This is the first copy I’ve seen of any talk presented at the recent international conference on the “holocaust” in Tehran. I am very grateful to the friend who obtained it and sent it to me. We can now contrast some of the actual content of the conference with the hysterical American headlines.
THE GEOPOLITICAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE HOLOCAUST MYTH
Abu Nicola al Yunani
As you all know, attempts to organize a conference
like this one have been made in the past. Those
attempts however, did not come to fruition, due to
interference by the governments of the countries
concerned. And this was in spite of the fact that some
of the countries in question were outside the direct
sphere of influence of the United States, and its
local policeman, the Zionist state. In contrast here,
not only have we not had negative interference by the
government, but in the contrary the authorities of the
Islamic Republic of Iran have organized and
facilitated this conference. For this reason, I feel I
must begin by thanking and commending the Iranian
authorities for allowing and helping this conference
to take place.
Other members of this conference, and many revisionist
historians who are not present here, some of them
languishing in jails all over the “free world”, have
undertaken the tremendous task of knocking down the
holocaust myth. They have managed, using hard science,
to demonstrate that it is nothing more than that: a
myth. They have proved that the famous gas chambers,
used to exterminate Jews by the millions, have never
existed, and could not have existed. I will not
attempt to present, or even summarise their work.
Other participants of this conference can do this much
better than me.
My focus will be to examine the geopolitical
environment in which the holocaust myth was created
and took roots. To explain, in other words, how what
is arguably the biggest lie of modern history, could
be so successful. And I will also try to briefly
outline the geopolitical environment of the struggle
against the holocaust myth. To examine, that is, what
the specific political meaning of the struggle for the
truth is, and how this struggle can be more effective.
The prehistory of the holocaust myth: the Zionist
project
Zionism is often erroneously regarded – and wants to
present itself – as the expression of national
aspirations of Jews, mainly European ones. But this
fails to take into account historical reality. And the
historical truth is that the Zionist project was born
decades before the birth of the modern Zionist
movement – and by actors who couldn’t care less about
the sentiments and interests of Jews.
In the 19th century, Africa and Asia were regarded by
the great European colonial powers as their
playfields. Large parts of these continents were under
direct colonial occupation. Others were targeted for
such occupation. The so-called Near East was under
ottoman rule. But the Ottoman Empire was collapsing,
and European colonial powers wanted to inherit its
lands. The Ottoman Empire was thus their enemy, but so
were the indigenous liberation movements. Faced with
those two enemies, they followed a policy which would
today be called “dual containment”. When the Balkan
peoples revolted in what is generally known as the
Greek Revolution of 1821, the powers waited for the
Ottomans (with the help of the Egyptian Army) to crush
the revolution. Then, and only then, they intervened
in its help. Later on, when Muhammad Ali of Egypt
sought to unite the African and Asian wings of the
Arab world, they intervened against him and restored
Syria to Ottoman rule. They understood well that if
the Arab world was liberated from Ottoman rule and
united, it would become a formidable power in itself.
It was at this period that Viscount Palmerston (at the
time serving as British foreign secretary), proposed
the transfer of Jews to Palestine, in order to create
there “an alien demographic barrier” which would
prevent the unification of the Arab world. Palestine
is the place where the Asian and African wings of the
Arab world meet. By establishing there an alien
population, Palmerston sought to preclude the
possibility for unification. In a letter to the
British Ambassador to Istanbul, he wrote: "The return
of the Jewish people to Palestine, represents a
bulwark against any evil designs prepared by Muhammad
Ali or whoever succeeds him".
These lines were written around 50 years before the
first Zionist congress. Even before that, Napoleon,
when embarking on the Egypt expedition, had called on
the Jews to meet him in Palestine. And long after
that, in WW I, when the British state was
duplicitously calling on the Arab people to help it in
its war effort against the central powers, and
promised in exchange to help them achieve their
freedom – while at the same time signing agreements
with the French distributing with them the Arab world
– a new promise was made to the Jews (the Balfour
declaration), with the same as always intention. The
creation of an alien demographic barrier which would
prevent the realization of the national aspirations of
the Arab nation, and would assure that it would remain
forever divided and weak, controlled by the western
colonial powers. This was then, and remains to this
day, the raison d’ être of the Zionist state.
The Zionist movement
The Zionist project, therefore, far from being a
product of Jewish nationalism, was conceived by
western colonialism as a means for enabling and
perpetuating colonial control of the so-called “Near
East”. But what about the Zionist movement? Was it
aligned with the colonial project of the western
powers, or did it have a different content altogether?
