New Everything Coming January 1st!

Thank you for visiting this site. 2013 was a surreal year for me, to say the least. Politics had been my life for the past five years, but after being banned from local GOP organizations, I found myself very much adrift and, frankly, unsure of how to proceed.

I was fortunate to find spiritual awakening through the Church of Scientology, and after months of hard work and cleansing, I was finally cleared of the evil alien thetans that had dwelled in my body since before birth. Unfortunately, once the Scientologists saw what a horrible human being I am without the thetans, they determined that I was actually better off with them, and they shoved them back in (a most uncomfortable experience, due to the port of re-entry). So now I’m back to square one. Well, that was $700,000 poorly spent.

I then decided to chuck my material possessions and dedicate myself to humanitarian work in the Third World. After only one month, I was able to get both sides in the deadly Sierra Leone civil war to actually come together – for the first time in 22 years – to demand my expulsion from the country. The day I was banished has now become a national holiday in that nation.

Having failed at finding either spiritual or humanitarian fulfillment, I tried my hand at love – the magical thing that can heal even the most troubled of souls. I was honored when noted film director Penny Marshall accepted my hand in marriage. We had a formal wedding, and we honeymooned in the Bahamas. It was about two months into the marriage when I discovered that I had actually wed an escaped circus baboon. Although I can easily blame my rapidly-failing eyesight for the error, we had dinner at Rob Reiner’s house and he thought it was Penny Marshall too. In fact, he told me how pleased he was that she was flinging less poo than when they were married.

Because this is California, I still have to pay the baboon alimony after the divorce.

With no other avenues for happiness, I wrote a book. It will be out next spring. There will be many anecdotes, historical factoids, and lots and lots of cussing. I am blessed to have an amazing publishing company standing behind the book (a real publishing company, not one of those “pay to publish” places). I wish I could say that the money I made from the book went to something other than vodka, but that would be a lie.

If past events are any indication, the book might get me killed. So get an autographed copy when it comes out; it might be worth something after my demise. Especially if you kill me after I sign it, and then you sign it, too. Now that’s a collectible.

Starting January 1st, there will be an entirely new site at this URL, dedicated to promoting the book and shortening my lifespan. Oh, and even more importantly, no more of this eyesight-killing white-on-black text.

See you in 2014!

Sincerely,

*
David Stein alias David Cole
*

*

UPDATE: Here’s a preview of the new site. I’d say “enjoy,” but that might come off as a bit inappropriate. So how about instead I just ask you to limit your angry emails to three per day. How’s that for a compromise?

BigInfidel.com

*

Comments
11 Responses to “New Everything Coming January 1st!”
  1. Shoop says:

    You’ve had more “poo flinging” than you deserve. ):

  2. Babidi says:

    So, will this be as world-changing as Brietbart’s “leaks”? Will this be something about liberal politicians with ties to former communists? Ground breaking!!!

    Whatever man. Unless the book is an honest offering of this identity you’ve held, the ridiculous claims you’ve made with it, and the thought process you’ve had while still not recanting your youthful views, what good is it? The saddest thing about you David, is that whether you’re skeptical of gas chambers, championing for Israel, or writing about the insanity of democrats, all of it is literally considered null – as you’ve got about zero credibility in regards to authenticity.

    • admin says:

      One of these days, Babidi (or is it “Dodoria?”), you should leave a comment using something other than 10 Minute Mail as a return address. You seem to be familiar with my early work, and your points are not invalid. No need to hide in the shadows, friend. I don’t bite.

      I never ask people to take what I say as truth based on my “credibility.” If I can’t make my case using independently verifiable evidence, whether I’m writing about politics or history, then I deserve not to be taken seriously. And, conversely, anyone who would not request independently verifiable evidence because of a belief in my character is not being as demanding as they should.

      The bottom line is, whether someone thinks I’m a man of good character, or a man of bad character, I still strive to make my case via evidence that doesn’t depend on whatever that person believes about my character. Even the most evil man on earth can still solve an algebra equation. If he shows his work and the numbers bear out, it’s pure superstitious nonsense to dismiss a correct equation because of the character of the man who solved it.

