[Alain Soral, a leading French dissident, talks about his association with Robert Faurisson and the impact that his Revisionist work had on him, awakening him to the power of organized jewry and their persecution of anyone who doesn’t bow down and worship their “Shoah”.
NOTE: The English voice-over in the video is provided by the talented musician Alison Chabloz, another admirer of the late Faurisson, and who expresses her disbelief of those historical lies through stinging satirical songs!
My Homage to
Click the link below to view the video:
Alison Chabloz’s Description
Published on October 29, 2018
Of the many moving tributes following the recent death of Robert Faurisson, the video below is one of the most pertinent I have seen so far. Using today’s technology — featuring a mise en scène and dresscode worthy of note and which would certainly have met with Robert Faurisson’s approval — Alain Soral regales viewers with his in-a-nutshell analysis of the crucial importance of historical revisionism and the inestimable contribution made by Robert Faurisson.
Alain Soral is the founder of Égalité et Réconciliation, the leading dissident publication in France with seven million monthly clicks. He is also head of the publishing house Kontre Kulture. Mr Soral kindly granted me permission to translate his incisive impromptu text and redistribute the video below with voiceover in English. You can find the original here.
Many thanks to all who continue to support the revisionist cause.
Well, it brings great sadness, as well as the end of an era. I could talk about this in different ways, but I’d like to use the occasion to try and make others understand how one might come to the Revisionist’s school of thought. Because this sensibility, which eventually leads to asking questions and to looking into the professor’s work, needs to be explained. I wish to emphasis that I’m sad that he’s gone. At the same time I’ve been in his company fairly often recently.
And just to note that Égalité et Réconciliation supported him by way of my barrister, as well as ensuring his security. And he was surrounded by friendship and affection. Friends presented him with the “Quenelle d’or”, the “Golden Quenelle” awarded to him by Dieudonne. And he sent me a very kind voice mail.
Now that he’s gone, aside from the Revisionist’s combat, we can say we accompanied him, I think, with warm and tender affection right to the end. And that is really important. He was someone, how to put it, we simply can’t imagine what he had to suffer! Ten times worst than what I was subjected to. And admittedly I sometimes have trouble keeping my calm.
There’s a price to pay for the organism, physically and psychologically. And he was someone who needed to be surrounded by love and affection in order to bring some kind of balance. I insist that not withstanding his combat, which is non-debatable, because we do not have the right to debate it, let’s say it as it is.
Apart from his non-debatable combat, there was the whole human aspect that was extremely important. And here I must mention Dieudonne. Dieudonne did a lot, a lot for Robert Faurisson.
Perhaps I also did a lot in order that Dieudonne found out about Faurisson, which some people reproached me for. But how could I be ashamed of that? He’s someone we accompanied during his final years, which was very important because he succeeded in transferring his combat to another generation. Meaning there were people who were interested in him, from the 1970s onwards, and in the generations that followed, 20 or 20 years down the line. People do burn out, but thanks to Dieudonne the younger generation became interested in Professor Faurisson.
If we look at his trials which took place toward is the end of his life, he was surrounded by people in their 20s and 30s. And it was a fountain of youth which he found both very useful and agreeable. That is the first aspect.
Now, let’s talk about Revisionism in a more fundamental way. How does one arrive at the point of becoming interested in his work? From my part, it so happened that I came to Paris with no knowledge of any of these issues. And I believed that reality corresponded to what I saw on TV and at the cinema in war films broadcast in continuity on TV channels, since I was a child.
The Second World War, the Germans, the Allies, the Resistance, the Americans. What we were shown in the cinema, a world with goodies and baddies. Aged twenty I firmly believed in all that!
And then I arrived in the capital, Paris, where I immediately became part of society, that might be referred to as the “superstructure”. First of all fashion, then journalism, publishing, and cinema.
And there I met members of a powerful community, which, by way of its own psychological interactions, bore no resemblance to those people of that particular community as depicted in Hollywood films. And therefore at one point I told myself, either there are two different categories when it comes to this kind of people, or else I’ve been sold something which doesn’t really correspond to reality.
And at that moment, one of those times when things seem to happen for a reason, by chance, I think, in 1983 I discovered a certain professor, whose work was based on alternative theories relating to critical studies of historical events.
And who was trying to show that the history of the “good and evil”, this caricature of “goodies and baddies” wasn’t quite as clear cut as that. And I became interested.
Just as I was interested in lots of other things. For example, the question of the workers struggle according to Marx. Questions of nationalism, by way of nationalist thinkers. I’ve always looked at things from all sides.
