Inaugural Robert Faurisson International Prize 2019

Awarded to Ursula Haverbeck  

– a report from France by Michèle Renouf

In the historic city of Vichy, the French spa town in central France – once host and HQ for the wartime pro-Third Reich French government – an inaugural event took place on what would have been the 90th birthday of an English-born man of international significance.  Robert Faurisson, born in Shepperton, West London on 25th January – a half-Scots half-French Classical academic – was acknowledged, even by his powerful enemies, as Europe’s foremost historical Revisionist scholar.  For 40 years, he devoted his powers of deducing from small forensic detail the veracity or otherwise of the fabled “Holocaust of 6 millions European Jews by an unique industrial mass-murder weapon”.

His name and historical exactitude method is carried forth via the inaugural Robert Faurisson International Prize – an idea brought to fruition by the Italian tenor Joe Fallisi, a veteran of the Gaza humanitarian aid flotilla.

CAPTION: Joe Fallisi and Lady Michèle Renouf (who together with Guillaume Nichols were the adjudicators for the 1st Robert Faurisson International Prize) present the award to Ursula Haverbeck’s Berlin attorney Wolfram Nahrath.

On what would have been the 90th Birthday of Professor Faurisson, a prestigious luncheon in Vichy on 25th January was held.  Prominent personalities and 60 well-wishers from around Europe applauded Senor Fallisi and his two invited adjudicators for awarding the 2019 Prize to Ursula Haverbeck “the grand German heroine of Truth and Justice”. Her Prize was accepted, on his client’s behalf, by Berlin attorney Wolfram Nahrath.  Frau Haverbeck – the rolemodel lady of elegant measured eloquence – is currently detained behind prison bars in the German city of Bielefeld for the next three years, having commenced her sentence in her 90th year.  

Those presenting their congratulations for her Award included Jerôme Bourbon the editor of the journal Rivarol, and during his keynote address, Joe Fallisi read a tribute sent by Vincent Reynouard the French revisionist in exile. Addresses delivered in French, German and English were simultaneously translated, including Attorney Nahrath’s by Günter Deckert; and your reporter’s by the late Professor’s personal assistant Guillaume Nichols.  In due course Telling Films will release the day’s events, which began with a respectful visit to the unmarked graveside (as he willed it) of the legendary Robert Faurisson.

What was the ‘crime’ of Frau Haverbeck and why do Classicists prize it?  It is nothing more than querying historical orthodoxy by asking normal questions in a courteous manner when investigating any alleged murder even mass murder. She asks:  Where are the remains?

Just who is Robert Faurisson and what of him, remains?

Dr. Faurisson was professor of modern and contemporary French literature at the Sorbonne in Paris and the University of Lyon. He specialised in the “critical appraisal of texts and documents (literature, history, media).”

In the course of his independent research into the standard story of “The Holocaust” Prof. Faurisson discovered (by detective-method questioning of the archivist), on 19th March 1976 in the Auschwitz State Museum, the building plans of the camp complex’s morgues, crematoria and other installations.  Robert Faurisson was the first to make known those documents, which had been kept hidden since World War 2, and to point out their vital significance.  In two articles printed by the prestigious French daily Le Monde in December 1978 and January 1979 he succeeded in revealing his findings on “the problem of the gas chambers” to the French-reading public.

In 1979 Prof. Faurisson, who strove to apply virile Latin exactitude quite normally to historical source criticism, was permanently banned from teaching.  Why? In the international “Guidelines for Teaching The Holocaust” on page 11: “Care should be taken not to give a platform for deniers [sceptics]…nor seek to disprove their position through normal historical debate or rational argument”.  Your present reporter, being a former secondary school teacher and university lecturer, one is bound to say that such a dictate contradicts our classical teaching traditions, once the hallmark of Western civilisation.  One is bound to say…yet nowadays at one’s peril.

