Our Mission: To Disrupt the Global Slander and Help Build a More Honest World
Speech given at the Teheran Conference
Published: 2006-12-11

I must express my thanks to those who have, with immense courage, made it possible to organise and hold such a conference as ours. This date of December 11-12, in this magnificent capital, could truly be a turning point in world history, I’m not afraid to say so; it marks the real beginning of the end of the unimaginable repression endured by the world for more than sixty years now.

This oppression, this enslavement, this disgrace for mankind, this crime against humanity — let’s finally dare to say it — is the gigantic lie of the alleged Shoah, the alleged genocide of the Jews between 1941 and 1945, the greatest slander in all of human history, imposed first of all on the West, then by osmosis, from the fact of a progressive “globalisation”, on the whole of the world, and most particularly the Moslem world.

But, in fact, isn’t the regular description of the “Shoah” merely in line with a “largely majority opinion”, as some will try to tell us, in a tone of false objectivity? No, it isn’t! For the simple public discussion on the subject is impossible, on pain of fines and imprisonment. The author of these remarks knows a thing or two about that.

But, very happily, there are some serious showings of resistance to the oppression, some refuzniks, and there have been since the start of the myth’s construction and setting in; and they are still around, despite the terror imposed by the enemies of historical truth; one shining proof is the holding of this conference.

Origin and fundaments of the “sacred lie”

Let’s address things at their roots.

The Jews, it is known, nomads by essence, are a variety of the human species (I don’t employ the term ethnic group, still less that of race) disseminated amongst the nations of the world and also, in part, since 1948, sovereignly established in the land of Palestine.

This human grouping feels closely knit by a specific, non-proselytising religion, by common beliefs and ritual practices, and cemented by certain time-honoured formal instructions; it is self-renewed by a strong endogamy, maintained, finally, by racialist behaviour (that is, by a strong awareness — or pervasive sensation — of its specificity, its particular identity not to be sullied by any miscegenation), a feeling of superiority as against the non-Jew, “justified” by a pervasive presence in the Jewish mind of the Talmud and the so-called “scriptures” wherein their Yahweh supposedly anointed the Jewish people with the status of “chosen”.

This pretension, in the eyes of any being of normal psychological makeup, is an aberration, a monstrosity, the manifestation of a mad conceit.

Let’s take them at their word, objectively. To make a judgment as to the possible superiority of one people to others, one must at the very least be able to measure that people’s contribution, on balance with that of others, to the advancement of mankind in fields as various as philosophy, the fine arts, literature, philology, architecture, the sciences, that is, the fields of biology and medicine, mathematics, physics, chemistry and technology — relating to energy, transport, telecommunications —, actions to conserve the cultural and environmental heritage, etc. And here, precisely, they are hardly to be seen in a good position.

These Jews, therefore, a nomadic grouping at the start, wandering from Mesopotamia to Egypt, regularly chased from their points of settlement in host countries, afterwards slowly went about emigrating, from the beginning of the Christian era, to Europe and North Africa, to a lesser degree to neighbouring nations like those of the Persian and Ottoman empires, and have practically always found themselves confronted with hostility on the part of the host peoples. At first sight this might be attributed (in Europe) to the Christian religion, which, from the outset, took the stance of a foil to the Jewish religion, although the two were of a common stem: it has been said with some reason that Christianity is radically opposed to Judaism, just as children of the same family often are. And the early Christians propagated the notion of a deicide people applied to the Jews, alluding to the New Testament’s account of the prophet Jesus’s being put to death by crucifixion at the instigation of the Jews: this Jesus, claiming to be the announced and awaited Messiah, had not only had the nerve to proclaim himself “King of the Jews” but also had dared, in a manner the Jews found unpardonable, to proclaim that there were no longer any Jews, that there were no longer any Gentiles, but that there were only children of God! Intolerable words for a community claiming to be chosen by (its) God, and genuinely revisionist ones!

This myth of the chosen race is, in my opinion, the real main thread of the Jews’ behaviour up to today, and the very basis of the fantastical lie of the alleged “Holocaust”.