And I became fascinated at that time with Revisionism. And back then it wasn’t on the internet! It was physical. I went foraging at Laveletor [sp]. And there, I discovered a place which needed iron bars on its shop front, because of attacks by militants. And it’s there I learned that there weren’t only jews who were victims.
There were cultural jews and artistic jews. But there were also aggressive and violent leagues, thuggish and vitriolic with no concern for the debate of ideas.
We are here, present. Proud, noble and cruel jews. We’re well trained, We’re well-equipped. We are utterly fearless. Our enemies are more afraid of us than we are of them.
So I discovered the other side of the story. I discovered other kinds of jews, than the ones portrayed by the American film industry. Ultra-violent zionist jews shunning all debate! And I also discovered people who studied history dispassionately, with far fewer ideological overtones. And that things were far more complicated than they appeared.
Professor Faurisson never spoke about “the truth”. And he was vigorous in his conviction that only God knows the truth. And that it always boiled down to a question of opinion.
Faurisson: I am not looking exactly for what people call “truth”. Because I think that “truth” is too vague and pretentious. What I am looking for is “exactitude”. And for me history is to try to be exact! To deliver, to try to find some little truths that I can verify.
On the other hand, he stood firmly by what he called “exactitude”. The violence that he was subjected to is proportional to the thoroughness of his work. If his work had been more approximative and ideological, rather than exemplifying exactitude, it would have been easier to counter him on the grounds of exactitude, meaning serious historiography.
But he was exact to such a point that it was necessary to quietly usher in a vote, in summer, when there was no Deputies around, and naturally under the usual pressure from special interest groups, which led to the adoption of the totally iniquitous law prohibiting the study of a certain period in history, covering the years 1933 to 1945 and establishing, once and for all “history and truth revealed”!
Conclusions of the Nuremberg tribunals, which was the victors tribunal in the context of the immediate after war with high stakes, tensions, sufferings and overwhelming emotion, which might well be understandable at that particular moment in time.
But it would have been more logical, from a historical point of view, that the longer we had waited after these events, then the stakes might not have been quite so high, and we could have moved from ideology towards historiography and allowed historians to work with more hindsight.
However we went from the ideology of the victors to the ideology of “remembrance”. From the political to the religious.
“The Shoah, the extermination of the jews, the genocide, must be sacralized, … Sacred.”
And therefore I became interested in the work of Professor Faurisson, and in Revisionism in general. And from then on, I would say that my life changed definitively! I realized that the world of good and evil was a bit more complicated than that. And that those who dominate us weren’t necessarily synonymous with good. I mean the we hadn’t been victorious simply because we were the kindest, or more honest. I realized that evil was everywhere and that relative good was everywhere too.
I also realized that talking about it was eminently dangerous. And that if you did talk about it, you were immediately doomed to integral marginalization. And my marginalization, whether in film, or in journalism, before I had even spoken a word in public, sprang from the fact that my Revisionist readings and my conversations at the dining table about Revisionism became common knowledge. I practiced the same naivety as many other people who are naive by way of their own innate honesty.
I talked about the work of Robert Faurisson at dinner with people from the fashion, media, and film industries, telling them they ought to interested. I remember once saying the same to Eric Zemmour.
“You should take a look and read what he says! It’s interesting. It’s much more interesting than people like to believe, and what people say.”
I was totally naive! That’s how I came to be interested in the work of the Professor. And at first I was interested in Revisionism itself, without any concern for the actual person. Once I discovered the extraordinary persecution he had been subjected to, which shocked me further still, because when we talk about political prisoners in distant lands, the torture, and the conviction of political dissidents, we are always ready to lend a hand with reporters without borders, to mobilize in the name of far-away suffering.
And yet no French intellectual, no French journalist have ever publicly condemned the unbelievable persecution!
Right up to attempted murder! Of which Professor Faurisson was victim, along with Revisionists in general, imprisoned whether in Germany, Canada, or the US, simply for having produced research results, including scientific research results! Right, we’ll change the subject because it’s prohibited by law to talk about these issues!
For all the free speech hypocrites I mentioned earlier, have the guts to talk about the persecution suffered by Robert Faurisson during his life! For having had the audacity to work according to the principles of exactitude, concerning a sequence in history, which we are no longer allowed to study. That has been mythologized, sacrialized, in order to create a religion. Because, let me remind you, that Revisionists are reproached for blasphemy! For daring to discuss “revealed truths”. And this proves that the “Shoah” has become a religion.
