They met in Teheran
By Israel Shamir – December 19, 2006
Introduction
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.
Winning cartoon by Moroccan
Derkaoui Abdellah in the Holocaust cartoon contest held in Iran recently.
Click here to see
other prize winning entries to the contest. They Met in
Teheran
By Israel Shamir
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 that 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.
Last updated
20/12/2006
|