Prof. Robert Faurisson on Holocaust Revisionism

Get your own valid XHTML YouTube embed code

Jews Brought the "Holocaust" Upon Themselves?

A recent proclamation by a Russian TV anchor that “Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves” has sparked outrage throughout the world.  What exactly did this anchor mean by this and is there any truth to the claim?  To understand this, we will need to examine the relationship between Jews and non-Jews in the modern world, what Jews believe, Jewish influence on modern Russian history, and Jewish influence on Weimar Germany.

The Jew as a Revolutionary

Since the time that they choose to spare the life of the condemned revolutionary Barabbas over Jesus of Nazareth, the Jewish people have always been instigators and supporters of revolutionary movements.  Historically, this can be explained by the Jewish people’s rejection of Logos, Jesus Christ.  As Christendom developed, which sought to bring about the kingship of Christ on earth, the Jews naturally rebelled.  Why should society be arranged around what in their view was a false Messiah?  As opposed to the Muslims, who attacked Christendom in open war from the outside, the Jews fought from the inside with a revolutionary spirit. 

Jews joined forces with heretics during the Albigensian crises, the Hussite revolution, the Reformation, and at the birth of modern England.  They joined forces with revolutionaries during the enlightenment… We also see the conflict between the Church and Judaism working itself out at the birth of the Spanish Inquisition, the spread of the Polish empire and the Chmielnicki rebellion that began to break up the empire.  (JRS p. 21)

How can one define a Jew?  Before the coming of Christ, a Jew was a member of the ethnic group that descended from Abraham.  As the Gospel of St. John makes clear, after the coming of Christ, a Jew is one who is a member of that ethnic group (or associates themselves with that group) and also rejects Jesus as the Messiah.  According to adherents of Judaism (and the State of Israel today), a Jew is no longer a Jew once he converts to Christianity.  Thus there is a fundamental distinction that needs to be made between the Jews of the Old Covenant and the Jews of the New Covenant, namely that the Jews of old were God’s chosen people while the Jews since the time of Christ are rejecters of the Word of God.  In Christian society, this naturally alienated them from the rest of the population.  Another distinction needs to be made—Jews of the Old Covenant were a fairly diverse group of followers of the Law of Moses and the prophets and patriarchs of the Old Testament.  The Jewish religion after the death of Christ and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 became a rabbinic religion based on the teachings of the Talmud.  The Talmud accurately demonstrates that Jews see themselves as “outsiders” and morally superior than non-Jews.  Thus, they have the right, even the obligation, to rebel against the inferior majority oppressors. The Talmud, which is a written collection of the oral traditions of Jewish elders (i.e. the Pharisaical sect, whom Jesus denounced) and later rabbis, has come to surpass the Scripture in terms authority.  Thus, rabbis are able to use the Talmud as a “hedge around the law” of Scripture. This “Hedge around the law” is

a generic euphemism invoked to cover falsification and abrogation of the Biblical text under a benign, or at the least, a bland heading.  When attempting to understand some escape clause or demented loophole in the meaning of a Biblical text, one discovers that the distortion can be under the heading “make a hedge around the law”…

Certain Christians well understood the mechanics of Judaism’s scriptural nullification.  The Puritan exegete John Owen (1616-1683), quoting the antiquarian and philologist John Selden’s (1584-1654) description of the Gezera Shava:  “It is a most common thing among the Talmudists to seek for some support for their additional customs from some words of the Scriptures, and, as it were, to try to hedge them up behind some Biblical word, interpretation or analogy.  Those even tolerably familiar with their works will know this well.  So the original words are twisted and distorted with great boldness to give some seeming confirmation to their customs, far out of the sense of the original.”

The “hedge around the law” is known inside Jusaism for what it truly is:  “eis la’asos leHashem heifeiru Torascha” (a bending of the rules of the Torah in order to protect it.)  This is how the “hedge around the law” has actually been intended to function across centuries, by the leaders of historic Judaism:  distorting God’s Word to suit the rabbis’ distorted version of what God says and decrees, on the pretext that the distortion is a form of “protection.” (JD p. 173-174)

Teachings of the Talmud that may give rise to feelings of aversion and distrust of Jews

Talmudic teachings naturally give rise to detestation and distrust between Jews and non-Jews; its teachings clearly show that Jews are superior to gentiles and that Jews have the right and obligation to treat gentiles in a manner confirming to this notion.  Below are some examples of teachings contained in the Babylonian Talmud that give rise to mutual distrust of Jews and gentiles. 

