Balder Ex-Libris - Faurisson RobertReview of books rare and missing2024-03-16T01:56:42+00:00urn:md5:aa728a70505b2fae05796923271581c2DotclearFaurisson Robert - “Confessions of SS men who were at Auschwitz”urn:md5:7703638536ff1b801d7cb82c82934a1a2016-10-07T14:16:00+01:002016-10-07T14:10:18+01:00balderFaurisson RobertAfricaAuschwitzChristChristianityIcelandIslamOdinReligionRevisionismRituals <p><img src="https://balderexlibris.com/public/img3/Faurisson_Robert_-_Confessions_of_SS_men_who_were_at_Auschwitz.jpg" alt="" /><br />
Author : <strong>Faurisson Robert</strong><br />
Title : <strong>“Confessions of SS men who were at Auschwitz”</strong><br />
Year : 1980<br />
<br />
Link download : <a href="https://balderexlibris.com/public/ebook2/Faurisson_Robert_-_Confessions_of_SS_men_who_were_at_Auschwitz.zip">Faurisson_Robert_-_Confessions_of_SS_men_who_were_at_Auschwitz.zip</a><br />
<br />
The following is a revised and corrected version of a 1980 conference paper whose publication seems useful in that it illustrates the classic and revisionist method of examination of texts, and also because it shows how and why a man on the vanquished side may be led to “confess” to his conquerors. – author’s note of June 23, 2015. Some SS men confessed that there were “gas chambers” at Auschwitz or at Auschwitz-Birkenau. The three most important confessions are those of Rudolf Höss, Pery Broad and, finally, Professor Doctor Johann Paul Kremer. For a long time the exterminationists relied especially on the first of these confessions, that of Rudolf Höss, which has appeared in English under the title Commandant of Auschwitz. I believe I have noticed, on the occasion of a recent historical debate in France, that the exterminationists seem less sure of the value of this strange testimony. On the other hand, the testimony of Johann Paul Kremer has been very useful to them. Personally, I think the argument supplied by Kremer’s text is in fact, from their point of view, a more valuable weapon than the absurd confession of Rudolf Höss. I must say that first the British and then the Poles made Höss speak in such a way that it is easy to destroy his testimony by simply comparing Commandant of Auschwitz with his numerous previous statements, among which I particularly recommend that of 14 March 1946 (IMT Documents NO-1210 and D-749). I shall limit myself therefore to studying what the exterminationists themselves today seem to consider their best weapons for supporting the allegation of the existence and use at Auschwitz of homicidal “gas chambers.” If I add this adjective “homicidal” it is because there are, as you know, non-homicidal gas chambers which it is impossible to use to kill people in the way in which it is said the Germans did. All the armies of the world have buildings, hastily equipped, for training their recruits in the use of gas masks. In France, these buildings bear the name chambre à gaz (“gas chamber”); in Germany, they are called Gaskammer or Gasraum (“gas chamber” or “gas room”). There are also gas chambers for the disinfecting of clothes, for treating fruit, and the like. Thus I will speak to you at some length of the testimony of Johann Paul Kremer. You will see how, at first sight, it is troubling, and then how, if you analyze it with a little care, it constitutes a terrible fiasco for the exterminationists. I prize the Kremer case very much. It shows how fragile the evidence that we are offered is; to what extent people allow themselves to be easily deceived by appearances; how much the official historians have misused the texts and how necessary it is to work if you wish, in the study of texts, to distinguish between the true and the false, between the real meaning and the misinterpretation. This is what is called “text and document appraisal”. It so happens that it is my professional speciality. I am therefore going to inflict upon you, to my great regret, a lecture on “text and document appraisal.” I ask you to forgive me for the strictness of the demonstration I am going to try to carry out here. <strong>...</strong></p>Faurisson Robert - Ecrits Ré visionnistesurn:md5:552eb46d734c0a2176707825bc23c1862012-12-10T20:12:00+00:002012-12-27T00:31:05+00:00balderFaurisson RobertAuschwitzFranceGermanyRevisionismSecond World WarThird Reich <p><img src="https://balderexlibris.com/public/img/.Faurisson_Robert_-_Ecrits_Re_visionnistes_s.jpg" alt="" /><br />
Author : <strong>Faurisson Robert</strong><br />
Title : <strong>Ecrits Ré visionnistes</strong><br />
Year : 1974-1998<br />
<br />
Link download : <a href="https://balderexlibris.com/public/ebook/Faurisson_Robert_-_Ecrits_Re_visionnistes.zip">Faurisson_Robert_-_Ecrits_Re_visionnistes.zip</a><br />