Even a cursory examination of the founding documents
of the Zionist movement, shows that it was 100%
aligned with the colonial project. Zionists planned to
invade Palestine backed by the military strength of a
great power, stay there as policemen of that power,
assuring the continued slavery of Arabs, and reap the
benefits. And they didn’t have many qualms about the
power which they would be representing. Legatees of a
culture of usury, they would be content to go with the
highest bidder. In the Vienna congress of 1896,
Theodor Herzl proposed acting in the name of “his
majesty the Sultan”. In the 1905 seventh Zionist
congress, Max Nordau made the same proposal, even more
concretely:
“The movement which has taken hold of a great part of
the Arab people may easily take a direction which may
cause harm in Palestine. ...The Turkish government may
feel itself compelled to defend its reign in Palestine
and Syria with armed force. ...In these circumstances,
Turkey can be convinced that it will be important for
her to have in Palestine and Syria a strong and
well-organized group which ... will resist any attack
on the authority of the Sultan and defend his
authority with all its might.”
Chaim Weizmann made virtually the same proposal to the
British crown (in 1914): “We can reasonably say that
should Palestine fall within the British sphere of
influence, and should Britain encourage Jewish
settlement there, as a British dependency, we could
have in twenty to thirty years a million Jews out
there, perhaps more; they would develop the country,
bring back civilization to it and form a very
effective guard for the Suez Canal.”
Theodor Herzl also approached the Russian count von
Plehve, and had a very good understanding with him.
Among other things, he promised to safeguard the
Czar’s interests in Palestine, and to rid Eastern
Europe and Russia of the "noxious and subversive
Anarcho-Bolshevik Jews".
Later on, during WWII, Zionists again tried to strike
alliances with both sides in the conflict. Menachem
Begin started his political career as leader of the
fascist Zionist youth of Italy. He was an ardent
admirer of Hitler. The Zionist Federation of Germany
worked closely with the Nazis. The Haganah extended an
invitation to Adolf Eichman to visit Palestine. At the
same time, David Ben Gurion was working with the
allies. Both flavors of Zionists, shared the same aim:
Colonising Palestine with the military aid of a
western power, in order to secure its interests there,
and reap some profits for themselves.
It is therefore clear that there was no discrepancy
between the Zionist project as conceived by European
colonialists, and the Zionist movement which sought to
bring to fruition this project and reap the benefits
from it. And it should be noted that both Soviet
Russia and the Communist International, which regarded
support for the right to self-determination as one of
the pillars of their policies, were in their early
years strenuously opposing Zionism on exactly those
grounds. For them, the solution to the “jewish
question” was to be found in the assimilation of Jews
in the countries were they lived. The Zionist project,
in their eyes, was a colonialist project and should be
combated as such.
The creation of the Zionist state
In the years leading up to WWII, both camps – the
Anglo-French and the Axis – were actively promoting
Zionism. This may seem absurd, but it is not. In fact,
both the Anglo-French camp AND the Axis, sought the
same aims: colonial domination over Africa and Asia.
Their only difference was over who was to dominate
them. But as the aim of domination itself was not
questioned, so wasn’t support for Zionism.
During the war, a new factor entered the scene: the
United States. The U.S. had originally abstained from
the war – but only in order to see which side the
balance of forces was leaning toward. Eventually it
intervened on the side of the allies, not in order to
“liberate” Europe, as is claimed, but in order to
subjugate it, just as Europe had before subjugated the
rest of the world. It is not by coincidence that their
first operation in Europe was called “Operation
Overlord”.
When the war ended, the victorious European powers -
primarily the U.K. - were too weak to implement their
plans for the creation of a Jewish state in the heart
of the Arab world. The U.K. found that the only thing
which was still within its power, was to attempt to
keep its influence in the region through the Arab
client regimes it had created and nurtured. The U.S.
hijacked the Zionist project, and used it to wrest
control of the Arab world from the European powers.
The U.K. attempted to block the implementation of the
plan which it had originally conceived, and which was
now being used against it – but it only did so half
heartedly.