1.       The Talmud teaches that Jews are superior to gentiles and that gentiles are sub-human

·         If a heathen [gentile] smites a Jew, he is worthy of death…He who smites an Israelite on the jaw, is as though he had thus assaulted the Divine Presence.  (Sanhedrin 58b)

·         A heathen [gentile] who keeps a day of rest deserves death (Sanhedrin 58b)

·         Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen [gentile], if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: 'This is our law'; so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] 'This is your law'; but if this cannot be done, we use subterfuges [trickery] to circumvent him.  (Baba Kamma 113a, emphasis added)

·         A Jew need not pay a gentile wages owed:  …[the law] applies to the withholding of a labourer's wage.  One Cuthean[1]  from another, or a Cuthean from an Israelite is forbidden, but an Israelite from a Cuthean is permitted.  (Sanhedrin 57a)

·         …thus it may be inferred that the All Merciful declared their [gentile] children to be legally fatherless, for [so indeed it is also] written, Whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses. (Yebamoth 98a)

·         You are called Adam ["man"], but [gentiles] are not called Adam ["man"]. (Kerithoth 6b, emphasis added)

·          In Mosaic Law, touching a human corpse makes one unclean.  The Talmud teaches that this does not apply to the bodies of non-Jews since they are not human: …the graves of idolaters [gentiles] do not impart levitical uncleanness by an ohel, for it is said, And ye My sheep the sheep of My pasture, are men; you are called men but the [non-Jews] are not called men. (Yebamoth 61a).  The graves of Gentiles do not defile, for it is written, And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men; only ye are designated 'men'. (Baba Mezia 114b)

2.       The Talmud teaches Jews that gentiles are not their neighbors nor brothers

·         A Jew does not need to return a lost item of a gentile: …it is to your brother that you make restoration, but you need not make restoration to a heathen [gentile]. (Baba Kamma 113b)

·         [Thou shalt not oppress] thy neighbor, but not an Amalekite [gentile]...One gives permission in this regard to his [referring to gentiles] oppression. (Baba Mezia 111b)

·         He who invites a heathen [gentile] into his house and attends to him, causes his children to go into exile. (Sanhedrin 104a)

·         All the charity and kindness that the heathen [gentile] do is counted sin to them, because they only do it in order that their dominion may be prolonged. (Baba Bathra 10b)

·         One should not place cattle in heathens’ [gentiles’] inns, because they are suspected of immoral practice with them.  A woman should not be alone with them, because they are suspected of lewdness, nor should a man be alone with them, because they are suspected of shedding blood.  (Abodah Zarah 22a)

Jewish Involvement in the Russian Revolution

It can be accurately stated that Jews were the driving force behind every revolution during the 19th and 20th centuries.  The below words were written by Winston Churchill, hardly an extreme “anti-Semite,” in 1920:

This movement among the Jews [The Russian Revolution] is not new.  From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.

It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. [Nesta] Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution.  It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews.  It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others.  With the notable exception of Lenin [who was actually part Jewish], the majority of the leading figures are Jews.  Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.  Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek—all Jews. 

In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing.  And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary.  The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people.  Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers is the population is astonishing.  (Quoted in SBC p. 97-99)

It is not just gentiles who noted the Jewish role in these revolutions; there are many Jewish individuals and organizations that boast of the role that their people played in the casting off of the Ancien Régime.  For example, the New York Rabbi J. L. Magnes spoke the following words in 1919:

When the Jew applies his thought, his whole soul to the cause of the workers and the despoiled, of the disinherited of this world, his fundamental quality is that he goes to the root of things.  In Germany he becomes a Marx and a Lasalle, a Haas and an Edward Bernstein; in Austria Victor Adler, Friedrich Adler; in Russia, Trotsky.  Compare for an instant the present situation in Germany and Russia: the revolution there has liberated creative forces, and admire the quantity of Jews who were there ready for active and immediate service.  Revolutionaries, Socialists, Mensheviks, Bolsheviks, Majority or Minority Socialists, whatever the name one assigns to them, all are Jews and one finds them as the chiefs of the workers in all revolutionary parties. (Quoted in FJ p. 128, emphasis added)

While the role of Judaism in the French Revolution was masked by the (largely Jewish) Freemasons, its role in the revolution in Russia, where Freemasonry was outlawed, is very clear.  From the beginning of the revolutionary movements to the murder of the royal family to the establishment of the revolutionary government, Jews played the chief role.  Jews in the high command of the Russian Commiuist Party included Maxim Litvinov, Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Jacob Sverdlov, Lazar Kananovich, and Karl Radek, along with many others.  According to a US Senate subcommittee investigation of the Russian Revolution in December of 1919, 371 of the 388 members of the Bolshevik central government were Jews (most of who immigrated to Russia after the fall of the Czar).  The following table, produced by the association, Unity in Russia, in 1920 shows the breakdown of the number of Jews in the Soviet bureaucracy. (FJ p. 130-31)