<br />
Just Who Is Robert Faurisson ? A pamphlet with a similar title, written by the brilliant political essayist who goes by the name of François Brigneau, appeared a few years ago in France. The present introduction will be a far more succinct answer than that found in Brigneau's book, but will try to keep to the idea that short need not mean incomplete. To the general French public Robert Faurisson is "a revisionist," more often "the revisionist," as he is likely to be the only such personality of whom they have heard, at least the only one who has willingly lent his name to the historical revisionist movement. This point is important, for it may be worthwhile to recall that last year, when the doddering Roger Garaudy, currently a Moslem, had scandalised the "intellectual" public by recirculating some key elements of Robert Faurisson's work (without bothering to mention this rich source), he was soon to be seen taking pains to distance himself from those historians whom the regime and its media have largely succeeded in passing off as mere "Nazi stooges," thus tools of the Devil, enemy of Abraham's god. By doing so Garaudy left some informed observers wondering whether the "philosopher" in his wisdom did not himself share this official view to some extent. Indeed he was later to stress repeatedly, at his subsequent criminal trial (yes, authors of books on history are prosecuted in France), his profound attachment and devotion to Abraham, his god, and his people. But all that is quite another matter. On one score the public are for once right: Faurisson is the French revisionist. Just what revisionism in fact is, though, they are at a loss to say in a coherent manner. What do revisionists wish to revise? History? Does not "revise" mean "change"? Change is often a scary notion. What can be the point of the revision? The bulk of the population, fundamentally necessarily conservative, are bound to be suspicious. But what, then, of the "élite", the "intellectuals"? Is it not their job to ask questions about the past, the present, the future, everything? More on them below. Back to our man. Robert Faurisson is a retired gentleman and a scholar of the old school, that is to say a wellbred man of classical education who made a successful carreer in the University. A University man, wellrounded: a sporting man (tennis, skiing) and one not limited in his curiosity by the bounds of his formal fields of study or, for that matter, by anything else. This free-wheeling curiosity was in 1960 attracted to the object which was later to win him renown, and to cause him dreadful tribulations of both a professional and physical nature: the official history of the Second World War, the aftermath of which formed then and still forms now the basis of the general political order in Europe and the world. For it was in that year that he chanced upon a piece published in the German newspaper "Die Zeit", in fact a letter from one Dr Martin Broszat of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich, which stated that in the camp at Dachau nobody had been gassed to death. This affirmation flew in the face of the established version of the history of the war as officially laid down (a "fact of common knowledge") at the 1945-46 Nuremberg international show trial. During those proceedings the prosecution, in order to "prove" the truth of the Dachau gassing stories, had treated the court to a projection of an American "documentary" (propaganda) film, formally admitted as "genuine evidence": it in fact showed nothing more than a lone individual standing in a room which he described as a gas chamber in which a hundred people at a time had been regularly put to death. The "Die Zeit" letter thus touched on an aspect of the greatest possible importance, not just some minor detail. Very simply, the Nuremberg procedure was gravely flawed, for if it had blithely let false allegations of systematic mass-murder in one place pass as true, then the holdings of the tribunal in question must need some serious looking into as well. Likewise the version of the terrible events (the war itself) which that tribunal had solemnised by its verdicts. And Faurisson set about doing just that, sedulously and in great depth. By 1974 his present conclusion was solidly established: the "Holocaust" story was a farrago of disparate and contradictory eye-witness "testimonies" mounted against a background of vicious wartime hate propaganda. With hindsight, we ourselves (and all the more easily our distant descendants, unless the world to come is peopled exclusively by mindless, senseless masses) may have no trouble in seeing the inclination to do this research as perfectly normal and desirable: the