Cole (Again) on Treblinka and the “Reinhardt” Camps
Ever since posting (via my publisher) my expanded views regarding Treblinka and the “Reinhardt” camps, I have been accused of “attacking” other revisionists, and I have been told that my position is the result of A) JDL threats, B) a payoff from “the Joos,” C) my alcoholism, D) my grief over my mother’s health, E) my neocon beliefs, and F) – all of the above.
I appreciate that some of you feel as though you know my life better than I do. But if I can momentarily be qualified by you eminent experts as an authoritative source on my own life, I will state that A) the JDL has made no attempt to contact me since I resurfaced, something I am very pleased about; B) I can’t even get dicks like Larry Elder to pay me for work I did before my “outing.” Hell, I wish a few “Joos” would offer me a check these days, but no dice; C) my alcoholism makes me irritable, but not stupid; D) my mother’s health situation has vastly reduced the amount of time I can spend on other things, but it hasn’t made me dim; E) my political beliefs have no bearing on my history work. If I make a historical claim, I back it up with facts and documents. Where I stand on abortion or Obama or legalized pot or school vouchers or Israel or gender Apartheid in Muslim nations is irrelevant, because I either make my case for my historical claims based on facts and documents, or I fail.
Two small observations:
1) What transpired recently with Bradley Smith and Faurisson (through his proxy Leuchter) is not new. New to you, maybe. But that doesn’t mean it’s new. Back in 1994, the exact same thing happened. Faurisson attacked me with personal insults, he used a proxy (Henri Roques), I got angry at Smith for acting like a scared little lackey of Faurisson’s, and Smith responded by sending my personal correspondences (faxes that time) to dozens of other revisionists.
The only difference this time is that Faurisson has a new proxy (Roques is dead, so in comes Leuchter), and Smith now has social media with which to send around my private emails.
Regarding Faurisson, I tackled his poor historiography in a very lengthy piece I wrote in 1995. As Faurisson ceased to create new or relevant work decades ago, I can add nothing to what I wrote back then.
And Smith? I’m not automatically against publishing private correspondences. I did it to Michael Shermer in my book. But I published them in full and with a detailed explanation of why they were relevant to Holocaust history beyond my personal beef.
Smith publishes private emails because he confuses airing dirty laundry with open debate. Mainly it’s because he’s too lazy, old, and ill to come up with any actual new material. In this most recent instance, he published my private correspondences in truncated form and with no context. And when I attempted to add context, he accused me of trying to “exploit my dying mother to help me win the sympathy of the reader.”
No, asshole. I was attempting to give context to private emails that you chose to publish in an edited form. Here’s an idea – don’t keep posting private emails. But if you do, don’t attack the person whose emails you put online for trying to provide context to things that were never intended to be seen publicly.
That Bradley would post my private emails and then accuse me of “exploiting” my “dying mother” is beyond vile. It’s probably the worst thing anyone has ever done to me. I will never forgive him.
Also, Smith recently dredged up and posted Faurisson’s ‘94 attacks against me without linking to my response from ‘95. That’s Bradley’s “open debate” for you.
For everyone who is acting as shocked as a Southern gal with the vapors over my Treblinka views, I will refer to that piece I wrote about Faurisson in ‘95. I never thought I’d ever say “thank God for Nizkor,” but, well, thank God for Nizkor, for preserving the piece:
As an example, I’ll point specifically to Faurisson’s response to David Irving’s “Journal of Historical Review” essay/conference speech on the Goebbels diary, appearing in the letters section of the current “Journal of Historical Review” (March/April ’95). Faurisson quotes from the March 27, 1942 Goebbels diary entry, and then writes “In itself, this last sentence (“Broadly speaking, one can probably say that 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated, while only 40 percent can be put to work” – Goebbels) tends to show that the Reich Minister of Propaganda did not know for sure that there was a German policy to physically exterminate the Jews, either totally or in part.”