But in the West, as must indeed be acknowledged, the Christian religion has been slowly crumbling under the battering blows of Luther, Voltaire, Nietzsche, Strauss and Renan. It’s not so much that the West has become atheist, but the Christian religion seems to many incapable of supplying answers to the modern world’s difficulties. Still in the West the slow emergence, in the 16th century, of rationalism with the Renaissance, the calamity of the Inquisition and the burnings at the stake associated with it, the steady rise of the natural sciences, the 18th century Enlightenment, the collapse of the French monarchy perceived by the inciters of the Revolution as being linked to religion for the great ill of the people, the German philosophical thinkers and researchers of the 19th century had two important results: the slow disaffection of the West with its centuries-old religion, as I’ve said, and the emancipation of the Jews (until then “held in check”) installed in Europe and her colonies.

Logically, the old anti-Semitism ought thus to have disappeared, since its clearest cause (the hostility of the Christians towards a deicidal people) was henceforth becoming greatly relativised in an ambience of secularisation.

But nothing of the kind! In effect there was to be witnessed, from the mid-19th century onwards, the beginning of their veritable emancipation, a veritable invasion by the Jews of European society’s dominant positions, places of decision-making and influence: the newspapers, the political and economic networks, the world of banking — a phenomenon quite often attended by embezzlement, corruption, fraudulent arrangements. And the old, simplistic antisemitism turned into a more rational, fundamental antisemitism, as of the late 19th century, throughout the whole social and political spectrum.

To such an extent that episodes like the Dreyfus affair, where a Jewish officer in the French army had fallen into trouble on suspicion of spying for the German enemy, and was prosecuted, found guilty and sent to a penal colony, took on extraordinary proportions, Dreyfus’s Judaity being enough to condemn him for some, and, for his coreligionists and friends, to exonerate him! He was, in the end, pardoned following a review of his trial, but a certain doubt subsisted and the traces left behind took a long time to be erased.

A glimmer of clear-sightedness showed itself at that period in the person of Bernard Lazare, a writer of Jewish origin who in his work Antisemitism, its History and Causes agreed that antisemitism was perfectly explainable by the fact of the Jews’ own behaviour in the societies that accommodated them, behaviour that, overall, was loathsome, in which greed, political and financial scandals, corruption, fraudulent business operations organised by and with them, held the biggest place.

And this brings us to the 20th century.

Already the Jewish organisations that had well perceived this problem, precisely this enmity so likely to arise between Jews and non-Jews as soon as they came into contact with each other, imagined that the long-term solution could only be the settling of the Jews in a land of their own, undisputed and free to welcome them. Thus did Theodor Herzl, in 1896, launch his famous call for a return to a “Jewish national home”, veritable founding of political Zionism, an idea that got the very active support of the rich barons Hirsch and Rothschild. This idea, this hope for a land of their own, made its way in the world’s Jewish milieus up to the moment of the decisive swing, with the help of the First World War, that was the Balfour Declaration of 1917, beginning a turning point in that conflict to the detriment of the Central Empires and their Ottoman ally. And so in this way the Zionist movement had set its heart on the land of Palestine, thereby initiating a major problem with the communities living in that territory, Moslems in their majority with scattered Christian elements.

A terrible wrong that can only be explained by the racialist and religious fanaticism embedded in the Jewish tradition.

The text of the “Balfour Declaration”

Here is the statement of intent addressed by British politician Arthur Balfour, Foreign Secretary under David Lloyd George (and a former Prime Minister himself), to Lord Rothschild, vice president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews:

Foreign Office,

November 2nd, 1917.

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely

Arthur James Balfour

And the events relating to the war of 1914-1918 cannot be dissociated from Jewish influence, henceforth omnipresent. The vile Treaty of Versailles, which meant to seal the ruin of Germany and her enslavement for 80 years to come, was perceived by many Germans as the bitter fruit of a Jewish betrayal, since the Jews representing Germany (Erzberger, Rathenau…) at the preparation of that baleful treaty had been accomplices of the victors, thus a party to the crushing of what was, however, their German homeland.