unprecedented destruction which had recently taken place on the continent, the enormous loss of life surely deserved all possible examination, from all reasonable points of view. Notably, if a systematic, mechanical mass slaughtering of civilians of a certain ethnic group had been carried out by one of the most cultivated and scientifically advanced nations on earth, nothing could be more natural than an urge to look into how this hellish deed had been planned and organised, how it had been done: with what means? Or so it seems to us rational observers. But far from being exposed to a candid, albeit horrified world, the diabolical instrument of the racial extermination which the noble Allies had fought to stop, the mass-execution gas chamber in functioning condition, has (notwithstanding the public exhibition of alleged examples in various states of repair at the grounds of some camps) remained shrouded in mystery, a desired mystery at that: Grand Wizard Elie Wiesel himself has recently written (in "All Rivers run to the Sea") that it must be protected "from prying eyes," in other words, from rational examination. Thus the very thing which in its murderous efficiency is supposed to symbolise evil itself, this means of carrying out the systematic extermination of one people by another a crime without precedent and which is constantly used to remind the world of a modern-day martyrdom, on the one hand, and of the barbarous nature of yesterday's enemy, on the other, is left unexplained, undefined, literally a mystery. Idem for the question of the mass-murder's organisation and execution. If there is no trace of any relevant military or administrative orders, this absence is put down plainly and simply to the supernatural, the diabolical: the main order did not need to be made either orally or in writing, but instead was issued and received by means of telepathy (Raul Hilberg's "incredible meeting of minds" in his statement under oath at the trial of the German-Canadian revisionist Ernst Zündel in Toronto in 1985). Such a statement in the world forum of historiography (Hilberg does pass for a prominent "international authority" in "Holocaust" studies) may itself easily be seen, by the clear-sighted, as an outright admission that the case for the reality of the "Holocaust" has little to stand on. For his part, Faurisson's observation is, simply put: "Yes, it's incredible, that is, unbelievable. So unbelievable, that I don't believe it!" Here in France there have been two other such unwitting, monumental admissions on the part of the "authorities" (the "intellectual" and the legislative ones, respectively): the first, six years previous to Hilberg's 1985 pronouncement, the second in July 1990. In 1979, 34 "intellectuals" who had got wind of the Lyon literature professor's inconvenient curiosity he had after all finally succeeded, after countless attempts, in getting a piece published in their favourite daily, "Le Monde" actually took it upon themselves to publish a nearly full-page advertisement, in that same paper, of their refusal to countenance the examination of the gas chambers and their functioning. The query "How had this happened?" was, they declared, unfit to be put, "since it had happened" (<i>sic</i>). One was expected to accept simply (and I use the word advisedly) that, during the war, diabolical forces had acted, and that no questions as to their workings were allowed. And this in 1979, not 1579. To a revisionist's, indeed to any honest, sober, non-partisan eyes, it surely ought to have seemed that the "system" felt that the game was up, and that it was time to exert some firm repression. <p> And repression was swift in coming. Faurisson was henceforth regularly prosecuted and convicted for making public the fruits of his labour. To date he has lost a good dozen criminal cases, all for historical revisionism. Since 1990, most of these have been brought against him under a law which Jean-Marie Le Pen has called the Lex Faurissonia, a statute promulgated on the 14th of July of that year with the aim of stemming a purported rising tide of racism and antisemitism. (For the occasion the government and media had even resorted to the shamelessly ostentatious exploitation of a curious vandalism incident in a Provençal Jewish cemetery.) It intends to do this by forbidding a most devilish practice abroad in the land: the questioning of the holy writ of Nuremberg. If a rational mind refuses to entertain the notion of the divine, it necessarily has no time for the Devil either. It is with such a disposition that Faurisson has done his research into matters which he realised had simply not been thoroughly examined, or not examined in the