|March 25th, 2010||#1|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Vincent Reynouard : For a head-on struggle
For a head-on struggle
A reply to the “wise”, who recommend not to tackle the question of historical revisionism
(…) To this, the over-cautious will object: “Going up against the established Power head-on, how long do you expect to hold your own? There’ll come a time when, conviction after conviction, you’ll find yourselves paralysed. You haven’t got the right to adopt a strategy that amounts, in the more or less long term, to scuppering your chances.” And they go on: “We’re better off saying less about it but being able to continue saying what little we say, rather than wanting to say everything and ending up being condemned to silence. What will you have gained — and what will we have gained? — the day you’re all on the run, in prison or hanged?”
I’ll add that, not content with giving up the revisionist fight, the “wise” very often proceed to become accomplices of the Big Lie, thus sterilising their own action.
The “Holocaust” myth protects the prevailing ideology
But here we are: how is it that the democratic-globalist logic manages to impose itself today? Because its only true opponent is Fascism. However, Fascism must be condemned by all, because “we know where that’s led to in the past”: it led to the camps, to the crematoria, the gas chambers, the “Holocaust”, the death of millions of people in the camps and so on and so forth...
Knowing why we fight
Let’s repeat: you have to know what you want. Is a person interested in revisionism the way some are interested in unidentified flying objects (UFO’s) or ghosts, that is, in things that, because they’re subjects on the fringe of reality, are good for a few thrills but, at bottom, certainly don’t challenge the social system? Or is a person interested in revisionism because he or she wants to change society radically?
My political engagement is clear
Personally, I must admit: my real engagement in free research is motivated by my National Socialist convictions, and it arose directly following my reading of Maurice Bardčche’s Nuremberg ou la terre promise. That book demonstrated to me that the lies ratified at Nuremberg constituted a huge barrier that, imperatively, had to be broken down, if anyone was to oppose Big Brother effectively.
From there, you can understand that for me (and for those who follow me), revisionism is not some “plus” meant to spice up my life a bit. My objective is not to “get along smoothly” for fifty years or so in order to be able to say, once old age arrives: “What a fine collection of writings I’ve got!; oh of course, it hasn’t changed anything; but I didn’t want to change anything; I just wanted to enjoy myself, leave my name to posterity and make some people happy — the people who, in the secrecy of their living rooms, wanted to read revisionism regularly.”
“Firebrands” are needed, along with others to support them
(…) But it’s also vital to recall a too often forgotten need: the “firebrands” are doomed — they’ll be crushed — if they aren’t actively supported by those who share their convictions but who, often for quite valid reasons, consider that they just can’t afford to fight in the open. And it’s here that I launch my appeal to readers: for more than twenty years the revisionist cause has been lucky in benefiting from the commitment of people willing to sacrifice all for its sake.
Very often I hear others say: “All these people are very courageous and I admire them, for I myself don’t have that courage.” To which I reply: “But no one’s asking you to be at the forefront of the struggle; if there were only the firebrands, it would have been all over long ago.
“When it’s an intellectual one, a struggle needs only a small number of people ready to make all the sacrifices. On the other hand, it needs a big battalion of sympathisers who’ll help them actively.” This help, naturally, is financial support; but it’s also the attendance at trials, the providing of addresses for canvassing and of various information — interesting books, press cuttings etc.
Since 1991 (but especially since 1997) I haven’t hesitated to confront the Power in place head-on. I’ve adopted Professor Faurisson’s own method: that of the straight right, direct to the nose.
Thirteen years on, and despite police searches and seizures, arrests and detentions, removal from the civil service, fines and five injunctions, I’m still here. Why? To begin with, since the State has now fleeced me of (nearly) everything, I’m no longer bound to respect the rules of the game and so try to save what might still be saved. But especially because I’ve been helped.
Long experience as an activist has taught me that frontal attack is possible when a man’s got nothing to lose and is actively supported. My victories are above all those of the people who’ve backed me and who still back me. Now it’s a question of waiting for a favourable event, an opportunity. It’s true that, from our earthly viewpoint, we can hardly see what that might be. But it’s the special attribute of the true insurgent to know how to wait and keep hoping even against hope. Who, on the morning of April 21, 2002, could reasonably have thought that Jean-Marie Le Pen would end up that evening in second place in the Presidential election? Perhaps the future holds even bigger surprises in store for us.
Together, let’s continue the struggle against the real falsifiers of History.