In February 1979, the Spanish magazine “Interviu” published the canny sleuth-minded half-Scotsman’s discovery of these Auschwitz concentration camp drawings.  Three decades later the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had the chutzpah of the conman to flourish these documents before the United Nations General Assembly and swindle-speak that they proved the existence of mass homicidal gas chambers. At a conference on Holocaust in the European Union parliamentary building in Brussels, during question time, your present reporter held up that Spanish magazine to contradict Netanyahu. In fact those were building plans denoting only small and normal delousing chambers suitable for clothes, hair and other lice-infested items.  Although on the drawings there appears the label “gas chamber” the areas thus clearly designated are incapable of accommodating human beings.

As per the Professor’s experience at German wartime concentration camps when speaking up publicly, I was advised to depart the E.U. building (and Brussels) very swiftly! Belgium is among the 20 countries to adopt debate-denying disdain of the four inseparable Classical Virtues to, instead, institute laws in grotesque submission to the Allied victors’ 1945-46 Nuremburg Court Trial legal farce, and later on in 2000 its allied International Guidelines for Teaching the Holocaust on the equally subjective terms of a religious faith as opposed to objective forensic science. In both the Nuremburg Trial-founding laws and the “Holocaust” Teaching Guidelines, each suppress the norms of defence where evidential exhibits in defence of the Accused’s case are denied their free and fair submissions before court or classroom.  

Trials in modern-day Europe still occur where one’s lawyer risks prosecution if the judge asserts he/she is “defending an historical revisionist client too well” and thereby breaking the still reigning Allied victor-oriented, specifically anti-democratic, anti-National Socialist state laws. Two decades of firsthand experiences while reporting on these Alice and the Queen of Hearts, stacked pack of Cards-like courtroom parodies yet one never gets over seeing that it’s ‘First the Verdict’ in sovereign-less Germany; and in so-called secular France the State Prosecutor prays openly to “Yahweh to protect the court from his evil lips”(as eye-witnessed in Faurisson’s trial in Paris 2007). In each place there are kept no courtroom transcripts of revisionist trials.

Robert Faurisson interviewed outside court during one of his many Paris trials

In rare cases, only those who attend in the public gallery have any chance of hearing the Defence submissions if permitted by the judge.  In the recent case in Munich of the Schaefer siblings, Alfred Schaefer – (now in prison for the next three years for non-threatening lecture videos and raising his arm in a harmless Roman salute) – was permitted by the judges to screen his de-conditioning teaching videos – but!  The judge ruled that note-making in the public gallery was forbidden and sent in police officers to supervise. Any report would have to rely on direct access to the Defence team. And the Defence team must dance on the wire when giving his/her observations since judges are required to be on the lookout for lawyers acting (for revisionists) too enthusiastically. Lawyers are prosecutable if seen to be too much on the side of their client! In normal nations where citizens have sovereignty over who frames their laws, lawyers are presumed by obligation and by all to act enthusiastically in the interests of all their clients.  The world needs to take an interest in this politicized anomaly.

Professor Faurisson had great difficulty in France to find a lawyer brave enough to represent him.  At his trial in Paris in 2016 where your reporter acted as his sole defence witness during the case against him for his speech made over 10 years ago at the Teheran Conference 2006, afterwards his barrister Maitre Damien Viguier suffered accusations threatening his practice.

In consequence of the ventured exposé ‘behind enemy lines’ at the EU parliament, Dr. Zuroff the Head of the nazi-hunting Simon Wiesenthal Centre certified that “Renouf is dangerous for she puts an attractive face on an ugly movement”. So now we know: It is they who put an attractive facade on their ugly anomaly – for a swindle-speaker deploys projection of his own intentions upon his prey. That being so, then the empowering gentile aspirations of the inseparable four Classical Virtues: Temperance (measure); Justice (unbiased); Wisdom (with scientific attitude); Courage (born of empathy versus vainglory) are a truly emboldening shield …seen as threatening by such Jews. For decades, French government agencies under pressure from influential private bodies have waged a concerted campaign to silence Prof. Faurisson.  Even his unmarked grave (as per his will made as a precaution by him long ago in 1997) is regularly vandalised of its floral tributes. Yet Robert Faurisson remains the calm deep eddying exponent of those Classical Virtues. His influential Latin “exactitude” towards all areas of history without exceptions thus persists with the Robert Faurisson International Prize.

What was it that these vandals strive, by every brutal means, to silence?