      The only things in my book that aren’t backed up by evidence are personal, trivial stories and funny, harmless anecdotes. Everything serious – my historical views, my political experiences – is fully backed up. People will love me or hate me, and honestly, I don’t give a damn. But if I’m going to write a book, as I did, I’m certainly not going to make the quality of the information contingent upon one’s personal opinion of me.

      • Babidi says:

        I’m not sure what it is you’re implying about 10-minute mail. What does it matter what e-mail I choose? Frankly, I don’t see the point in it to begin with, considering there’s already a CAPTCHA in place, and I highly doubt you’re interested in any private correspondence. You are correct that I used the pseudonym “Dodoria.” I am assuming you must be referring to a comment I left a few weeks or so ago (which you chose not to publish?). By the way, is it just me, or do you also see the irony in telling someone not to hide in the shadows?

        I disagree with your algebra analogy. If we take a mathematical equation and plug in the same numbers, we will yield the same results. The same cannot be said for the conclusions we draw from history or politics. The few articles I’ve read of yours as Stein are full of fallacious reasoning. So, according to your logic, can I claim, for the same reasons you’ve used, that you must be a Holocaust denier and an anti-Semite? You seemed to legitimately believe this when attacking the character of both Chomsky and Lilienthal, in which you used shoddy reasoning. Actually, it seems many of your articles as Stein use ad hominems, strawmans, sensationalism, and so on.

        And seeing as how you have not recanted any of your views as Cole, I believe that pretty much invalidates your articles pertaining to the Holocaust, or “antisemitism” (clearly used purely to advance your own political agenda – whatever that is – neoconservatism?). The IMDb listing is a hard pill to swallow all things considered, but I’d go as far as to say it invalidates much of your life’s work.

        Regardless, I don’t periodically check in here because I enjoy hating you. Quite the contrary. If you read the comment left under the name Dodoria, then you already are aware of what my impression was of you. I still think you’ve got quite the intellect and writing skills, and perhaps your book answers some of these questions I have. I only hope that when you say it is life endangering that that isn’t a hyperbolic selling point.

        • admin says:

          My point RE 10-Minute Emails is that A) your earlier comment got flagged as spam by Sitewatch, which I had used back then to keep my site clean after it was hacked (I don’t bother anymore, as I’ll soon be starting another one), and B), by “hiding in the shadows,” I meant, hiding from me. If you use a legit email address, we can correspond. I don’t believe that a comments section is the proper place for this kind of thing.

          Of course the algebra analogy is sound. A good historian can make a solid-enough case to convince even those committed to an alternate model. My book will be filled with many examples of those who publicly said I was wrong while privately admitting I’d convinced them.

          Regarding my Stein work, you have to separate the opinion from the facts. My OPINION of Chomsky is low, and always has been. But, opinion aside, he LIED about staying in contact with revisionists. And that’s all my piece pointed out. Whenever I would write a piece of journalism, I would always present evidence. Links to documents, links to other sites, links to video, etc. I never once made a claim for which I asked people to take my word for something. It doesn’t mean I don’t have subjective opinions; it simply means that if I were making a factual claim, I’d back it up.

          Maybe I am a neocon. So what? During my revisionist days, I always kept my personal politics out of it. A “political historian” (like Arno Mayer, who interprets everything from a Marxist worldview) loses value, because they’re being guided by something other than the facts. At least three times that I can recall, in the early ‘90s, I had to ask Willis Carto to stop calling me an “anti-Zionist Jew.” I told him to leave politics out of it entirely. Plus, I didn’t want to further the myth that being skeptical of gas chamber claims means also having to embrace a set of political or ideological beliefs. That’s a myth that hurt revisionism.

          This’ll be my last go-‘round here. If you want to correspond further, go to Mail.com or somewhere like that and take 5 minutes to get a free anonymous address that I can actually reach you back with.

