They met in Teheran

A conference freely discussing the Holocaust took place in Tehran and attracted much attention, providing revisionists with an opportunity they have long been denied. See my article below – but before, let me mention a few exciting materials re the Conference:

1. One of the best is the confrontation between David Duke and Wolf Blitzer. If you enjoyed George Galloway fighting Sky News and beating the broadcaster at her game,( or transcript) you will enjoy Duke. He has guts, this delicate man with his lapdog! It is tiresome to hear of his youthful fascination with KKK: Pound and Yeats were fascinated with Hitler; Jack London was a believer in white supremacy and Manifest Destiny; so what? Duke is definitely not a basket case; he is a brave man in the world full of cowards.

2. If you are interested in brass tacks of revisionism, you can read a talk by Faurisson, the dean of French revisionists while Jewish antizionist view was presented by Rabbi Cohen.

3. There is a well-written essay by my countryman Gabriel Ash. His views are not ours: he condemns the Iranian hosts ("the clowns") and the revisionist guests ("buffoons"), pays lip service to conventional paradigm (“pathetic conference”), attacks Duke (“white supremacist”), but understands the ugliness of holocaust cult.


The Teheran Holocaust Conference caused quite a storm in the world media. One might ask: what’s so special about that? There are so many holocaust events and holocaust museums and holocaust festivals, sometimes attracting presidents and prime ministers galore, so why did the Teheran (or Tehran) conference draw so much attention and criticism; why were the White House, Frau Merkel, the Vatican and the EC willing to take some valuable time to condemn this small gathering in far-away Iranian capital?

The difference is that all other gatherings were amen-sayers accepting the official version provided by Jewish organisations as the Holy Writ given to Moses on Mt Sinai. The official version of the Holocaust goes even farther than Writ: you may deny Immaculate Conception and Resurrection of Christ, you may besmirch Muhammad, but if you have any doubt that six million of Jews were executed by Germans in gas chambers within the framework of a total annihilation project you may find yourself in a jail in Germany, Austria, France, Switzerland and other ‘free’ countries. The Teheran Conference is the first one ever to deal critically with the sad events of the World War Two.

One does not have to be a fan of Hitler to approve of the conference. What is a souse for a goose is souse for a gander. The Jews do not hesitate to deny their atrocities. The Guardian reported that they targeted “the respected French TV correspondent, Charles Enderlin, whose Palestinian cameraman filmed 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dura being shot and killed, as his father tried to shield him at the start of the second intifada. Enderlin accused Israeli troops of shooting and killing the boy. French supporters of Israel went online to claim the report was a distortion based on faked footage. His network, France 2, responded with legal action and, last month, in the first of four individual cases, a French court found the organiser of a self-styled media watchdog website guilty of libel.

"Another online target has been the TV footage of bloodshed on a Gaza beach earlier this year. A Palestinian girl was seen screaming as she saw the bodies of dead family members killed by what Palestinians allege was Israeli shellfire. When [Stewart Purvis, the editor-in-chief of ITN] mentioned the impact of these pictures at last week's conference, members of the audience shouted "staged". One person came up to him afterwards to suggest that the family had somehow died somewhere else and that their bodies had been moved to the beach to be filmed. Where, for instance, was all the blood? He pointed out that he had seen everything that the cameraman had shot and that some pictures were too gruesome to be shown.”

More importantly, every freedom-of-speech loving liberal should regret that even important historians are not free to express their views on the Holocaust issue. David Irving is in jail, and this week Germar Rudolf was taken to a German court chained hand and foot after he was deported from the US for publishing his book doubting the official Holocaust dogma. Such a taboo clamours to be broken. I wrote of it at length in 2001, as the first conference scheduled to take place in Beirut was cancelled by the Lebanese yielding to severe pressure of the US. Then as now, the revisionists had much hope tthat their case would finally be heard.

It did not happen. If the conference organisers believed they could break the taboo and reach millions, they were mistaken. Though the world media has churned out thousands of news items connected to the Conference, they were practically identical, containing local official condemnation and the predictable Jewish reaction. Practically none of the reports and talks given in Tehran ever made it to the mass media. The conference participants were smeared as ‘racist antisemites’ though there were quite a few Jews, venerable Rabbis in their black hats and long coats, revolted by the Zionist privatisation of the World War tragedy.

If anything, the conference proved that the holocaust dogma is a basic tenet in the great world-embracing brainwashing machine of mass media described by Noam Chomsky as “the manufacture of consent Stalin could only dream of … whose discipline, and uniformity, are really impressive”. This media syndicate is the enemy of free people everywhere, and it carries on a relentless war against Iran and other independently-minded nations.

Just one case: a Jewish-owned Canadian paper, The National Post claimed that “in a move reminiscent of the Nazis forcing Jews to wear a Star of David insignia, Iran’s parliament has reportedly passed a law requiring Jews to wear colour-coded badges”. This was a sheer lie: Iran is home to 30,000 Jews who are doing fine, and do not plan to emigrate to Israel. They receive preferential treatment, and nobody forces them to wear a badge or anything else. The Post withdrew the canard a few days later, and apologised, but this news item was repeated ad nauseam in thousands of papers and blogs, while the apology remained on its sixth page.

Printer friendly with pictures / without pictures

Email this article to a friend

Last updated 22/12/2006

Homepage