its
ally, the United States. He
possesses what I’ve called the
poor man’s atomic weapon. In the
findings of historical
revisionism he effectively holds
a “device of mass
destruction” that would kill
no-one but could neutralise
Israel’s number one political
weapon: the Great Lie of the
alleged Nazi gas chambers and
the alleged genocide of Europe’s
Jews. Raised in the religion
of the “Holocaust”, the peoples
of North America and Europe
generally believe in this Great
Lie and see Ahmadinejad as a
heretic; thus they dare not
defend any policy of
rapprochement with Iran, or call
for a lifting of the boycott,
although therein lies the only
chance of seeing their energy
costs decrease. Doubtless some
of these peoples’ leaders desire
an understanding with Iran, but
they back away at the prospect
of being criticised as
accomplices of the new Satan, of
the “denier”, the “negationist”
who “kills the Jews once again
by denying their death”.
The news of the international
“Holocaust” conference in Tehran
(December 11th - 12th
2006) rang out like a warning
shot. By no means reserved to
revisionists, that conference
was open to all. Confrontation
of opposing views was allowed,
and it took place. The rout of
the antirevisionists was
dramatic. And President
Ahmadinejad, already fully
apprised of revisionist
argumentation, was thus able to
restate that the “Holocaust” was
a myth. Bush, Blair, Chirac, who
know nothing of revisionism,
responded by making a terrible
fuss. As for the Israelis, they
are aware of the Jewish authors’
utter inability to answer
revisionist arguments on the
scientific level; they now
uphold their Great Lie only with
Elie Wiesel-style fake testimony
or cinematic guff in the manner
of Claude Lanzmann, when they
don’t resort to novels, drama or
even sham museum exhibitions
like those at Yad Vashem in
Jerusalem or the Holocaust
Memorial Museum in Washington;
they have therefore seized the
occasion to draw up a bill in
the Knesset that would let the
State of Israel demand that any
revisionist, wherever in the
world he might be, be delivered
to its own courts! When there’s
no proof to show, the cudgel is
used.
The Zionists and their friends are
getting more and more alarmed at
the diffusion of revisionism
over the Internet. They make
many attempts, cynical or
veiled, to strengthen Internet
censorship but, up to today at
any rate, they have not yet
achieved their aims. Throughout
the Western world repression of
revisionism is worsening, but
it’s all a waste of effort so
far. The holocaustic propaganda
and Shoah Business grow ever
more deafening, but henceforth
they tend to annoy or tire
people.
Revisionism has long been an
intellectual adventure,
experienced by a certain number
of academics, researchers and
various other persons ready to
sacrifice their lives or their
tranquillity for the defence of
historical truth, and of
justice. Today, revisionism is
becoming, on the international
plane, a noticeable bone of
contention; it is asserted by
some and violently denounced by
others, and is present even in
certain political or economic
altercations. It is destined to
play no small role in the
endless crisis in the Middle
East as well as in the current
energy crisis. For the powerful,
it will constitute a threat and,
for others, a way out. In any
case, the times when revisionism
could be treated with contempt
or quite simply ignored are
decidedly past.
Robert Faurisson
|
-
-
-