The Zionist gangs, strengthened with shiploads of Jews
newly freed from concentration camps, and with others
who sought to flee a Europe destroyed by the war,
under the tutelage of the United States, armed to the
teeth by the allied forces, with a savagery that
equaled and surpassed that of their mentors – the
Nazis, the Americans, the British – fell upon a
population which had been kept unarmed by the British
occupiers of Palestine, and which had only minimal
help from the Arab states – weak and subjugated
themselves. The outcome was predictable: a large part
of Palestine was occupied by the Zionists, and a state
was proclaimed there – to be recognized immediately by
the victors of WWII.
The birth of the Holocaust myth
It was in that historic period, the war and immediate
post-war period, that the holocaust myth was created.
As in all wars, the enemy had to be demonized, in
order to better mobilize the friendly forces against
him, to justify the crimes that would be committed
during the war by friendly forces, and to chill any
opposition to the war. The crimes which were committed
in this war were arguably greater than those of any
previous war, and the demonisation needed to be
accordingly greater. This is especially true of the
crimes committed by British and American imperialism
at the end of the war: The bombings of Hiroshima,
Nagasaki and Dresden. The Holocaust myth was designed
to misrepresent the war – which was in actual fact a
criminal endeavor of gigantic scale from both sides –
as a battle between the forces of civilization on one
side, and those of darkness on the other. For this
representation to become plausible, the very real
crimes of the Nazis and their allies were not
sufficient. They had to be elevated above their
historic context, inflated out of any proportion with
reality, and represented as something completely
unprecedented in the history of humanity. This was the
raison d’être of the “six million Jews killed in the
gas chambers”.
In order for the myth to be believable, it needed to
be firmly rooted on reality, to tie in with what
people knew to be true. And indeed, the foundations of
the myth were rooted in historical truth. The Nazis
did build concentration camps, people did die there in
large numbers, and many of them were indeed Jewish.
Aside from that, the people of Europe at least, did
know from their first-hand experience that the Nazis
would commit atrocities without blinking an eye.
Needless to say, this is a common trait of occupying
powers. Current-day Palestinians and Iraqis, Algerians
and Vietnamese of the previous generation, can attest
to this from personal experience.
But the Holocaust myth was designed to serve more than
one purpose. Aside from absolving the Allies of any
responsibility for their war-time crimes, it was to
serve as a justification for the post-war crime. The
entire planet was to be treated as war spoils, and
shared between the victorious powers in a card game in
Yalta. Nations newly liberated from the yoke of the
Axis powers, were to be subjugated again to a new
yoke, which in many cases was just as cruel, or worse.
And in this framework, of course, the case of
Palestine stands out. Under the lame excuse that the
persecution of Jews by the nazi regime proved once and
for all that Jews needed a national home where they
would be forever safe, an entirely innocent people –
the Palestinians – was to be expropriated of its
ancestral lands. Worse still, the entire Arab nation
would be prevented from achieving its
self-determination. Lame as it was, the only excuse
for this was the myth of the Holocaust.
The corollary to the Holocaust myth: the myth of
western anti-fascism
It wouldn’t be out of place here to note that the
holocaust myth has a “collateral myth”, so to speak:
The myth of western anti-fascism. According to this
myth, fascism was an abomination specific to the Axis
powers, especially Germany. The great western
democracies (meaning, by definition, the United
States, the United Kingdom and France), so goes the
myth, are intrinsically inimical to fascism. Unlike
fascism, whose main attribute is barbarity, the
western democracies are intrinsically civilized and
moral. When they do commit crimes, these crimes are
aberrations, not the rule.
The truth is very different, of course.
First of all, it is a known fact that Hitler had
prominent admirers both in the British and U.S. ruling
elites. As for France, it was in the verge of civil
war before the nazi invasion, and it is exactly for
this reason that the ruling elite opted to capitulate
without firing a single shot, seeing in Hitler the
guarantor of stability.
Second, it is well known – at least outside the United
States – that the U.S. and its allies have supported
all sorts of dictatorships all over the world. It is
well known that the most barbaric regimes enjoyed and
enjoy the support of the U.S. and its allies. And that
every single one of the worst crimes in the last 60
years, was committed either by the U.S., or with its
active support.
Third, in their lack of imagination, the U.S. ruling
elites, especially their more senile factions, like
the currently ruling clique, are copying not only the
strategic plans and the modus operandi of old-time
fascism, but even their formulations: the “new world
order”, the “desert fox” etc.