least. Doubtless many others had wondered exactly how such awful things had come to pass, only to abandon the hypothesis of even the vaguest, shallowest research project, perhaps thinking: "Surely some experts must have taken care of the question at some time or other, this mass-gassing business in the midst of the '39-45 war." Robert Faurisson will be remembered if, as I have remarked above, rational thought does not become extinct as the man who, upon learning that that was not the case, himself insisted on examining these few, precise elements of recent history which have determined the political, intellectual, and (increasingly) cultural orientations of our world, and then proved that they were counterfeit. Nevertheless, a western world grown largely weary of its old martyrdom- and resurrection-based religion appears to be easily, steadily seduced by a new version which, unlike the old, has its kingdom set firmly in this world, and which accords special, near absolute rights and powers to the resurrected, in whatever land they (miraculously, of course) dwell: in Palestine, in Europe, or anywhere else. Who the hell, then, is this Faurisson ? <strong>...</strong></p>Faurisson Robert - A Prominent False Witness Elie Wieselurn:md5:2a782adb751211bc99db68ad6660aeca2012-07-24T21:17:00+01:002014-03-22T01:49:29+00:00balderFaurisson RobertJewSecond World War <p><img src="https://balderexlibris.com/public/img/.Faurisson_Robert_-_A_Prominent_False_Witness_Elie_Wiesel_s.jpg" alt="" /><br />
Author : <strong>Faurisson Robert</strong><br />
Title : <strong>A Prominent False Witness Elie Wiesel</strong><br />
Year : 2003<br />
<br />
Link download : <a href="https://balderexlibris.com/public/ebook/Faurisson_Robert_-_A_Prominent_False_Witness_Elie_Wiesel.zip">Faurisson_Robert_-_A_Prominent_False_Witness_Elie_Wiesel.zip</a><br />
<br />
ELIE WIESEL won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. He is generally accepted as a witness to the Jewish "Holocaust," and, more specifically, as a witness to the legendary Nazi extermination gas chambers. The Paris daily Le Monde emphasized at the time that Wiesel was awarded the Nobel Prize because: These last years have seen, in the name of so-called "historical revisionism," the elaboration of theses, especially in France, questioning the existence of the Nazi gas chambers and, perhaps beyond that, of the genocide of the Jews itself. But in what respect is Elie Wiesel a witness to the alleged gas chambers? By what right does he ask us to believe in that means of extermination? In an autobiographical book that supposedly describes his experiences at Auschwitz and Buchenwald, he nowhere mentions the gas chambers. He does indeed say that the Germans executed Jews, but ... by fire; by throwing them alive into flaming ditches, before the very eyes of the deportees! No less than that! Here Wiesel the false witness had some bad luck. Forced to choose from among several Allied war propaganda lies, he chose to defend the fire lie instead of the boiling water, gassing, or electrocution lies. In 1956, when he published his testimony in Yiddish, the fire lie was still alive in certain circles. This lie is the origin of the term Holocaust. Today there is no longer a single historian who believes that Jews were burned alive. The myths of the boiling water and of electrocution have also disappeared. Only the gas remains. The gassing lie was spread by the Americans. The lie that Jews were killed by boiling water or steam (specifically at Treblinka) was spread by the Poles. The electrocution lie was spread by the Soviets.n. The fire lie is of undetermined origin. It is in a sense as old as war propaganda or hate propaganda. In his memoir, Night, which is a version of his earlier Yiddish testimony, Wiesel reports that at Auschwitz there was one flaming ditch for the adults and another one for babies. He writes: Not far from us, flames were leaping from a ditch, gigantic flames. They were burning something. A lorry drew up at the pit and delivered its load - little children. Babies! Yes, I saw it - saw it with my own eyes ... Those children in the flames. (Is it surprising that I could not sleep after that? Sleep has fled from my eyes.). <strong>...</strong></p>Faurisson Robert - The Victories of Revisionismurn:md5:ee48a622269840e0d08a3cac89a9cf1f2012-03-05T12:08:00+00:002014-03-22T01:48:53+00:00balderFaurisson RobertIranRevisionismThird Reich <p><img src="https://balderexlibris.com/public/img/.Faurisson_Robert_-_The_Victories_of_Revisionism_s.jpg" alt="" /><br />
Author : <strong>Faurisson Robert</strong><br />
Title : <strong>The Victories of Revisionism</strong><br />
Year : 2006<br />
<br />