          • Babidi says:

            As Stein, couldn’t you be thought of as a political historian, interpreting everything from a Zionist worldview? Isn’t that what you’re doing when you major in Holocaust studies in Israel (this is assuming the IMDb page is accurate, some of it sounds a bit exaggerated, not to mention certain dates don’t really add up), then place such grand emphasis on Jewish suffering which is in turn used to defend the legitimacy of Zionism? In the same way Arno pulls from history to support his Marxist beliefs, you come off in a similar fashion when you seriously assert that anti-Zionism is antisemitism. I don’t doubt that as Stein you’d have accused me of antisemitism right after that first sentence, but the overall point in this paragraph, you yourself allude to in the interview you did with Zundel.

            I suppose there is not much wrong with being a neo-conservative, although I find it disappointing. In the aforementioned interview you state that you identify with classical liberalism (funny thing about the Chomsky article: you also make some excellent points in defense of free speech [or inquiry as you put it] in said interview). My own qualms, I guess. I had hoped though that you saw past the American left/right paradigm and the accompanying bread and circuses.

            I agree about revisionism, and had I not ever gotten wind of your documentary, I doubt I’d have ever thought to question these Holocaust dogmas. Your material about gas chambers carried a lot of weight precisely because it was clear you had no ulterior motive (unlike 90% of revisionists who can easily be connected to fascist ideals, etc). In a reasonable society, you’d be arguing with Michael Shermer, not against.

            Now that I have an e-mail, should we continue this conversation over pastrami on rye and make out?

  3. Berkeley says:

    Uh oh! Judgment Day has arrived for all who’ve known David Cole! 🙂

    You’ve got some tales to tell, David, and I’m super excited!

    Babidi, in a reasonable world there wouldn’t be any Michael Shermers.

  4. ColacaustDenier says:

    Look at you David. Even now you can’t keep your lies straight. You refer to your article about Chomsky as having to do with his dealings with “revisionists” yet in the headline of the article you said he dealt with “deniers.” You seem very hung up on the distinction, one we all know is bullshit. Yet you were happy to use ‘denier’ as applied to someone Chomsky speaks with but now that your dirty little secret is out you keep using the term ‘revisionist. You keep revising your own history. Keep it up.

    “Newly uncovered documents reveal that leftist icon Noam Chomsky has had a much more active dialogue with Holocaust deniers than he’s ever let on.”

    • admin says:

      Wow – you created a phony email address that’s a play on my name combined with Holocaust denier: “ColacaustDenier.” Damn, that is so brilliant. How long did it take you to think that up? Surely a person of your intellectual acuity gets paid the big bucks for your services…and yet I’m favored with that brilliant bit of wordplay for free. I’m humbled.

      So, the distinction between “revisionist” and “denier” is “bullshit.” Do share more of that wisdom. Please explain how, alone among every single historical event in mankind’s history, the Holocaust needs no revision over time. The Civil War? Some facts needed revising after the emotions of the time died down. World War I? Same thing. Slavery? The Spanish-American War? The Depression? The New Deal? The Ukraine famine? The gulags? All could be revised years after the fact as historians looked at events with fresh eyes. But not the Holocaust. Not this one thing. Not this one event the history of which was apparently laid down by the Almighty in 1945 never to be altered.

      Indeed, the cause of historical accuracy is greatly furthered when met with religious zealousness and closed-mindedness.

      You, my old friend, are a true hero. A keeper of the faith. And your wicked pun on my name? Bitingly effective. I am slain, sir.

      • ColacaustDenier says:

        Just pointing out that you have no problem interchanging Revisionist and Denier effectively showing the world that the distinction is merely one of branding and not substance. No need to get so uptight about it.

  5. Berkeley says:

    The phrase “denying the Holocaust” brings to mind the Christian phrase, “denying Jesus,” in which “denying” means “failing to worship,” or, “denying the divinity of.”

    Most Christians today will forgive your denying their Lord a lot more readily than they’ll forgive your “denying the Holocaust.”

    Christianity today is a weak and pallid thing compared to Holocaustianity.

Leave A Comment

*