Like a smarter greyhound who cuts straight to the chase (not round the designated track), Faurisson went directly to catch his query.  A distinction was being conjured, so he suspected, to render all other wartime murder of an enemy since the dawn of human recollection, incomparable with “The Holocaust” by an alleged uniqueness relying upon an upstaging industrial mass murder weapon. He sought to nail this difference by examining the scientific feasibility of that unique weapon (and was not diverted down a track about a “holocaust by bullets” which is not at all unique in modern history).

The statement published in Le Monde on 21st February 1979 and signed by 34 French historians confirmed his suspicions that the existence of this unique mass weapon was intended to rely upon a scandalous acceptance by faith alone:

“It is not necessary to ask how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was possible technically since it took place. That is the necessary point of departure for any historical inquiry on this subject. It is our function simply to recall that truth: There is not, there cannot be, any debate about the existence of the gas chambers”.

Authenticating disputed texts, the Professor became an authority on the 20th century novelist, Louis-Ferdinand Céline.  We are reliably informed by Michael Hoffman (who reported on the Zündel Trials from the press gallery) that Céline’s friend and factotum, Albert Paraz, the chemical engineer turned writer, penned an introduction to Rassinier’s The Lie of Ulysses, which led Robert in 1980 to turn to a cache of Céline’s letters published by the distinguished Gallimard press in Paris as Lettres á Albert Paraz. In one of these, reproduced on p. 276 of the book, Céline wrote the following: “(Rassinier) tends to cast doubt on the magical gas chamber. That’s quite something!”

This seemingly minor quip set the sleuth-hound racing.  Intuitively, he had already suspected that there was some fabulous superstition at the “holy of Holies” heart of the homicidal gas chamber allegations.  Faurisson tells us that this led him to examine an actual gas chamber at San Quentin prison in California, where he was to contrast the “submarine-like door” on this monumental gassing apparatus there, with the flimsy wooden door on the Auschwitz “mass murder chamber”.  With his nose for the telling little details in eyewitness testimonies, the Prof. sought to discover the extraordinary, hours-long measures for safely decontaminating the chamber, with the alleged gassing facility and casual behaviour of the operatives whom testimonials alleged carried out industrial mass murder at Auschwitz-Birkenau while smoking and eating as they handled the toxic bodies.

Prof. Faurisson played several leading roles in both of the Ernst Zündel “Holocaust trials” in Toronto, Canada (1985 and 1988).  Owing to this method of real world facts-testing, one of his legendary contributions to Zündel’s defence in 1988 – as praised by Michael Hoffman – was to introduce the participation of Fred Leuchter, an American gas chamber execution specialist. The foxy Prof was also instrumental in arranging for Leuchter’s unbiased forensic examination of alleged mass homicidal gas chambers in Poland, and in publishing this American expert’s groundbreaking conclusions. At that 1988 trial the expert witness submission of the Leuchter Report as forensic evidence was a groundbreaking first. It was to undermine those deferential 34 French historians – who shut their door marked “obvious” subjective orthodoxy.

A decade later and Faurisson had seen his chance to challenge such “obviousness” as nonsense when in 1984-5 the Toronto Zündel trial began. It was Faurisson who provided much of the ammunition with which to arm the “battling barrister” Douglas Christie for him vicariously to demolish “the Jewish doyen of Holocaust historians” Dr. Raul Hilberg’s unsubstantiated standard claims.  During this unique cross-examination, as a witness for the Prosecution Dr. Hilberg admitted that he was “at a loss” to provide a single document or proof that there had been an order for “extermination” as alleged in his book: The Destruction of the European Jews.  This leading expert “Holocaust historian” – on the witness stand for the first time and ‘never again!’ – concluded that the “industrial mass murder of 6 million European Jews” was carried out by “a consensual mind-reading” – a world first “bureaucratic” telepathy commensurate with a “magical” instrument which needs no forensic proof of its existence.  Hilberg refused to attend the second Zündel trial in 1988 claiming it would be too stressful for him to answer “trivial questions”.