The seizure of power in Russia by the Bolsheviks in 1917 can also be perceived as a taking hold of the Russian people by the Jews, and the Russians’ subsequent yoking to an ideology both insane and messianic can be seen as a Jewish operation. So true is it that Communism and its Bolshevist offshoot were a wholly Jewish affair: from Marx to Lasalle, to Trotsky to the Bund and to the masters of the USSR, all is Jewish in Communism and Bolshevism. The Russian royal family were assassinated shortly after the coup d’état by a group of Jewish Bolsheviks full of incandescent hatred. The funding for the 1917 Bolshevik insurrection’s preparation and carrying out was entirely seen to by Jewish bankers, Lenin’s financiers at the banks Schiff, Warburg, Loeb etc.

Soon afterwards, all the attempts to install Bolshevik republics by force in Germany and the former Austria-Hungary were equally led by Jews, who sowed bloodshed and economic ruin in their wake; their names are known.

This awareness of a “Jewish grip on the peoples of Europe”, as is known — yet no one dare say it —, was at the origin of the ascent of Hitler, veritable child of Versailles, who promised to create a new Germany that would become prosperous as soon as she had been rid of Jews. A promise that he set about putting into effect: with his arrival in office began the departure of the Jews of Germany — and later those of Austria and the outlying German territories — by virtue of incentives, deterrents or, from 1935, laws, and it must indeed be noted that this process was concomitant with a formidable economic and industrial redevelopment. And such success, with its risks of contagion, could not leave States like the English-speaking countries or even France, where the Jews were very influential in all political and economic spheres, indifferent: the confrontation had now become inevitable. Already, let’s recall, the Jews of the whole world had declared war on Germany, in the famous full front-page headline of March 24, 1933, just seven weeks after Hitler’s coming to power: “Judea Declares War on Germany”; Judea not being a State, it was a matter of announcing a total boycott of Germany, an all-out psychological war by the worldwide networks under Jewish influence, and that is what happened. It is altogether surprising that this “declaration of war” should have come about when Hitler had been in office for less than two months and had not taken any special measures against the Jewish community in Germany.

What followed is well known, leading to the declaration of war on Germany, in September 1939, by England and France. Hitler’s unbending determination in wanting to reshape Europe by seeking cohesion amongst the populations that made it up (and an expulsion of the Jewish communities thereof), together with the rather unforeseen harshness of the war in the East, led him to adopt a policy of “penning” the Jews in forced labour camps. A measure that is quite certainly harsh for those affected by it, even if the concentration camps (“invented” by the British forty years earlier during their South African “Boer War”) were not a new or original German idea (the United States was soon to create similar camps on its own territory to intern persons of Japanese origin, including those who had no other citizenship than American). A measure bearing, for the populations thus transferred, all the hardships inherent in crowded and insufficiently hygienic conditions: dyspepsia, epidemics and, therewith, excessive mortality, something which, for that matter, is not peculiar to the German camps of the last war: the French and later the Americans were themselves to note the far more awful state of the Vietnamese camps! And it was from here that was launched the gigantic tall tale, transformed into calumny, of the programmed putting to death of six million Jews in those camps. With the whole of the world’s communications media (the non-Moslem world, of course) being in the hands of Jewish groups, already in that era, it was easy for them to spread the slander throughout the world.

A technical consultant to president Roosevelt, one Theodore N. Kaufman, an influential American Jew, published in March 1941 a terrible book: Germany Must Perish; widely distributed and translated, it clearly expounded the organisation and the putting into operation of a genocide of the Germans: all men and women of reproductive age (males under sixty, females under forty-five) were to be sterilised, quickly and methodically. It would take a few months for 20,000 surgeons (and more if necessary) carrying out 25 sterilisations per day to neuter 48 million German males and females.

Henry Morgenthau, another influential Jew in Roosevelt’s entourage, for his part urged a plan for killing the Germans by organised famine.

At the same period Stalin’s own darling “poet”, Ilya Ehrenburg, railed his exhortations to the Red Army soldiers, exuding the worst racial hatred: “Kill all the Germans! Kill the German children in their mother’s womb!”