Fourth, it is also a well-known fact that the U.S. and
their allies, after reconquering Europe, became the
new employers of the worst Nazi criminals. They hired
them to learn from their expertise, used them to
organize their clandestine networks, even to run the
states they “liberated” from German occupation. In
occupied Palestine, at least two former nazi admirers
and collaborators (Begin and Shamir) became prime
ministers. My own country, Greece was for decades
ruled by the forces that had collaborated with
Germans, and those who had fought against them were
persecuted, exiled, tortured, exterminated.
The Soviet paradox…
Monstrous as it is, then, the creation of the
Holocaust myth had natural and obvious advantages for
the western colonial powers. Less obvious is why the
Soviet Union would support such a charade. And it is
crucial to understand how such a thing could have
happened, because the Holocaust myth couldn’t have
survived for a day without the endorsement of the
Soviet Union. The Soviet Union came out of the war
with enormous advantages. It won control over a large
part of Europe. But, just as importantly, it won an
enormous moral capital – a capital which,
unfortunately, it spent in a rather unwise way. Had it
contested the Holocaust myth, it would have easily
reduced it to a joke.
The Soviet Union presented itself as the protector of
the oppressed worldwide. It was, after the war, the
deadly enemy of the United States. Yet it supported a
myth that was conceived in order to continue the
oppression of peoples under colonial and semi-colonial
rule, to justify the occupation of the defeated Axis
states, to ensure imperialist domination over the
strategically important Arab World, thus strengthening
the anti-Soviet block. Isn’t this absurd?
In a way it is. But this absurdity was inherent in the
politics of the Soviet Union after its early years –
and it is this absurdity that eventually led to its
demise.
…and its explanation
The Soviet Union, and with it the Comintern, was built
on the premises of revolutionary communism – which is
generally, and correctly, identified with the legacy
of Marx and Lenin. While Marxism and Leninism remained
the official ideology of the Soviet Union to the end,
the underlying content gradually changed.
After the initial difficulties faced by the young
revolutionary state – the civil war, foreign
intervention, famine – the revolutionary camp in
Russia had lost its strength. As was the case in the
French revolution, one and a half century earlier, the
defeat didn’t come from outside, in the form of a
restoration, but from inside, in a “thermidorean”
reversal. The state apparatus rose above those who
would have destroyed it, and the entire old guard of
the revolution was exterminated, politically, morally
and physically. In France, the Directoire and then
Napoleon marched under the banners of the revolution –
but in the opposite direction. The same, more or less,
happened with Soviet Russia. This development brought
a sharp turn in the policies, both internal and
foreign, of the Soviet government. The program of
world revolution was abandoned in favor of an alliance
with one or another of the imperialist camps – and in
fact, Soviet Russia vacillated for a long time between
the two camps, changing direction more than one time.
Eventually it was Hitler who decided its course, when
he broke the Ribbentropp-Molotov pact and attacked the
Soviet Union. From that time on, both the Soviet Union
and the communist parties it controlled, entered the
struggle against the Axis, and in many cases rose to
its leadership. In Europe, this was the case, most
notably, in Yugoslavia and Greece – the two countries,
beside the Soviet Union, where there was a serious
resistance to nazi occupation. In the so-called Third
world, the cases of China and Vietnam could be noted.
Having decided to cooperate with imperialist powers,
the Soviet Government gradually toned down its
criticism of, and opposition to, Zionism. In doing so,
it was sending a clear signal to imperialist powers,
especially England, that they didn’t have to treat the
Soviet Union as an enemy – they could very well work
with it.
Immediately after the war, the Soviet leadership built
a belt of satellite “buffer” states in Eastern Europe
as an insurance against the possibility of an attack
against it. At the same time, it initially strove to
achieve “peaceful coexistence” with its imperialist
“allies”. In this period, the economy of the buffer
states was left alone. In China, Mao and Chiang were
negotiating with the aim of arriving at a formula for
sharing of power. In Vietnam, Ho had arrived at a
short-lived agreement with France. In Greece, the
communist party attempted to participate in a
“national unity” government. And in Palestine, the
Soviet Union and the communist parties supported the
partition plan. But around 1947, the Soviet leadership
began to see that peaceful coexistence was not
possible. To borrow a phrase from current-day
zionists, they saw that they had no partners for
peace. Churchill, among others, clearly saw that a
strong Soviet Union, regardless of Stalin's good
intentions, posed a potentially great risk to the
future of imperialism. He was thus campaigning for a
cold war (while a "hot" one was preferred by the
cowboy Truman).
