Today is my late mother's birthday. She was born in 1913 to an ethnic
group that was as homogeneous as any group on earth.
She was a four-year-old when the Bolshevik Revolution took place that wiped
out everything these pious, pacifist, politically unschooled people had
built throughout the centuries - as though it were a prairie fire.
She was a ten-year-old during the first of several famines. She told me
how her mother made her eat earthworms, roots and grass.
She was a thirteen-year-old when her older sister married. She was told
that she could not attend that "wedding" (a very dangerous affair
because it was religious and therefore had to be conducted secretly since
the Bible was "anti-Semitic") because she had only one shoe. She
attended, with only one shoe.
She was a twenty-year-old, studying to be a teacher in Odessa in the artificially
created famine that starved out the Ukraine. She told me how the young man
she later married, my father, came courting her with a handful of beans
in his pockets. They would soak them on the window sill, fighting the urge
to eat them uncooked.
She was twenty eight years old when her husband was sent to the Gulags,
never to be seen again. With him went practically every male age fourteen
and over still left in our town from previous purges - a most effective
way to practice genocide on a community.
She experienced the German advance that gave her the only two unbrutalized
years of her life. To the end of her days, she would talk about those years
with awe.
She was part of the Great Trek at the end of the Second World War that ended
in the mass rape, mass torture and mass murder at the flaming gates of Berlin.
She never talked about the rapes. She talked about the murders and the torture.
She knew who the enemy was. Even as a little girl I knew about the "Protocols
of the Learned Elders of Zion" which were believed to be the blueprint
to all of the above.
I have thought a lot about the repeat accusation of Germans being ingrained
anti-Semites. I remember only one statement ever coming out of my mother's
mouth that one could even remotely call "anti-Semitic." She once
said something to the effect that ". . . so-and-so was a Jew, but he
was a GOOD Jew" - as if it needed a qualifier.
She also talked about the French, and her assessment of the French was that
you had to watch those fellows because, despite their inborn gentle charm
and carefully manicured manners, they could be hard as nails. She also said
that they were cunning; they kept things up their sleeve.
And she was right; we have the evidence. My mother would have taken pleasure,
for instance, in knowing Dr. Faurisson. There is nobody gentler, nobody
funnier in a sweetly noblesse/provocative way - and nobody tougher-than-nails.
This consummate scholar has been beaten up eight times by Jewish hoodlums
( http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/english/05.nizkor/sm_pic.html ) and been
hauled into court by his overwrought detractors I don't know how many times.
Worse yet for our enemies, he is a Man of the Left, a Liberal Revisionist,
an aggravating complication.
Please find hereafter the news about the latest from Faurisson HQ - which
I am bringing word for word:
". . . November 15, Professor Robert Faurisson was in court in Paris for having published on April 19, at the beginning of the Abbe Pierre affair, a press release in which he said he was glad to see people like Roger Garaudy, Abbe Pierre, and three of their friends, apparently coming on the side of the Revisionists who claim that 'the alleged genocide of the Jews and the alleged Nazi gas chambers are one and the same historical lie'.
Faurisson and his defence lawyer Eric Delcroix raised the following argument: the 1990 Fabius-Gayssot law (alias 'Lex Faurissonia'), forbidding anyone to contest so-called "crimes against humanity" as defined and punished in 1945-1946 by the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, is not a law but an 'act of violence' against the French judges who, according to that communist-socialist law, are deprived of their normal right to look into the basic FACTS and to decide whether the accused has the FACTS right or wrong.
Strangely enough, judges are left with only one right, which is to determine how hard they are going to sentence a revisionist. E. Delcroix and R. Faurisson announced they had just asked the 'Cour de cassation' (Supreme Court of appeal) to decide whether such a law infringes not so much the rights of an accused or of any individual than the very rights of the judges themselves.
The Tribunal could have refused to wait for a decision of the 'Cour de cassation' and could have immediately continued the proceedings. Anyway, this is what the public prosecutor along with the Jewish attorney of five associations asked for. But the Tribunal decided otherwise: Faurisson's trial is now postponed until the 'Cour de cassation' renders its decision.
Apart from the legal argument, something happened which put in trouble altogether the prosecutor, the Jewish attorney and the three judges: Faurisson warned them that on September 2 and 3, in a Swiss newspaper ('Le Nouveau Quotidien'), French historian Jacques Baynac, who had been hostile for seventeen years to revisionism and especially to Faurisson, had published two long articles in which he claimed that today, even if it was "heartbreaking to say it or to listen to it", one has to frankly admit there is no real evidence that the Nazi gas chambers ever existed. Baynac added nevertheless he still believed they had existed.
Faurisson concluded that today the difference between that historian and himself could be summarized this way:
'Jacques Baynac says: 'There is no evidence, but I believe'; Faurisson says: 'There is no evidence, therefore I refuse to believe'.
Baynac enjoys freedom of speech, whereas for Faurisson it is a matter of one month to one year in jail, a fine of 2,000 F to 300,000 F (USD 400 to 60,000) and other [especially financial] penalties'.
The Jewish attorney, Serge Lorach, looked worried. He was not aware of Baynac's articles.
When the hearing was closed, he came to Delcroix and Faurisson and begged for a copy of Baynac's articles, and of the comment Faurisson had written on those. The translation of that comment in English and German is currently being processed."
(end of communique)
You see what my mother meant by slyness, combined with gentle manners? Only
our beloved Dr. Faurisson, for all his trials and tribulations, would draw
a conclusion like that - to shame the craven system and put another feather
in our cap.
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"Revisionism is the great intellectual adventure at the end of the twentieth century."
(Dr. Robert Faurisson)