Their Master Word: “Denying the obvious!” An insult to human intelligence?

For informed people, for minds the least bit keen on things to do with physics and chemistry, the possibility of the very existence of the crime weapon as it’s presented to us (and on paper only!), that is, the utilisation of “the homicidal gas chamber followed by the cremation of the victims, all carried out continuously” is an utter impossibility. And also, no operation of this kind, not even a haphazard one, could have been so much as contemplated without an order issued from the summit of the State, i.e. from Hitler himself. No army in the world, no superior officer anywhere would undertake such an operation without an order! And still less, if I may say so, the German army! If a supposed order of this nature had existed but then, in spite of all, disappeared, there should most certainly remain, in the thousands of tonnes of records seized by the Allies, numerous references to such an order, numerous directives and specifications for the building and running of such installations: not a single one has been found, either direct or indirect! There should also remain in those records bits and traces of related budgetary and accounting information, of abnormal deliveries of goods: there is no such thing either. Then, are there at least some architectural remnants left? An important remark here.

Let’s reason, if you will, by reductio ad absurdum, as is often done in mathematics and physics to demonstrate that a proposition is impossible or absurd.

If the “Nazi gas chambers” existed and functioned, they must necessarily have been made of hard and heavy material, let’s say concrete, and so, by definition, impossible to transport! It’s easy enough to calculate that a concrete structure measuring 200 square metres in ground area and 2.5 metres in height and with walls 15 centimetres thick, set on a concrete slab, will weigh at least — without the slab — 80 tonnes.

How is one to believe that the Germans, pressed by the Soviet advance, obliged to evacuate a given camp by forced marches in the snow, would have taken such installations away? Since the camp of Auschwitz was occupied by the Russians after the Germans had evacuated it along with those inmates who were in good enough health, abandoning all the facilities (kitchens, modern sanitary and medical equipments, various workshops) and even the totality of the camp records, including the prisoner rolls and mortality registries, it is altogether excluded that they should have carried off with them “mass killing installations” of such weight. Additional proof: the Germans had also abandoned the clothing disinfection units — present in all their camps — perfectly visitable still today at the Auschwitz complex.

This would leave us the task of analysing the remains or ruins along with the blueprints or architectural drawings, which, in the case of Auschwitz, have also been entirely conserved. That work was done first by Robert Faurisson, followed by other researchers such as Fred Leuchter (invited to Auschwitz by Faurisson in 1987 when not yet a revisionist but merely a specialist in executions by gassing) and Germar Rudolf, who further consolidated it thanks to the erudition of the eminent chemist that he is. The results left no room for dispute: none of the places presented as having been homicidal gas chambers offered any trace of hydrogen cyanide salts — which must necessarily have been there had the places been hydrogen cyanide gas chambers — contrary to the disinfection facilities (still visible) having operated with the product called Zyklon B — a solid substance that gave off hydrogen cyanide (a potent insecticide) when subjected to a rise in temperature in those purpose-built units equipped with a powerful ventilation mechanism, perfected by the Germans already before the war, incidentally. No rebuttal, no counter report has been offered by the upholders of “extermination by gas chambers” to answer the two devastating reports by Leuchter and Rudolf.

What with the homicidal gas chambers’ never having been able to exist, and thus never having existed, the conclusion is simple: there never were in the camps any installations for the mass killing of the detainees; the only detainee deaths imputable to the camps, therefore, apart from possible executions of inmates who had committed offences, were those due to disease, to epidemics quite frequent once prisoners are herded together in problematic hygienic conditions, a cause of death made greater by the diffusion of illnesses, such as typhus, spread essentially by lice. Let’s recall that antibiotics and sulphonamides were at the time, respectively, not yet perfected and not readily available. The frequent disinfection of prisoners’ effects and their replacement by clean ones, and the disinfecting showers or baths for the prisoners themselves were thus the sole possible protection for the camp populations, including the guards. The possibility that these methodical measures may have strongly impressed the detainees, to the point of making some believe that Zyklon B disinfectant might also serve to kill people, is not to be ruled out amongst a population ready to accept practically any rumour, a phenomenon extremely well-known in groups of barracks-dwellers. Let’s add that the systematic cremation of corpses could bring on, in certain categories of inmate, a very frightened reaction: the burning of the dead could also be seen by Jewish detainees as an abominable sacrilege, for reasons of religious practice.