Eventually, having exhausted its arsenal of goodwill
gestures, the Soviet leadership had to wake up to the
fact that, instead of killing revolutionary
opportunities in the hope of winning the grace of
imperialism, it should take practical measures to
shore up its defenses and undermine the positions of
the enemy. It is in that period that they began the
drive toward "sovietisation" of Eastern Europe. It is
also in that period that Mao scuttled all negotiation
efforts and began in earnest the struggle to take
power. And it is in that period that the Viet Minh
began the guerrilla war against the French.
Before that, however, the Soviet Union had recognized
the Zionist state. Worse still, it had armed (via
Czechoslovakia) the Zionist gangs. And of course, the
Nuremberg trials had taken place during this period,
where the holocaust myth was consolidated and elevated
to the level of historical dogma.
Later on, the Soviet position in the Arab-zionist
conflict was reversed. From arming Zionists, it
switched to supporting the Arab side. But, as was
common with Soviet policy, the switch was only
half-hearted. They never retracted the recognition of
the Zionist state. And they never repudiated the
holocaust myth. Doing so would necessitate a
revolutionary regime, and the regime in power in
Moscow had long ago ceased to be revolutionary. While
building its defenses, the Soviet Union continued to
the end to seek peaceful coexistence. And in order to
show its sincerity, it continued to support, to some
extent, Zionism.
A changed geopolitical environment
As we saw, the holocaust myth was born and grew up in
an epoch when the proponents of this myth were
all-powerful. For this reason, the myth itself was
all-powerful. Up to 20 years ago, few people, in
Europe or elsewhere, even knew that there are
historians who dispute the official version of the
holocaust. And even those who had remotely heard that
so-called “holocaust deniers” even existed, were
inclined to regard them as “conspiracy theorists of
the most bizarre nature” (to quote a friend’s
expression).
But times are changing. The Soviet Union, one of the
main bulwarks of the holocaust myth, collapsed. The
authority of the United States, just as it grew by
leaps and bounds over Eastern Europe, diminished over
a Western Europe which, no longer threatened by a
formidable enemy, had less reason to kowtow to every
demand from across the Atlantic. The Zionist state
itself, having lost steam after several decades of
constant war with its neighbors, began to realize that
it would have to readjust its vision of militarily
conquering the land “from the brook of Egypt to the
Euphrates”. Instead, they aimed to control it by
proxy, via impotent Arab regimes. This was the essence
of the so-called “peace process” in Palestine.
And this was the geopolitical environment under which
the main body revisionist historians’ research took
place. To be sure, an environment still very hostile.
The enemy was still strong, but not all-powerful.
There were leaks here and there. And this gradual
weakening of the enemy, made it necessary for him to
become more ruthless. It was no longer enough to
ignore revisionist historians. The pretensions of
“freedom of speech”, the façade of a Western Europe
which is the legatee of the values of the
Enlightenment, were brushed aside and laws were passed
in one country after another which reinstated – in
some cases for the first time since the Inquisition,
the notion of crimes of thought. Several of the more
prominent revisionist historians were jailed or
sentenced to heavy fines. Their works were relegated
to the index of forbidden books. And, of course,
alongside the legal witch-hunters acted gangs of
Zionist thugs.
Strangely enough - at least for those who look at the
world through colonialist eyeglasses - the only places
where the freedom of revisionist historians to think,
speak and write was respected, was way outside the
domain of “European enlightenment values”. In the Arab
world, the book of Roger Garaudy was not only legally
published, but there were newspapers that published it
in instalments (exp?). This is the same book that was
forbidden in democratic France, and whose author had
to pay an exorbitant fine. A well-known revisionist
historian found political asylum in the Islamic
Republic of Iran - which, we are told, is governed by
intolerant religious fanatics - rather than be
imprisoned in his native Switzerland, with its long
standing traditions of freedom and neutrality.
This was the general picture up to a couple of years
ago. And in this general picture, historical
revisionism made what will certainly in the future be
regarded as its first real steps. On a purely
scientific level, revisionism is very strong. Yet if
we examine the penetration of revisionist research
into mass consciousness – at least outside the Islamic
world – we must admit that it is still at the
beginning.
The current period…
But times keep changing, and this conference is but an
indication of these changes.
