Was Pressac undercover?

[Tommo]

Did Jean-Claude Pressac really have an epiphony and switch sides when on assignment for Faurisson? Only to be beaten back down again by his former comrades, and hence be shunned and lied about by the orthodox community until his death and after?

OR

Was he bought out by them to willingly take part in the lie as a scholar, aware it was a hoax?

The second is most plausible given scholarly talent in the field (as well as media talent and prominence) makes one a prime target for Zionist purchasing or "smashing". And there are no more dangerous liars than the smashed revisionists, simply because they are the voice, they are the most intelligent (as the most effective way to be a liar is to know the truth first) and because of the reputable damage they cause revision.

But there's a third theory...

Given the alleged event of Pressac phoning Rudolf (as alleged on his Jim Rizoli interview) stating that the best way to combat them was to claim to be working with them and chip away at it piecemeal, as it was "too dangerous" for a full frontal assault...

Then it stands to reason that Pressac's assumed Orthodox stance and attack on Denial, and ultimate beat down and back pedalling in the end, could be construed as exactly that? As his effort to further the revisionist cause from an unusual angle?

Probably not, but does anyone feel it has any merit for consideration? I do not know all that much about him to judge.

It would kind of make sense why he was shunned by International Jewry if they'd caught onto what he was doing. Although they generally do not like to hear anything against the grain.

[hermod]

There's a fourth theory, the theory that Pressac was never a Holocaust revisionist who switched sides and the episode of his job for Faurisson is just another instance of exterminationist "poetic license."

"In spite of an insistent rumor, I must once again point out that J-C Pressac was never my "collaborator" or my "follower"." - Robert Faurisson, June 2005.

"En dépit d’une rumeur insistante, il me faut, une fois de plus, préciser ici que jamais J.-C. Pressac n’a été mon «collaborateur» ou mon «disciple»." - Robert Faurisson (http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.be/2005 ... -jean.html)

[Tommo]

There's a fourth theory, the theory that Pressac was never a Holocaust revisionist who switched sides and the episode of his job for Faurisson is just another instance of exterminationist "poetic license."

"In spite of an insistent rumor, I must once again point out that J-C Pressac was never my "collaborator" or my "follower"." - Robert Faurisson, June 2005.

"En dépit d’une rumeur insistante, il me faut, une fois de plus, préciser ici que jamais J.-C. Pressac n’a été mon «collaborateur» ou mon «disciple»." - Robert Faurisson (http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.be/2005 ... -jean.html)

You gotta be kidding? But Rudolf stated that he was in that interview? And the phone call?

That means that either Rudolf or Faurisson lied? Because the two statements are mutually incompatible.

Is that really Faurisson's position? Was there more to it?

[Lothario]

Given the alleged event of Pressac phoning Rudolf (as alleged on his Jim Rizoli interview) stating that the best way to combat them was to claim to be working with them and chip away at it piecemeal, as it was "too dangerous" for a full frontal assault...

Could you please provide us an URL to the interview and time of the comment? Thank you.

[hermod]

You gotta be kidding? But Rudolf stated that he was in that interview? And the phone call?

As far as I can remember, I had never heard about that phone call before. What did Rudolf say exactly? And when did the phone call supposedly occur?

That means that either Rudolf or Faurisson lied? Because the two statements are mutually incompatible.

Indeed. They are.

Is that really Faurisson's position?

Yes, that's really his position. I've never heard or read Faurisson retract on that statement. But perhaps he did and I missed it.

Was there more to it?

It was the footnote of a comment on the fact that no media reported Pressac's death. There was nothing more to it.

[Moderator]

Tommo,
To continue in this thread you must respond to hermod's challenge:

As far as I can remember, I had never heard about that phone call before. What did Rudolf say exactly? And when did the phone call supposedly occur?

See guidelines.
Thanks, M1

[Tommo]

Given the alleged event of Pressac phoning Rudolf (as alleged on his Jim Rizoli interview) stating that the best way to combat them was to claim to be working with them and chip away at it piecemeal, as it was "too dangerous" for a full frontal assault...

Could you please provide us an URL to the interview and time of the comment? Thank you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYAKGnFPZyQ

^ At 48:15 listen in here at the Jim Rizoli interview...

Both concepts seem mutually exclusive (?)

[Tommo]

Could somebody now please provide me with some kind of official statement where "Faurisson" has stated to the effect that Pressac was never his colleauge?

So I can compare also??

[Creox]

Given the alleged event of Pressac phoning Rudolf (as alleged on his Jim Rizoli interview) stating that the best way to combat them was to claim to be working with them and chip away at it piecemeal, as it was "too dangerous" for a full frontal assault...