Finally, as is known, the last months of the war, from January to May 1945, were a true apocalypse for Germany. The incessant bombing raids by the Anglo-American air forces on civilian populations and infrastructures, the horrors accompanying the advance of the Red Army, the near total penury of provisions for the camp populations, arising from the destruction of supply logistics, too often resulted, in the final three months of the war, in the camps’ becoming places where people could only die. Hence those images (smugly) diffused by the Allies of skeletal inmates of certain camps. Under the emotional effect thus produced, the greater public hardly ask themselves any questions in the face of captives emaciated from under-nourishment:

It is very easy to tell people that if those inmates were in such a state it was because there had been a diabolical will to have them slowly starve to death.

So powerful is the image! For want of photos, no one asks himself the question how 85 million proved victims of Communism, killed in the USSR and its satellites in the name of the Marxist-Leninist faith, happen to have died! No one even asks whether those dead were cremated, buried, covered over in ditches! No one dare propose that it might be worthwhile to explore scientifically the sites of the various gulags! But, in truth, those dead are not worthy of interest: must Communism, blood-soaked Jewish set-up as it was, be above guilt? If so an explanation is in order.

Such was, and still is, Germany’s drama.

But the crowning point of hatred had not yet arrived when the war ended in May 1945. The Jews are in general not chivalrous folk. They well knew that the Germans had not perpetrated more horrors — doubtless far fewer — than the Allies. Hatred and its instrumentalisation would reach their peak with the staging of the Nuremberg trial in October 1945. An ignominious trial, unique in history, where the victor was seen judging the vanquished, with founding principles such as “The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence”; it “shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge” (sic). It is not my intent here to go over the judicial disgrace that was this so-called trial. People like Carlos Porter have done so in striking manner.

The pinnacle of calumny was reached at the end of the proceedings when the figure of six million Jewish victims was launched by a “witness” (Wilhelm Höttl) who, as was to be discovered quite soon, was an agent of the American OSS (forerunner of the CIA).

The main point at Nuremberg, “tribunal” of vengeance, was to put to death, with the aid of an imitation trial, the senior German leaders, which was done and which satisfied the Jews’ phenomenal hatred for the Germans, their thirst for vengeance against those who had dared to try to “live without Jews”.

The World Media Dictatorship: Slander erected as obligatory truth

Henceforth, thanks to “Nuremberg”, the way was open for the establishment of a worldwide “dictatorship of the gas chambers”.

We are today swamped with fictitious accounts, pseudo-testimonies, repetitive films telling us ad nauseam of the Jewish people’s hardships, the Germans’ nastiness towards them, the reparations that should be paid out again and again to the survivors of that era, to their children and grandchildren, their heirs and successors, the State of Israel which, for that matter, lives mainly on American and German grants, and is “threatened with a new Holocaust” by its Moslem neighbours…

And everything is put into operation to have us believe in the existence of that weapon of mass destruction: “the gas chamber” of Auschwitz, yes, Auschwitz for, especially due to the advances of revisionism which, making its way forward, had easily reduced to naught the “gas chambers” of all the other camps where the liars claimed they’d existed, there no longer remain any others… Still, my dear friends, do like me, go visit it carefully, bring friends along to visit it too, you won’t see any trace of gas chambers. Of course, on the door (a wooden door!) of what is left of a small semi-interred hospital you will indeed see a sign reading “Gas chamber in its original state”, but you’re not obliged to believe a sign; if you are just a little technically minded, the prank will be as plain as day. As a friend with a good scientific background said to me recently, anybody with an IQ over 90 and who’s looked into the question a bit cannot believe in the gas chambers!