During the last half-decade, the so-called
peace-process has been abandoned by Zionists, in favor
of yet another attempt at a brute-force approach. Yet,
instead of crushing the Palestinian resistance, this
attempt has brought to power Hamas, the larger
organization that continues to reject the Oslo process
and the recognition of the Zionist state. Eventually
it became once again obvious that the Palestinian
resistance cannot be rooted out by brute force, and
now attempts are being made to entice the Hamas
government into a new version of Oslo. But if the
Zionist state cannot survive by war, and it cannot
survive by peace either, it seems that the only way
ahead for it is not to survive. And it is becoming
more obvious by the day that the prediction by Iranian
president Ahmadinejad that “this disgraceful stain
will be eliminated from the Islamic world” is very
accurate.
In Lebanon, Zionists attempted to eliminate the
Lebanese resistance as a prelude to attacks against
Syria and Iran. Instead of this, they suffered a
humiliating defeat, and had to rush their American
patrons to the Security Council in order to demand an
immediate cease-fire. The myth of the invincibility of
the Zionist army, which had already suffered a serious
blow when it was first forced to leave Lebanon under
the blows of Hizbullah, was shattered forever. And of
course, the humiliating defeat of Zionists also
humiliated those pro-western Arab heads of state who
rushed to condemn the “irresponsible” attack of
Hizbullah against their Zionist friends.
And of course, the glorious victory of the Lebanese
resistance itself, took place under the shadow of the
defeat of the United States by the glorious Iraqi
resistance. This defeat is something that even U.S.
officials are admitting nowadays. The only reason they
are still occupying Iraq is that they can not afford
to leave. Just as the defeat of the Soviet Union in
Afghanistan opened the way to its collapse, the defeat
of the U.S. in Iraq will open the way to its eventual
collapse.
It is just a year ago, that the U.S. president, under
the pretext of the Iranian nuclear program, was
threatening Iran. During the previous summer, there
were very persistent rumors about an impending
provocation – a “dirty bomb” attack against U.S. soil
– which would be the pretext for an attack against
Iran, just as the 9/11 provocation was a pretext for
the attack against, and the temporary occupation of,
Afghanistan and Iraq. At around the same time, another
U.S. provocation, the assassination of Syrian Prime
Minister Hariri, was used as a pretext in order to
exert enormous pressure on Syria and threaten it with
unspecified sanctions. And let’s not forget that a
couple of years back, the current U.S. president was
threatening with attacks with tactical nuclear weapons
against so-called rogue nations.
Under the repeated blows suffered in Afghanistan, Iraq
and Lebanon, the current U.S. president lost the
majority in both houses of the U.S. congress. This
electoral defeat, which took place in the framework of
a military defeat, is much more than a change of
persons – regardless of the incontestable fact that
the U.S. democratic party is in no way better than the
republican, and no less pro-zionist. This defeat is a
sign that the current belligerent policy can not be
sustained – and it just so happens that there is no
other policy to replace it. In a very real sense, we
are witnessing the last days of the U.S. empire, and
the empire’s rulers are as aware of that as anyone
else – perhaps even more so.
Here in Iran too, in the last elections the previous
president (who has reportedly declared that “the
holocaust is a historic fact”), was replaced by a
president who helped organize this conference.
So instead of threatening Iran and Syria, nowadays the
U.S. policymakers (and their happy lap-dog in the
United Kingdom) are floating the idea of inviting them
to stabilize Iran. In other words, they are asking the
so-called “axis of evil” to take over control in its
former member!
We should also not forget that the U.S. military and
political might is to a large extent based on the
strength of the U.S. economy. But this strength is now
no more than a ghost of the past. The U.S. has been,
for several decades, a net importer of goods. In
essence, it imports goods in exchange for dollars. As
long as the rest of the world keeps taking pieces of
paper in exchange for its products, this is not a
problem. But during the past year or two, it is
becoming more and more apparent that there is
increasing reluctance toward the dollar, a reluctance
which is mirrored in the falling price of the dollar
(or if you wish, the rising price of oil, gold and
other commodities).
… and the future.
It should be clear that the coming period will be the
period of collapse of the last remaining bulwarks of
the holocaust myth: the United States and the Zionist
state. This will not automatically and miraculously
cause holocaust revisionism to triumph, but it will
create the necessary conditions for this triumph. As
people see their points of reference collapsing around
them, they will be forced to reconsider their formerly
unshakeable beliefs. The electoral result in the U.S.
is just a step in this process. As the United States
become weaker and weaker, they will be less and less
able to strong-arm their allies into persecuting
revisionist historians. The recent electoral results
in Latin America are also an indication of where
things are heading. As one imperial dogma after
another comes into question, the dogma of the
holocaust will inevitably also become questioned. And
then the scientific groundwork done by revisionist
historians, those who are attending this conference as
well as those who have been prevented from doing so,
will bear fruits.