Link download : <a href="https://balderexlibris.com/public/ebook/Faurisson_Robert_-_The_Victories_of_Revisionism.zip">Faurisson_Robert_-_The_Victories_of_Revisionism.zip</a><br />
<br />
To President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad To our prisoners of conscience Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf, Horst Mahler To Arthur Butz, Fred Leuchter, Barbara Kulaszka, Ahmed Rami, Gerd Honsik, Heinz Koppe. Abstract At the Nuremberg trial (1945-1946), a tribunal of the victors accused a defeated Germany notably 1) of having ordered and planned the physical extermination of the Jews of Europe; 2) of having, to that end, designed and used certain weapons of mass destruction, in particular those that it called “gas chambers”; 3) of having, essentially with those weapons but also through other means, caused the death of six million Jews. In support of that threefold accusation, regularly taken up over the past sixty years by all the main communications media in the West, no proof capable of standing up to examination has been produced. Professor Robert Faurisson concluded in 1980: “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 whose main beneficiaries 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.” In 2006 he maintains that conclusion in full. In nearly sixty years, the revisionists, beginning with the Frenchmen Maurice Bardèche and Paul Rassinier, have accumulated, from the historical and scientific point of view, an impressive series of victories over their opponents. Twenty examples of such victories, running from 1951 to today, are given here. Revisionism is not an ideology but a method inspired by the search for exactitude in matters of history. Circumstances have seen to it that revisionism is also the great intellectual adventure of the present time. <strong>...</strong></p>Faurisson Robert - No documents, no historyurn:md5:732f791824349010b4f3a6a4d6c429dc2012-01-13T22:15:00+00:002014-03-22T01:48:35+00:00balderFaurisson RobertJewRevisionism <p><img src="https://balderexlibris.com/public/img/.Faurisson_Robert_-_No_documents_no_history_s.jpg" alt="" /><br />
Author : <strong>Faurisson Robert</strong><br />
Title : <strong>No documents, no history Interview with Professor Robert Faurisson at the Guest House of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran</strong><br />
Year : 2006<br />
<br />
Link download : <a href="https://balderexlibris.com/public/ebook/Faurisson_Robert_-_No_documents_no_history.zip">Faurisson_Robert_-_No_documents_no_history.zip</a><br />
<br />
Hello Professor Faurisson, and thank you for granting me this interview. Hello. It‟s I who thank you for your willingness to put questions. Professor, may I ask what your reasons were for deciding to take part in this conference in Tehran on the Holocaust on December 11th and 12th, 2006? It‟s because I know of no other country, no place where a conference on this subject could welcome me. Even in the United States the holding of such a conference would be risky; to begin with, upon arrival on American territory any foreign revisionist could well find himself being sent straight back to where he‟d come from. In France, any similar gathering would be out of the question. I don‟t see a single European country that would tolerate a public conference or debate on the “Holocaust”. In Germany, your country, the prohibition of any form of revisionism is draconian. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are merciless. Furthermore, it may be that in other parts of the world some countries are indifferent to the matter. Thus it was an altogether unexpected bit of luck that Iran should offer to host an international seminar on the “Holocaust” that, for once, would be open to all comers. It was not actually a revisionist conference but, as indicated by the title (“Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision”), a new look at the “Holocaust” from a comprehensive viewpoint and not a biased or fragmentary one. I didn‟t think this could come about in my lifetime. What goal have you been looking to achieve in coming here? I want to make public what the mainstream media of the Western world stubbornly conceal. When those media speak of revisionists, it‟s to insult us or ascribe to us ideas that we‟ve never expressed. For example, they readily assert that the revisionists are people who claim the German concentration camps never existed. That‟s putting sheer nonsense in our mouths. Unhappily the nonsensical assertion, amongst the French in any case, is widespread. On this score, the French in general have the idea that the revisionists are lunatics who go so far as to deny the obvious and this is why, coining a barbarism, they call us “négationnistes” (“denialists”). Have you the impression, at the end of this gathering, that you’ve achieved your goal? <strong>...</strong></p>Faurisson Robert - Is the Diary of Anne Frank geniune ?urn:md5:90fa1b4a504832a4b97330ad909763802012-01-13T22:08:00+00:002018-12-10T15:47:11+00:00balderFaurisson RobertJewPropagandaRevisionism <p><img src="https://balderexlibris.com/public/img/Faurisson_Robert_-_Is_the_Diary_of_Anne_Frank_geniune.jpg" alt="" /><br />