Could you please provide us an URL to the interview and time of the comment? Thank you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYAKGnFPZyQ

^ At 48:15 listen in here at the Jim Rizoli interview...

Both concepts seem mutually exclusive (?)

I found that very interesting! Thanks.

[hermod]

Perhaps Pressac phoned Rudolf and lied to him, pretending he was an undercover revisionist concerned about Rudolf's lot and advising Rudolf to adopt a public exterminationist stand for his own safety. That would imply that neither Faurisson nor Rudolf lied, but that Rudolf was deceived by Pressac's phone call.

[Lothario]

Perhaps Pressac phoned Rudolf and lied to him, pretending he was an undercover revisionist concerned about Rudolf's lot and advising Rudolf to adopt a public exterminationist stand for his own safety. That would imply that neither Faurisson nor Rudolf lied, but that Rudolf was deceived by Pressac's phone call.

That's possible, but I think it's more likely that Rudolf was mistaken. As Faurisson said it's a persistent rumour that he worked with Pressac and Rudolf only said it as introduction of Pressac. So Rudolf probably assumed it to be true like a lot of people.

The story about the phone call is very interesting though and I have no reason to not believe Rudolf. I like that he doesn't want to judge Pressac cause his actions have been beneficial for revisionists. Whether Pressac was indeed a revisionist in disguise is open to debate, at least Rudolf believes that to be the case.

[Hannover]

Lothario:

Whether Pressac was indeed a revisionist in disguise is open to debate, at least Rudolf believes that to be the case.

Given the nature of Pressac's easily refuted 'Criminal Traces' it's certainly reasonable to think that Pressac did a number on his paymaster, Serge Klarsfeld.

Search the main site, www.codoh.com , and this forum for Pressac. It's no contest.

- Hannover

This is too easy.

[hermod]

That's possible, but I think it's more likely that Rudolf was mistaken. As Faurisson said it's a persistent rumour that he worked with Pressac and Rudolf only said it as introduction of Pressac. So Rudolf probably assumed it to be true like a lot of people.

The story about the phone call is very interesting though and I have no reason to not believe Rudolf. I like that he doesn't want to judge Pressac cause his actions have been beneficial for revisionists. Whether Pressac was indeed a revisionist in disguise is open to debate, at least Rudolf believes that to be the case.

So Pressac was an undercover revisionist (using the salami tactics) who never worked with Faurisson. Did I get it right? Possible...

[Tommo]

Perhaps Pressac phoned Rudolf and lied to him, pretending he was an undercover revisionist concerned about Rudolf's lot and advising Rudolf to adopt a public exterminationist stand for his own safety. That would imply that neither Faurisson nor Rudolf lied, but that Rudolf was deceived by Pressac's phone call.

Yes I considered that as a possibility.

Except knowing people, it seems that it is also possible that Faurisson told a "white lie". The motivation for which, he was very pissed off with Pressac for his treachery.

Kind of like Homer Simpson with Santa's Little Helper at the race track.. Quote "I have no dog!" LOL

^^That's the most plausible expalnation for me, purely conjectual of course.

I can see some plausibility in your argument as well.

Germar does not seem like he has it in him to tell a lie in a professional sense to me.

It's just funny how PRessac kind of did in the end, advance the Revisionist cause by opposing it and failing.

Which begs the question, did he do that deliberately? By openly debating revisionists, he did give it the needed platform. That is important. And made a piecemeal concession baulked at by his contempory's, for which they in turn dropped him quietly.

[hermod]

Yes I considered that as a possibility.

Except knowing people, it seems that it is also possible that Faurisson told a "white lie". The motivation for which, he was very pissed off with Pressac for his treachery.

Possible.

Kind of like Homer Simpson with Santa's Little Helper at the race track.. Quote "I have no dog!" LOL

Yes, I remember that episode.

"Kent, let me make this perfectly clear. I have no dog !"

^^That's the most plausible expalnation for me, purely conjectual of course.

I can see some plausibility in your argument as well.

Purely conjectural indeed.

Germar does not seem like he has it in him to tell a lie in a professional sense to me.

If all the people telling a lie seemed like they have it in them to tell a lie, nobody would ever be deceived by them.

It's just funny how PRessac kind of did in the end, advance the Revisionist cause by opposing it and failing.

Which begs the question, did he do that deliberately? By openly debating revisionists, he did give it the needed platform. That is important. And made a piecemeal concession baulked at by his contempory's, for which they in turn dropped him quietly.

Funny. But true? Perhaps a deeper analysis of his writings could confirm or infirm this elegant theory...