“IN PART?” What does he think Goebbels is referring to, if not a liquidation IN PART. Faurisson is pulling an old “exterminationist” trick here by quoting a passage and then TELLING us what we’ve just read, hoping we won’t notice any incongruity between the passage and Faurisson’s explanation. Faurisson is quoting a passage that speaks of exterminations in part – AT LEAST in part, and then he TELLS us that we in fact HAVEN’T just read what we’ve read – with no explanation given to clarify why Goebbels isn’t actually saying what he so clearly seems to be saying. I think Faurisson has grown too used to having his word taken as gospel. Naked emperors don’t only exist on the “exterminationist” side. Faurisson’s description of the March 27 Goebbels diary entry reminds me of page 120 of dear old Mel Mermelstein’s book, where he shows a picture of Krema 1 and writes in the caption “note the pipes and shower heads above.”
The importance (to me) of this Goebbels diary passage is that for the first time we have a reliable piece of evidence which points to a plan of separation between those Jews fit for “labor” and the rest, who “have to be liquidated.” Hate it though some of us may, this fits the “exterminationist” model much better than it does the revisionist one. If revisionists wish to explain this passage some other way, they’ll have to do better than the explanation offered by Faurisson. For myself, I can say that the meaning of this Goebbels diary passage, IN RELATION to events occurring at that time, has yet to be adequately explained by any revisionist.
These days, I am saying nothing new. New to you, maybe. But not new. If you formed an opinion of me based only on partial samples of what I said or wrote in the ‘90s, that isn’t my fault.
Which brings me to…
2) The most intellectually weak and embarrassingly stupid position that anyone can take is, “I’m so great that no one could possibly disagree with me. Therefore, if someone CLAIMS to disagree with me, it’s not because they actually do. It’s because they’re lying, or they’ve been coerced, or threatened, or paid off. But it’s simply not in the realm of possibility that someone might actually hold views that contradict mine.”
I dealt with that shit constantly during my GOP days, when leftists routinely accused me of having been “paid off” by the Koch Brothers or Rupert Murdoch, because surely no one could actually be a conservative by sincere conviction.
To everyone who wants to dismiss my views on Treblinka by kidding themselves that I really don’t believe what I’m saying, I implore you, don’t go down that road of intellectual foolishness. It’s neither my drinking nor my grief nor the JDL nor anything else that is “making” me take this position. I actually think I make a good, strong case. Plus (as I just pointed out) I was saying similar things twenty years ago.
Disagree with me, sure. But don’t claim that I’m only pretending to disagree with you. Allow that I can actually form ideas and have opinions on my own.
Eric Hunt doesn’t allow this. He claims to psychically “know” that David Irving and I are just pretending to disagree with him. It’s actually quite astounding that Irving, a man I have neither seen nor spoken to since 1995, would collaborate with me on a plot to pretend to disagree with Hunt, a man I have never met and whose name was unfamiliar to me until a few months ago when Smith pointed out “he’s the Wiesel elevator felon.”
Which brings me to this. And I’m going to use my words carefully here, not out of respect for Hunt, but out of respect for several mutual friends who have asked me to tread lightly. So this is me treading lightly:
Eric, your defense at your criminal trial was that you are “mentally ill” and “delusional.” Please know that I take schizophrenia very seriously. It is a tragic disease, and it has affected several people who are very close to me. I am not mocking you; I wish you only the best. But you are in no way qualified to judge what men like David Irving and I are thinking. You are in no position to claim some type of clairvoyance regarding us, son. I think you have a few too many issues of your own to deal with.
Hunt obviously put a good deal of time into his 9,000-word reply. Not for his sake, but to better clarify the reality of the “Reinhardt” camps, I’ll spend a bit more time stating the obvious.
And, indeed, how much more obvious can it be? The Korherr Report, commissioned by Himmler, written by the top SS statistician for Himmler’s eyes only, states that “evacuations” from “the territory of the Reich and including the eastern territories and further in the German area of power and influence in Europe from October 1939 or later until 31.12.1942” add up to 2,419,656 Jews.