The revisionist reasoning got the better of all that nonsense; and so those on the opposing side saw red. The work and findings of Faurisson, to name but him, caused deadly worry towards the end of the 80s in spheres having an interest in the slander: they are called “exterminationists” but I personally prefer to call them slanderers. There was only one thing left for those slander-propagandists to do, a solution as abject as their lie: prevent all discussion, all scientific research, all debate on the question of the sacrosanct “gas chamber”; laws had to be prepared that would punish such reasoning severely. In France it was the Gayssot Act, named for the Communist MP who submitted the bill but in fact concocted by chief rabbi Sitruk and the (Jewish) former Socialist Prime Minister Laurent Fabius; thus, strictly speaking this law, dated July 13, 1990, is indeed Judeo-Bolshevik in character. It punishes with fines and imprisonment anyone who publicly emits doubt about the “findings” of the aforementioned Nuremberg tribunal. The Jewish organisations have succeeded in imposing laws of the same type in practically all European nations. The Germanic countries, Austria, Germany and Switzerland, are particularly well “taken care of”: in the first two, a five-year prison sentence is regularly applied to any public disputant of the figures launched at Nuremberg! What’s more, in the German-speaking lands it is not even conceivable for a defendant to argue on the merits of the case: the “six million” are a dogma, and a dogma cannot be debated. An unimaginable degeneration of our rights, an incredible obscurantism imposed, veritable crime against thought, and crime against mankind.

And it’s there — we’ve understood — that that the Nuremberg trial, monument of iniquity, is indeed the founding act of the enslavement of us all, Germans and Austrians in the first place (but not their leaders, accomplices in the slander), of Europeans by direct osmosis with them, finally of the Palestinian people, martyred in the name of an alleged “holocaust” which has served as a pretext for the pure and simple theft of what was their land for over a thousand years! My dear friends, let’s never forget that these two martyrdoms are linked. Closely. They have one and the same poisonous source. Yes, an unimaginable suffering is the lot of these millions of human beings, crushed, martyred in all possible ways by the criminal slander of the “gas chambers” and the alleged “genocide of the Jews”.

The other side of the problem

I have long believed, ever since I began having serious doubts on the consistency of the alleged “Holocaust”, that we must mobilise against this gigantic lie. How? In concrete terms, we started by diffusing brochures like Did Six Million Really Die?, we prepared short lampoons or leaflets distributed in sensitive places; on a higher level we were able to open, in Paris, a revisionist bookshop, publish quality periodicals, as did our friends at the Institute for Historical Review in the US, sabotage holocaustic symposiums where our interventions caused confusion and sometimes panic!

Those were the good times! We sensed the fear growing in their ranks: yet a base individual, the pharmacist Pressac, let himself be bought and hired by the Jewish Inquisitor Klarsfeld to draft and publish a big block of a book claiming to demonstrate the existence and functioning of the gas chambers at Auschwitz, whereas he was incapable, in that very book, of showing a drawing of one, not even a sketch, or of describing the workings, even sketchily! And who in the end demonstrated but one thing: the existence of cremations in that camp! And who dared, the poor wretch, to effect a drastic reduction of the number of presumed dead at Auschwitz, an initiative that earned him the distinction of being ostracised soon afterwards by his own sponsors!

And Faurisson was savagely assaulted in September 1989, in a park near his house, by a few young Israelis determined to kill him. He got away with a smashed jaw and some painful after-effects. Let us salute him here. The Gayssot Act came in shortly afterwards, as I’ve said, and from then on our struggle against repression had to take on other forms.

The arrival of this horrid law, a veritable admission of the adversaries’ impotence, was for us revisionists the moment to take a short break, and to reflect on an aspect that we had previously refused to see: if the enormous slander of the “gas chambers” can continue to prosper, even in educated circles (my friend would say: amongst those with an IQ above 90), it’s because there is… something else.

First of all, it is obvious that many people cannot imagine such an enormous swindle; they don’t imagine that the truth (exactitude) can be shut away to this extent, to the point of being considered reprehensible by the courts. Any normally constituted being will have the greatest difficulty in subscribing to the idea of belief in a lie being spread by force.