Where do we go from here?
For this to happen, the forces of change all over the
world must forge alliances, draw from each other’s
strength, in order to hasten the defeat of the enemy.
We must learn from the recent victory of the Lebanese
resistance. The victory would of course have been
impossible without the heroism of the thousands of
fighters of the resistance. It would be impossible had
it not been for the systematic organizational work
done by Hizbullah over the last 25 years. But for all
the heroism of the fighters, and for all the brilliant
organizational work of their leadership, it would have
been very difficult, if not impossible, to defeat the
Zionist army if the Lebanese resistance had been left
to its own means - as the Palestinian resistance is
left, to a large extent. Fortunately, over a course of
many years, Iran and Syria, instead of normalizing
relations with Zionists, as most Arab states are
doing, followed a different course. They sided with
their brothers in Lebanon, and offered their support –
political, moral, spiritual and material – to the
Lebanese resistance movement.
This alliance made the victory possible. And this
alliance, with its fortunate result, must serve as a
lighthouse, it must be “al manar” showing the path:
Every single state and movement opposing the empire
must be supported. From North Korea to Latin America,
and of course in the Arab and Islamic world, the
forces fighting against the common enemy must
coordinate and draw from each other’s strengths. The
Hamas government, strangled as it is from western
powers, must be supported in every way possible. It
must be armed, funded, recognized. Those who put
pressure on it to recognize the Zionist state and
renounce the struggle for liberation, should be
vehemently denounced and ostracized.
The heroic Iraqi resistance against the occupation,
this force that has brought the American empire to its
knees, must be wholeheartedly supported. The so-called
Iraqi government, which was brought to power by the
novelty of “free” elections held under foreign
occupation, must be denounced as a puppet of the
occupation forces, in no way representative of the
Iraqi people and its aspirations.
The work of revisionist historians must be supported
in every way possible. In every international forum,
representatives of states like the Islamic Republic of
Iran should grab every available chance to denounce
the hypocrisy of the west which at the same time that
it is shedding crocodile tears about the lack of
freedom and democracy in the parts of the world it
doesn’t control, at the same time persecutes and
imprisons historians because of their researches.
Revisionist works must be published and distributed as
widely as possible, in as many languages as possible.
Leaders of other states who are in the same camp – for
example Venezuela, should be pressured to take a
public stand on this issue.
Revisionist Historians, and their supporters, should
also study the work of another group of
“revisionists”, who are also slandered and ridiculed
like them: those who have researched and challenged
the official version of the September 11 events. Those
“revisionists” in turn – people like Thierry Meyssan,
for example, should be approached and pressured to
take a very serious look at the work of “holocaust”
revisionists. Many of those people have an important
audience, one which is ready to examine critically the
official version of major historic events.
And the states that oppose the empire should also
attack the empire where it hurts most: in its
currency. Several years ago, Mahathir Muhammad, then
prime minister of Malaysia, proposed an “Islamic
dinar” system, which would eventually lead to a common
currency among Islamic states. A currency which would
be based on gold reserves, instead of reserves in U.S.
dollars, as is the norm nowadays. Beside being a very
sound course from an economic point of view, such a
move would hit the empire in its soft underbelly: its
ailing economy. This proposal must be resurrected and
pushed forward. Aside from that, every single state
that fights against U.S. imperialism should stop
subsidizing it, and switch its foreign reserves away
from the dollar – a first step, if you wish, toward a
future monetary unification.
The Islamic Republic of Iran had declared in the past
that it would open a new oil exchange, where oil would
be traded in Euros, instead of dollars. Little is
known, at least outside Iran, about the progress of
this plan. Whatever the case, it must be accelerated
because to a large extent, the dollar is based on its
oil convertibility.
****
I sincerely hope that, by the next time we meet, many
of the things I have talked about will have been
accomplished. The course of history is moving in that
direction, and it cannot be stopped. Insa’ allah,
revisionist historians will benefit from these
historic changes, in order to give a fatal blow to the
monstrous lie that their research seeks to expose.
Thank you.
Abu Nicola al Yunani
Permission is hereby granted to publish, copy and
otherwise distribute the above text in its entirety in
any form and way possible. The publication of isolated
parts thereof, however, is expressly prohibited.