Korherr, whose report is considered authentic by even the most extreme revisionists like Mattogno and Graf, clearly states that those “evacuees” are no longer in ghettos and concentration camps. Further, Korherr states that “From 1937 to the beginning of 1943, the number of Jews in Europe has diminished by an estimated 4 million, partially due to emigration, partially due to the excess mortality of the Jews in Central and Western Europe, partially due to the evacuations especially in the more strongly populated Eastern Territories, die hier als Abgang gerechnet werdenwhich (which are here counted as departed).”
The “evacuees” were not in ghettos or camps. Europe (ALL of Europe under German control – West, Central, and East) had LOST approximately 4 million Jews by 1943. The causes for the “loss?” Emigration (which Korherr rightly points out was prohibited in autumn 1941), excess mortality caused by deaths-over-births (including old age and suicide, which Korherr mentions specifically), and post-1941 EVACUATIONS.
Hunt accuses me of reading too much into Korherr’s “code words.” “Code words?” Son, do you speak German? “Abgang” is not a code word. It is a really straightforward German word. It means gone, departed, dispatched.
And “zurückgegangen,” the term Korherr uses to describe the state of European Jewry and the 4 million figure, is also not a code word. Again, it’s a straightforward, normal term for “decreased,” “declined,” or “diminished.”
No code words, Eric. The “evacuees” are gone, but not by emigration, suicide, or old age. They are GONE. Employing no “code words,” Korherr states unambiguously that they are gone from Western Europe, Central Europe, and Eastern Europe. Employing no “code words,” Korherr states that there are approximately 4 million fewer Jews in all of Europe (Western, Central, and Eastern) – a four million Jewish DECREASE, DECLINE – as the result of pre-1941 emigration from the Reich proper, excess deaths from old age and suicide, and EVACUATIONS. Evacuees are counted as “departed.”
There is no evidence, not one ounce of evidence, that the nearly 2.5 million Jews counted as evacuees were simply transferred somewhere else. There is ample evidence that thousands of evacuees were indeed used for labor. A thousand here, a thousand there. But we’re talking about a total figure of almost two-and-a-half million. Plus, we’re talking about a hell of a lot of “Jews unfit for labor” in that group. The revisionist challenge, for those who won’t accept the conclusion held by me, Irving, and Weber, is to account for this massive number of Jews (where were they sent? There are ample records that they were sent to the Reinhardt camps…why no records of where those millions of people ended up next?) and – most significantly – where were all of the unemployable Jews sent?
Mattogno and Graf play games. They cite a few reports of Polish Jews sent to labor camps or ghettos during the “Reinhardt” phase, but again and again, in every instance they mention, it deals with employable Jews needed for labor, often by forces outside the SS. None of this makes an appreciable dent in the nearly 2.5 million figure. To make their case, revisionists have to show where groups of millions were sent to be resettled. 1,000 employable Polish Jews sent to work for the Luftwaffe doesn’t cut it.
Look at this little game that Mattogno and Graf play in “Treblinka: Transit Camp or Extermination Camp.” Citing Christian Gerlach’s “Kalkulierte Morde,” Mattogno and Graf crow, “The deportation of Polish Jews to White Russia was, according to C. Gerlach, ‘extremely extensive.’”
Oh, THAT’S where they went! Belarus! Case closed. Let’s move on. The believers’ morphine has been administered. No need to fret about this supposed “problem” again.
Except that Mattogno and Graf, who use the “extremely extensive” quote to end their chapter titled “Final Destination of Jews Deported to the East,” employ the quote misleadingly, and don’t tell you what comes after it. “Umfangreichsten” (Gerlach’s term) is better translated as “most extensive,” and Gerlach was using that term in a chapter titled “Die Verschleppung von Juden aus anderen Ländern nach Weißrußland.” Of transports to Belarus from the Protectorate, France, the Netherlands, Hungary, and Poland, Gerlach states that the “most extensive” figure was for the Polish Jews (in comparison to the other transports).