Why were so many Jews planners, actors, collaborators, and supporters of the Russian Revolution?  To answer that question, we merely need to understand what is behind the underlying Jewish revolutionary spirit and the teaching of the Talmud as explained above.  Organized Judaism is essentially anti-Christian, anti-establishment, and supremacist—thus it is revolutionary in essence.  The Russian revolutionary M. Lokotj sums it up:  (FJ p.140)

Bolshevism, this symbol of chaos and of the spirit of destruction, is above all an anti-Christian and anti-social conception.

This present destructive tendency is clearly advantageous for only one national and religious entity:  Judaism.  The fact that Jews are the most active element in present-day revolutions as well as in revolutionary socialism, that they draw to themselves the power forced from the peoples of other nations by revolution, is a fact in itself, independent of the question of knowing if that comes from world-wide Judaism, from Free Masonry or by an elementary evolution brought about by Jewish national solidarity and accumulation of capital in the hands of Jewish bankers. 

The contest is becoming more definite.  The domination of revolutionary Judaism in Russia and the open support given to this Jewish Bolshevism by Judaism the world over finally clear up the situation, show the cards and put the question of the battle of Christianity against Judaism, of the National State against the International, that is to say, in reality, against Jewish world power.

Jewish Involvement in Weimar Germany

The edict of March 11, 1812 granted the Jews of Prussia (which constituted the largest segment of the German Reich in terms of population and territory) rights of citizenship.  Although Jews were restricted from practicing certain occupations and from holding official offices until 1869, Jewish influence increased greatly throughout the 19^th century.  By the early 20^th century, Jewish domination of German politics, sciences, and culture reached a point that many Germans called for restrictions on Jewish power.  The Jews were viewed as a corrupting foreign influence within the Reich that spread bolshevism and the degeneration of German culture and politics.  Already in 1848, Benjamin Disraeli, the Jewish Prime Minister of Britain, said the following:

The world is governed by very different personages to what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes…That mighty revolution which is at this moment preparing in Germany, and which will be, in fact, a second and greater Reformation, and of which so little is yet known in England, is developing entirely under the auspices of the Jews. (FJ p. 120)

In 1925, Jews made up just over 1.05% of the Prussian population.  The majority of Prussian Jews lived in cities and worked in commerce/business; very few Jews worked in agriculture.  According to the 1925 Prussian vocational census, 17.11% of the total population of workers was employed in commerce and business; 58.8% of Jewish workers worked in this industry (18% of which were foreign Jews).  Of 147 members of the directorate or committees on the Stock Exchange, 116 (almost 80%) were Jews! (JDWG 13).  4.35% of Jews worked in “health and hygienic vocations” as opposed to just 1.88% of the entire population.  5.94% of Jews were employed in public administration while the population as a whole was 4.85%.  On the other hand, 29.47% of the working population was employed in agriculture while only 1.74% of Jews were agricultural workers.  40.94% of the population was employed in “industry and handicraft”—only 25% of Jews were.  Keeping in mind that Jews only made up slightly over 1% of the Prussian population, the Jews made up a large proportion of the following professions:  independent doctors: 17.9%; independent dentists: 14.8%; independent chemists: 6.9%; independent artists: 48%; independent lawyers: 27%; editors: 4.6%; actors: 7.5%; theatrical stage managers: 11%.  In Berlin, the numbers are even more striking. In 1925, Jews made up 47.9% of all doctors in the city; dentists: 37.5%; chemists: 32.2%; lawyers: 50.2%; artists: 7.5%; editors: 8.5%; actors: 12.3%; theatrical stage managers: 14.2%.  These statistics make clear that there was a significant difference between the average Jew and the average gentile within the republic.  While most non-Jews worked in agriculture or manual labor, most Jews worked in the professions of distributers/middlemen.  Jews were highly overrepresented in influential and high-paying professions. 

Jewish influence on German culture and morals is hardly less striking.  Jews were at the front of the assault on the prohibition of abortion and contraception.  They were largely behind the attack on the traditional view of family and marriage and were promulgators of “free love” and pornography.  For example, the Jew Magnus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science took aim at the traditional role of sex.  Some of Hirschfeld’s writings included:  “The Homosexual Question as Judged by our Contemporaries”, “What the Public Ought to Know about the Third Sex”, “Sexual Transitions”, “The Wear and Other Erotic Impulse to Dress”, “The Homosexuality of Man and Woman”, “Sexology”, and “A History of the Morals of the World War” (JDWG p. 31-32).