Since the farcical victor’s ‘justice’ of the immediate post-war Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, the Zündel Trials were the first where the world ever heard the cross-examination of so-called eyewitnesses to the “mass homicide gas chambers” confess to using “poetic licence” in their testimonies.  Again, Faurisson was instrumental in mobilising the defence material with which Doug Christie confuted – as Michael Hoffman witnessed – the neurotic fraudulence of the standard “homicidal mass gas chamber” eyewitness. David Irving referred to these as “psychiatric cases” – a fact which got him banned from Austria for sixteen years (and later on a sentence of three years for those words he uttered sixteen years before to an undercover honey-trap journalist).  Mere questions and opinions. In France, on 13th July 1990 the Gayssot Law was enacted specifically to gag one man (Faurisson) to discontinue his human right plus scholarly impulse, to question.

How did the “traditional enemies of free speech” (as the British historian David Irving identifies them) strive so brutally to silence “Holocaust heretics”?

Like Irving, Faurisson has had to defend himself many times in court for his forensic-backed writings and statements. After Irving’s case in Austria (2006-2007), where his Viennese attorney Dr. Herbert Schaller succeeded on Appeal to win the early release of Irving from a three years’ sentence, the Austrian authorities passed into law that no-one in Schaller’s field could henceforth practice after age 70 (though by then this outwitting strategist was aged 85!).

In the case of Faurisson, he was convicted in France on numerous occasions under an anti-Revisionist law especially drafted against him in July 1990 called the Fabius-Gayssot Law. He has suffered at least ten physical assaults, one of which was a near successful attempt at murder by self-proclaimed (yet never convicted) “Sons of Jewish Memory”.  His only book in English “Just Who is Robert Faurisson?” informs that he had seen his bank account frozen and had visits to his home from court officials who threatened him and his wife with seizure of their belongings to cover damages imposed by civil judgments against his “heretical” publications. His family life had been repeatedly disrupted and thrown into turmoil by such harassment. His health had suffered terribly with chronic nerve pains in his face in consequence of those cowardly assailants the “Sons of Jewish Memory” having kicked this harmless senior citizen so repeatedly in the face and chest. Despite all this, the indomitable Classicist has permitted nothing to influence his own gentlemanly conduct.  Neither siding with Left nor Right, Jew nor Gentile, regardless of race or creed, Prof. Faurisson sustained his vigilance against prejudicial judgment in his strictly objective application as his aspirational work method. He lived what he taught his students right up to the day of his sudden death.

Having spoken with sparkling lucidity during his triumphant 90 minute swansong at a private Shepperton Conference organised in the UK at his own request – on returning to Vichy on 21st October 2018, the Prof collapsed and died instantly in his hallway of a fatal heart attack.  Admittedly, the nearly aged 90 yet ever-sharp Professor was not in the best of health. After all, his half a life-long legal Kafkaesque court battles to silence him from nailing down the “Holocaust” mass murder facility had taken their toll, along with the 10 physical beatings which had hospitalized him, requiring facial reconstructive surgery leaving his facial nerves in chronic trauma. Yet the added stress of such a sabotage act (instigated by a vengeful sycophant who had criminally diminished him as senile under video platforms comments) must have drained him. Indeed (speaking about the person who was in concert with the sycophant) he said this “insistence” to wear him down had “exhausted” him during the three days before his flight.

Yet he rose to deliver a masterful 90 minutes’ speech, reminding his attentive audience of 70 personally invited guests that:

In a December 1980 interview with the French radio network Europe No. 1, Faurisson summed up the results of his study of “the Holocaust” in a sentence of about 60 French words. In English it reads: “The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the State of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.”
 “That sentence,” he declares 38 years on at Shepperton, “needs no changes.”

Ursula Haverbeck in court with her attorney Wolfram Nahrath

In summing up the Prize Day, one could do no better than to cite the words from Attorney Nahrath’s acceptance speech on behalf of the winner Ursula Haverbeck of the inaugural Robert Faurisson International Prize, when he declared:

“The first awarding of the new Prize shows the magnanimity of the judges.  The special aspect about it is the fact that the award is given to a German lady. A fine lady of the people, a defender of her nation against wrong-doers – generous, full of life and vitality, loving to laugh, full of benignity, and full of courage”. This Award, a step “towards peace and justice”.  A triumph of the “Virtus”.

All sensed at that Vichy haven the Prof’s contentment.