(November 2013 — Proces Faurisson/Arianne Chemin)
“F*ck you! You’re Nazis! You spit on the memory of millions of dead!”
Anti-revisionism has become the State religion. And we see the same violence and the same debate denial on the part of anti-revisionists, as we see from religious extremists, and notably from those fingered by Zemmour, radical Islamists. The same levels of violence, the same refusal and denial of others. And I think we should criticise anti-revisionism as much as we criticise Daesh’s Islam, which never happens! That would show intellectual steadfastness, moral standing, and coherence. Few people are brave enough to be coherent. Coherence means paying the highest price.
Eventually I did meet the Professor with Dieudonne. And there, I met a man who was completely devoid of violence, or hatred, despite everything that had happened to him. Which is quite extraordinary as we are talking about religion here. He was full of good companionship and humour. English humour, let’s say because he was of Scottish origin. Not shy of laughing out loud! And of such kindness and devoid of any hatred. That is what I found.
And I also sensed that he was stricken with excruciating pain, and that what he had suffered was absolutely horrid! And I say, that I will never forget the Professor’s work, his personality, the persecution he suffered, those who persecuted him — who still persecute him, even on the moment of his death.
And who will continue to persecute him, despite his death. And I believe this is the true task of remembrance.
Furthermore, I think that France as a nation, and as a people, will only be free once the unique and iniquitous Gayssot Law falls. As Vincent Reynouard puts it very well:
“There is no chance of a nationalist revival, or feeling of nationalist pride, as long as historical Revisionism is forbidden.”
All the rest is lies, smoke and mirrors! And if day France becomes France again, not only will the Gayssot Law will have fallen, but at that moment in France, there will be no streets named aft Eric Zemmour. But there will be streets, or boulevards, even avenues named after Robert Faurisson. And I hope there will be schools named after him too! Because Robert Faurisson was a master, a school master, a master of exactitude, a master of moral rectitude!
And most of all, he was master of what I would call “authentic virility”. He’s the bravest man I have ever met during my lifetime. And he was a slight man, far braver than any of the beefy, loud-mouthed, far-Right joke characters that I have met over the years.
Including, I might add, the man of the “mere detail”, who didn’t have the courage that day to say that this thing is everything but a “mere detail”, because in fact it’s their Golgotha!
It’s the atomic nucleus around which turns the entire system of Western domination, as Maurice Bardèche already understand and discussed in his “Nuremberg”. A book for which I, and I alone, and the editor and republisher.
What else can I say? Perhaps to note that Revisionism is not a topic the relates to the far-Right, contrary the Revisionism’s reduced status according to all the professional liars, whom I shall not describe here. Historical Revisionism began on the Left by Rassinier and his two books, “Crossing the Line” and “The Lies of Ulysses”.
He was a member of the socialist Resistance, who, after the War, simply described his own experiences in the camps, which was different from the stories being related by these same professionals, who were already deploying “Remembrance” ideology with precise political objectives. Basically, to render impossible any criticism of the State of Israel, and to render untouchable a certain population group that have become increasingly dominant.
Historical Revisionism is not a far-Right concept, it’s an ideology which comes from the Left! Revisionism was perpetuated by a certain hard Left. And at the end of the 1950s, by the Italian Communist Party.
It popped up by way of Cohn-Bendit’s own brother, Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit, I think.
“Coming to the rescue of freedom of expression. Because the French justice system is now attempting to ban historical Revisionism. Left leaning libertarians such as the American Noam Chomsky offer unexpected support for Faurisson. Among them is also Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit. Elder brother of the famous leader of May ‘68. Libertarian and close associate of publishing house La Vielle Taupe.
‘Pierre Guillame told me there’s a story concerning Faurisson, etc. They want to ban him. I had a look and I said: OK, I’m going to write something. I am against censorship. If I am not convinced of something then I have the right to harbour doubts. That is all. I have the right to say it! That I’m not convinced. That is all. I have the right to say it! That I’m not convinced, and that I’m shaken by it. Arguments exist. Voila’.”
In fact, Revisionism was gaining ground everywhere, on the Left, even the hard-Left. I remember Revisionism being satirized during the time of Charlie Hebdo, at the time of Professor Sharhon’s [sp], “Hitler = SS”.
If in fact the Fabius Gayssot Law came into being quietly, it was because Revisionism was growing thanks to its exactitude. It was making a bee-line towards all the moralists, and truth seekers, both on the Left and on the Right.