…on May 15, 1897, Hirschfeld met with Spohr, the lawyer Eduard Oberg, and the writer Franz Josef von Bulow to found the world’s first homosexual-rights organization, the Wissenschaftlich-humanitares Kommittee.  It was as head of this committee that Hirschfeld, who was homosexual himself, known in the gay milieu of Berlin as “Tante Magnesia,” would work for the next thirty-three years for the overturn of Paragraph 175, the law criminalizing sodomy…

Hirschfeld’s magazine for sexual research was titles Die Aufklarung or, in English, The Enlightenment, giving some indication of its intellectual orientation and, beyond that, the Enlightenment’s hidden sexual agenda as well, an agenda that now espoused homosexuality as its cause célèbre.  When Hirschfeld addressed the First International Conference for Sexual Reform Based on Sexual Science, held in Berlin in 1921, he reminded his audience that the term “sexual science” derived from Charles Darwin’s The Descent of Man and Ernst Haeckel’s Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte.  “Nothing which is natural,” he told his audience “can escape the laws of nature.”  The statement situated Hirschfeld as the link which connected the Marquis de Sade to Alfred Kinsey, in the Enlightenment’s continuing attempt to destabilize morals and replace them with biology and hygienic technology.  During the Weimar years, Hirschfeld’s name was synonymous in the popular mind with the moral decline of Germany, often because of the fact that he testified as an expert at high-profile sodomy trials, like the Eulenberg affair, but in no small measure because the Institute for Sex Science in Berlin had become a Mecca for anyone of homosexual persuasion throughout Europe and North America. (LD p. 193-4)

According to E. Michael Jones, anti-Semitism was not historically characteristic of Germany, but rather was “fanned into a white heat by the perception that Jews were in the forefront of corrupting German morals through Kulturbolschewismus and the stranglehold they had on the instruments of culture.  No one was more responsible for giving this impression than Magnus Hirschfeld, who seemed to embody everything wrong with the Weimar Republic in the eyes of the average German” (LD p. 195-6). “…the resentment among the population at large, which the Nazis exploited so effectively, was just as real too, and as a result, the irony of the pink triangle room of the Holocaust Museum becomes too large to ignore.  Historically, Germany was not known as an anti-Semitic country.  Proof of this is the fact that so many Jews lived in Germany at the time.  Germany was enlightened, cultured, and, therefore, to Jews who brought the Enlightenment, a bulwark against prejudice.  The decadence of the Weimar Republic changed all that, primarily because of its own excesses.  As with their manipulation of the revulsion at homosexuality among the population at large, so also the prosecution of homosexuals became, under the Nazis, a matter of political expedience” (LD p. 200).

This makes clear that the Jewish domination of German industry, commerce, and the influential professions as well as the Jewish contribution to the breakdown of traditional morals turned the public at large against the Jews.  This allowed the Nazis to come to power peacefully and democratically.

Conclusion

Thus we come back to the question:  did the Jews bring the “Holocaust” upon themselves?  While we cannot overstate the fact that the persecution of the innocent, no matter who they are, is unjust, we can also understand why Jews throughout history, and in particularly in Germany, were subject to persecution.  When a society is threatened by an outside corrupting force, it is natural for its inhabitants to look for ways to suppress it.  The actions of the Jewish elite have naturally led to the persecution of the Jews as a whole.  While we do not buy into the “official” Holocaust story, it is beyond doubt that the Nazis murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent Jews (among others) during their reign.  At the same time, we must also not divorce the actions of the Nazis from the actions of Jewish revolutionaries that preceded them.  In this sense, the Nazi action was indeed a reaction (albeit an overreaction) to Jewish revolutionary action.

References

FJ:  Freemasonry and Judaism by Vicomte Leon de Poncins

JD:  Judaism Discovered by Michael Hoffman

JDWG:  Jewish Domination of Weimar Germany by Eckart Verlag

JRS:  The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History by E. Michael Jones

LD:  Libido Dominandi by E. Michael Jones

SBC:  The Secret Behind Communism by David Duke

---

[1] “In the printed edition of the Talmud, words like "goy" or "nokhri", two terms meaning non-Jew, were changed by censors to the word “Cuthean” that came to refer to any idolaters, without relation to the original Cutheans.” http://www.schechter.edu/AskTheRabbi.aspx?ID=477