In order to function, belief in a lie must be imposed and, doubtless, accepted as well

It is astonishing to note, amongst the greater public, that the belief in the “gas chambers” is not only standard but that it’s also one of the “anchoring points” of their mental equilibrium. To have a large number of people enter a room, willingly or not, in which an asphyxiating gas is then spread about, then to remove the same people, reduced to corpses, to another, generally abutting building, where they are then cremated in assembly-line fashion seems, to most, an altogether possible and therefore plausible procedure. Practically no one knows anything — apart from the lethal aspect — about the properties and the way of using Zyklon B or the hydrogen cyanide gas (CNH) that it gives off following exposure to a certain rise in temperature. No one knows, for example, that its use necessitates a powerful ventilation for several hours afterwards of the rooms or objects treated, or that it sticks to surfaces! The statement about the removal of gassed corpses and their transport to the crematorium is thus an aberration uttered in ignorance. Such a task would have brought on the death of the body-handlers themselves.

And then, the crematoria…!

The complete cremation of a single corpse demands an hour and a half; a simple arithmetical calculation shows straight away the impossibility of cremating the alleged number of daily victims. Besides, we are well aware, as concerns Auschwitz, of the chronology of those installations’ coming into service, their periods out of service due to defects, their operating times and capacities; everything confirms the lying nature of the claim of the number of daily killings by gas followed by cremation.

Why then is it nonetheless believed?

Because this tall tale, this monstrous slander, falls onto ground that has been prepared to accept it beforehand. The Germans have long been known for their technical ability, their unquestionable professionalism in making sure that work is done well. They have also constantly had, in times of conflict, soldiers of an unbelievable tenacity, an astonishing courage, surely a reflection of their behaviour in civilian life. And what else? Remember too that they are also — and have been for a long time — brilliant chemists: German chemistry is still, in 2006, the first in the world by dint of its capabilities, its patent registrations, its resourcefulness, its exports throughout the globe.

Moreover others have for long crafted an image of them as cruel, and as partisans of a “vertical and icy” order; the origin of this is doubtless, in our country, to be found in the 1870 Franco-Prussian War, where the Uhlans, selected for their height and robustness, were quickly categorised as cold-hearted, pitiless warriors. True anti-German racism, developed in France after 1870 (under the colours of Revanche), deeply affected people’s minds: against all logic the Germans were henceforth spoken of as savages, uncultured, simple-minded predators, uncivilised beings; yet their contribution in the sciences and technology, philosophy, music was already incomparable. And that only made them more detestable still! This was something well beyond the childish hatred of the dunce for the pupil at the top of the class…

It was Germany against the rest of the world!

It was thus easy for Jewish agitators, at first fascinated by the Germany of Bismarck, established there in comfortable positions, to turn against their host country and set about looting, deceiving and exploiting it; Hitler, aware of this wicked abuse, which must absolutely be halted, put into operation, as I’ve said, a series of measures meant to move the Jews away from all positions of authority, then move them away full stop. Die Juden sind unser Unglück: the Jews are our misfortune!

One may thus understand the hatred borne by the Jews against the nation that had dared do that; this hatred was easily shared by the populations that had had to suffer under German occupation between 1939 and 1945.

The extraordinary conjunction of interests between the Jewish communities and a fair portion of the non-Jews of Europe and America accounts for this persistently present hostility — often unconscious — towards Germany. And the average American just as much as the average European, culturally trained to respect the authority of res judicata, generally thinks, even if vaguely aware that at Nuremberg there had been a good share of vengeance exacted by the winners against the losers, that, all the same, the trial had a solemn and approximately “just” quality about it. This is why the Germans have been forced to accept it all, most often with resignation.

So it is that the official belief in the “gas chambers” and thus in the “Holocaust” was initiated at Nuremberg with the apparent authority of res judicata. However, at bottom this is false: at Nuremberg nothing was proved, and thus nothing was judged: statements were made and recorded.