Author : <strong>Faurisson Robert</strong><br />
Title : <strong>Is The Diary of Anne Frank genuine ?</strong><br />
Year : 1980<br />
<br />
Link download : <a href="https://balderexlibris.com/public/ebook/Faurisson_Robert_-_Is_the_Diary_of_Anne_Frank_geniune.zip">Faurisson_Robert_-_Is_the_Diary_of_Anne_Frank_geniune.zip</a><br />
<br />
Is The Diary of Anne Frank genuine? For two years that question was included in the official syllabus "Text and Document Criticism," a seminar reserved for degreed students in their fourth year. The conclusion of my studies and research is that The Diary of Anne Frank is a fraud. In order to study the question posed and to find an answer to it, I have carried out the following investigations: 1. Internal criticism: the very text of the Diary (in Dutch) contains a number of unlikely or inconceivable facts. 2. A study of the premises in Amsterdam: on the one hand, the physical impossibilities and, on the other hand, the explanations made up by Anne Frank's father severely compromise him. 3. Interview of the principal witness: Mr. Otto Frank. 4. Bibliographical examination: some curious silences and revelations. 5. A return to Amsterdam for a new investigation: the witnesses turn out to be unfavorable to Mr. Frank; the probable truth. 6. The "betrayer" and the person who arrested the Franks: why has Mr. Frank wished to assure them such anonymity? 7. Comparison between the Dutch and German texts: attempting to make too much of it, Mr. Frank has given himself away; he has signed a literary fraud. <strong>...</strong></p>Faurisson Robert - Impact and Future of Historical Revisionismurn:md5:b340640bff8b9782a8ea13da1627c40d2012-01-13T22:07:00+00:002018-12-10T15:47:35+00:00balderFaurisson RobertJewRevisionism <p><img src="https://balderexlibris.com/public/img/.Faurisson_Robert_-_Impact_and_Future_of_Historical_Revisionism_s.jpg" alt="" /><br />
Author : <strong>Faurisson Robert</strong><br />
Title : <strong>Impact and Future of Historical Revisionism A Revisionist Chronicle</strong><br />
Year : 2000<br />
<br />
Link download : <a href="https://balderexlibris.com/public/ebook/Faurisson_Robert_-_Impact_and_Future_of_Historical_Revisionism.zip">Faurisson_Robert_-_Impact_and_Future_of_Historical_Revisionism.zip</a><br />
<br />
The following is the remark, not of a revisionist, but rather by an anti-revisionist: note 1 "Holocaust denier," "revisionist," "negationist": everyone knows what such an accusation means. It effectively means exclusion from civilized humanity. Anyone who is suspected of this is finished. His public life is destroyed, his academic reputation ruined. And he went on to add: One day people will have to discuss the state of public affairs in a country where to brand a renowned scholar as a Holocaust denier (by hitting him with the 'Auschwitz Lie' club die Keule der Auschwitz-Lüge) is enough to destroy him morally, in an instant. Against the Law Writings such as this essay cannot be sold openly in my country. They must be published and distributed privately. In France, it is forbidden to question the Shoah -- also called the "Holocaust." A law on the "freedom of the press" enacted on July 13, 1990, makes it a crime to question the Shoah, in its three hypostases: the alleged genocide of the Jews, the alleged Nazi gas chambers, and the alleged figure of six million Jewish victims of the Second World War. Violators are subject to a prison term ranging from one month to one year, a fine of 2,000 to 300,000 francs ($333 to $50,000), an order to pay considerable damages, and other sanctions. More precisely, this law makes it a crime to question ("contester") the reality of any of the "crimes against humanity" as defined in 1945 and punished in 1946 by the judges of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, a court established exclusively by the victors exclusively to judge the vanquished. Debates and controversies about the Shoah are, of course, still permitted, but only within the limits set by the official dogma. Controversies or debates that might lead to a challenging of the Shoah story as a whole, or of a part of it, or simply to raise doubt, are forbidden. To repeat: on this issue, even doubt is proscribed, and punished. <strong>...</strong></p>