I have often thought that one of the markers of proving that our mission
is correct is that intellectual fatalities are practically non-existent.
Once you become convinced of the scientific evidence and subsequent inherent
logic of the Revisionist argument, there is no going back.
Not all of us choose to act on Revisionist content and draw the necessary
consequences, but it is hard to lie to yourself when you, quite simply,
know better.
In fact, when I first started thinking about strictly Revisionist defectors,
I could come up with only two: Jean Claude Pressac and a woman named Cecelia
who speaks German with a Yiddish accent. (Ernst told me since that he knows
of a third, Charles Provan of Cleveland. Not bad for twenty years of inroads
into the greatest hoax in history!)
So for a week or two I thought that there were three. Since then, I have
received word from a fellow Revisionist that we are back to two:
"Your labelling of Pressac once having been a Revisionist is not correct. In fact he never became a guy who was looking for the truth.
He got into contact with Dr. Faurisson because he was looking for material for his planned novel "If Hitler Would Have Won The War". Dr. Faurisson gave him tasks to do for getting knowledge about the topic he was interested in, but Dr. Faurisson recognized quickly that Pressac wasn't able to do any concentrated, systematic, scientific work.
When Pressac realized Dr. Faurisson's willingness to find and tell only the truth and nothing but the truth and that it would be better ( for Pressac's purposes ) to be satisfied with bits and pieces of the truth, Dr. Faurisson refused to have further contact with him.
That's the story as it was told to me by Dr. Faurisson in December 1991, as far as I remember.
Pressac phoned me at the Max-Planck-Institute in early spring 1993 after I wrote him two letters without getting any reply. He told me that my behaviour as a Revisionist researcher was extremely dangerous for me, that I should be very cautious, and that it would be better for me not to tell the whole truth.
I told him that I didn't want to talk with him on the phone but that I was waiting for a reply to my letters. He refused to write me because it would be dangerous for him to answer my questions, he explained.
You can think what you want about this. For me it was the proof that Pressac is still what he was, when he first met Dr. Faurisson: He is absolutely convinced that the Revisionists are right, but he is full of fear saying it.
His tactics are "salami tactics" as one can see by reading his books. In each issue he comes a bit closer to the whole (revisionist) truth.
But now the Jews have recognised his tactics and refuse to continue their support. They noticed that Pressac was cheating. Now, Pressac is unmasked as what he is: A lying semi-revisionist mole."
Any more semi-Revisionist moles out there who can be spotted by their
salami tactics?
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"The history of the world is the record of a man in quest of his daily
bread and butter."
(Hendrick Willem van Loon)