“Roger Garaudy, 84, former university professor, former communist Deputy and Senator, a convert to Islam, author of 53 books including the one that give grounds for his appearance today in the criminal court in Paris. He is accused of contesting crimes against humanity for speaking of the myth of the extermination of 6 million jews.”
“L’Abbe Pierre persists and insists in an interview with Liberation this morning he launched a controversy long thought to be dead and declared that he’s satisfied with the support for Roger Garaudy: ‘I’m sure that the French people are breathing a sigh of relief that the taboo is finally lifted’ — L’Abbe Pierre speaking about Revisionist theories.”
So I say again, that whilst we might use Faurisson’s death to relay certain important truths, Revisionism is not a far-Right ideology. It’s an ideology of people who are curious about the truth and exactitude. An ideology born on the Left and which then rebounded to the far-Left, and which has also been seen on the far-Right. And all those today who walk behind Zemmour are shameless closet Revisionists! And all those that read and validated Faurisson, and who validate him still.
I won’t even mention my former good friend Terrie Aldison, [sp] who prided himself in former times as a Revisionist, and on whose bookshelf, on the second floor of his home, reserved uniquely for his friends and not just for his collaborators, stood the complete library of Revisionists works.
And the way we see how all these persons have bowed down to those who dominate us, whereas at the beginning they were readers and admirers of the Professor.
We are able to measure the courage and the uphill battle of the Professor’s life. We can characterize his life as Christ-like. Professor Faurisson, you are a role model for us! Our teacher and your posterity is assured, and will be further amplified. And one day you will be recognized as one of the greats in French history!
Who deserves to be in the Pantheon, if we first manage to rid that place of all the votarians who fatally, in the end, only ever brought votarian lies and arrogance! Simone Vay [sp] and tomorrow maybe it will be the Klarfeld’s.
And why not Bennot Levi [sp], finishing off with Anoona [sp] and then Zemmour for good measure, before everything come crashing down in a grand finale!
Adieu, Professor! Thank you, and infinite respect.
Translation/Subtitles/Voiceover by Alison Chabloz.
The World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention — Instauration Dec, 1979
An Open Letter to New Jersey’s Governor
Misha: Surviving with Wolves or …
Bradley Smith’s Smith Report # 1
The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies
Powers and Principalities XI – Ewen Cameron, MK-Ultra, Holocaust Revisionism — TRANSCRIPT
Tales of the Holohoax – A Historian’s Assessment – Part 1
The Holocaust Lie — Made in America
Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained — TRANSCRIPT
Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT
Holocaust Eyewitnesses: Is the Testimony Reliable?
Alain Soral – My Homage to Robert Faurisson, Oct 2018 — TRANSCRIPT
Inside Auschwitz – You’ve never seen THIS before! — TRANSCRIPT
Amazion Bans 100s of Holocaust Revisionist Books!
AUSCHWITZ – A Personal Account by Thies Christophersen
Jim Rizoli Interviews Bradley Smith — TRANSCRIPT
London Forum – Alfred Schaefer – Psychological Warfare – TRANSCRIPT
The Realist Report Interviews Eric Hunt — TRANSCRIPT
Red Ice Radio – Germar Rudolf – Persecution of Revisionists & Demographic Disaster – Part 1— TRANSCRIPT
Red Ice Radio: Nicholas Kollerstrom — TRANSCRIPT
Red Ice TV – Ingrid Carlqvist – Scandal in Sweden When Ingrid Questions the Unquestionable — TRANSCRIPT
The Realist Report with Carolyn Yeager on Johnson vs Anglin debate — TRANSCRIPT
Version 1 —
* Total words = xxx
* Total images = xx
* Total A4 pages =
Version 3: Jan 28, 2020 — Added See Also links.
Version 2: Jan 23, 2020 — Re-uploaded images for katana17.com/wp/ version.
Version 1: Nov 6, 2018 — Published post.
Pingback: Inside Auschwitz - You've never seen THIS before! — TRANSCRIPT - katana17katana17
Pingback: The Plum Cake - katana17katana17
Pingback: The Graham Hart Show — Brizer with Monika Schaefer, Dec 2018 — TRANSCRIPT | Free Speech Monika
Pingback: The Realist Report – John Friend with Germar Rudolf – Nov 5, 2020 — TRANSCRIPT - katana17katana17
Pingback: Jim Rizoli – Germar Rudolf – The Holocaust Handbooks and More – Jul 28, 2021 — Transcript | katana17