To this day, Germany is still a flattened country, psychologically crushed, under the tutelage of Israel, in fact. One may even ask oneself the fundamental question whether this present German State is democratic and legitimate: the three powers then occupying the western part of the country (US, Britain, France) decided unilaterally in 1948 to create, throughout the territory comprised of their respective zones, the existing federative State…! Sixty years after the end of armed hostilities, no peace treaty has yet been signed! And with this in mind we see the answer is a terrifying one:

Hostilities quite simply did not end with May 1945!

And in today’s Germany the psychological damage is such, after the humiliation suffered in the immediate post-war period, then the apparent resurrection of the country in the years from 1950 to 1966, and thereafter the rise in strength of the myth of the alleged “Holocaust” and the alleged “gas chambers”, that at present she is in danger of death. Yes, in danger, of death. The omnipresent drubbing in the media and public forums in Germany for the past forty years has been such that a profound spiritual depression is perceptible to anyone who knows how to meet, talk with and listen to the Germans. With a most frightful result: the young people, crushed and demoralised by the permanent calumny against the very essence of German ethnicity, refuse to procreate sufficiently for a renewal of the generations! “What good is it to have children if our nature, our country are, deep down, criminal? If our elders coldly exterminated six million Jews, that is an inexpiable crime and we deserve a slow death for it! Let’s not have any more German children!” There you have the consequences of this slander, at the subliminal stage, working like a cancer inoculated by the propagandists of the alleged “Holocaust” and the alleged “gas chambers”!

One other aspect, amongst the most horrible, of the “gas chamber” and “Holocaust” slander is that Germany’s neighbours and alleged friends have been almost happy to accept as well this twaddle which possessed, and still possesses, the advantage of maintaining Germany in an accursed state and thus one of subjection. For us Westerners the lie of the “Holocaust”, let’s say rather “the lie of the gas chambers”, is thus indeed a potential factor of civil war.

Even the Moslem peoples cannot remain passive onlookers. The installation, by force and by the blackmail of the “Holocaust”, of Israel in the Middle East, the bloody oppression of the Palestinian people, the war against Iraq, the threats against the Islamic Republic of Iran, are an extraordinary revelation of the insane arrogance, duplicity and rapacity of the Jewish organisations and Israel.

Conclusion

The gas chambers, or rather, the “slander of the gas chambers” is thus indeed an instrument of oppression of billions of human beings whose only common characteristic is their not being Jewish.

And Israel, the Jewish communities and the United States (an unwilling instrument of Judaic aggression) cannot go on in this way. The lie they protect by force, that they propagate with their bought-off media, must be dismantled.

We must therefore tirelessly diffuse and strengthen the idea of respect for exactitude in history, promote free debate of information, try to arouse reflections on the utter impossibility of the existence and operation of this mythical object, the “Nazi gas chamber”.

We must endeavour with all our strength to throw the alleged gas chambers into the rubbish bins of History! And we shall succeed, for the promoters of the fraud are at the end of their tether; we’re going to force them to accept free discussion, free debate, which will lead to their undoing.

No gas chamber, therefore no “Holocaust”; consequently: the State of Israel is an imposture. Its peaceful but inexorable dissolution is a necessity for peace in the world.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the day is not far off when there will finally arise, for the great good fortune of all, a world rid of the gas chambers, where the Jews themselves will finally be reconciled with the rest of the world by their acknowledgement of the imposture. We know that the reconciliation will have to be imposed, for it is obviously not desired by the slanderers. And that is their very distinction from the others. Their unique destiny! Their transcendental difference!

But they will, in the end, give in.

And then there will no longer be either Jews or Gentiles, but only children of God.


Additional information about this document
Property Value
Author(s): Georges M. Theil
Title: Our Mission: To Disrupt the Global Slander and Help Build a More Honest World, Speech given at the Teheran Conference
Sources:
n/a
Contributions:
n/a
Published: 2006-12-11
First posted on CODOH: Dec. 9, 2006, 6 p.m.
Last revision:
n/a
Comments: Speech given at the 2006 Tehran Holocaust Conference
Appears In:
Mirrors:
n/a
Download:
n/a