And here Mattogno and Graf lose in spectacular fashion. After committing themselves to Gerlach as a credible source, here’s what comes after “most extensive” (so as not to be accused of monkeying with the translation, I’ll use revisionist Thomas Kues’ translation from the Inconvenient History website):
Most extensive were probably the deportations of Polish Jews to Belarus. Also in this case it was the question of labor forces. The offices and enterprises of the SS and Police in the so-called “Rußland-Mitte”, roughly corresponding to the eastern [military administered] part of Belarus, were to be concentrated in two cities: Mogilev and Bobruisk. In Mogilev there existed the already described forced labor camp of the HSSPF, in Bobruisk there was in early 1942 a need for manpower in connection with the construction of a large base planned for theWaffen-SS. The head of the supply commander’s office of the Waffen-SS and Police of Rußland-Mitte, SS-Standartenführer Georg Martin, got the idea to establish a “KL” (concentration camp) and have Jews sent to it from Warsaw. On the intervention of the RSHA 960 Jewish men and youths, part of them summoned by an appeal, part of them arrested during razzias in the Warsaw Ghetto, were then transported to Bobruisk on 30 May 1942. On 28 July a further train with Warsaw Jews reached Bobruisk; part of the Jews were sent on to Smolensk. In Bobruisk the Jews also had to perform work for units of the Wehrmacht. Of the approximately 1,500 deportees only 91 male Jews were involved in the retreat to Lublin in September 1943, since all the others had fallen victims to the constant Selections, the toil, the starvation and the terrible maltreatment. Moreover there were possibly one or more transports whose passengers were shot immediately at arrival.
Several thousand Jews, sent for labor. Not several hundred thousand employable and unemployable Jews sent for resettling. And these are the transports that Gerlach describes as the “most extensive.” So, a few thousand is the “most extensive?” Wow. Mattogno and Graf should have left Gerlach alone. He doesn’t help their case. Once again, we see small transports for labor only, an infinitesimal fraction of the 2,419,656 evacuees listed by Korherr.
Mattogno and Graf should have left Kube alone as well. In their zeal to find ANY evidence of Polish Jews who actually were sent into the Eastern territories, the authors write:
Finally, the arrival of at least one transport from the Warsaw Ghetto at a location east of Treblinka has been documented beyond any question. On 31 July 1942, the Reichskommissar for White Russia, Wilhelm Kube, sent a telegram to the Reichskommissar for the Ostland, Heinrich Lohse, in which he protested the dispatching of a transport of “1,000 Jews from Warsaw to work at Minsk,” because this would lead to danger of epidemics and an increase in partisan activity.
Another spectacular Mattogno/Graf fail. After committing themselves to the fact that the Kube/Lohse telegram is authentic and reliable, they fail to quote the entire thing. I’ll do that now:
Re: Combating Partisans and Aktion against Jews in the Generalbezirk of Belorussia
In all the clashes with the partisans in Belorussia it has proved that Jewry, both in the formerly Polish, as well as in the formerly Soviet parts of the District General, is the main bearer of the partisan movement, together with the Polish resistance movement in the East and the Red Army from Moscow. In consequence, the treatment of Jewry in Belorussia is a matter of political importance owing to the danger to the entire economy. It must therefore be solved in accordance with political considerations and not merely economic needs. Following exhaustive discussions with the SS Brigadefuehrer Zenner and the exceedingly capable Leader of the SD, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. jur. Strauch, we have liquidated about 55,000 Jews in Belorussia in the past 10 weeks. In the area of Minsk county Jewry has been completely eliminated without any danger to the manpower requirements. In the predominantly Polish area of Lida, 16,000 Jews were liquidated, in Slonim, 8,000, etc.
Owing to encroachment by the Army Rear Zone (Command), which has already been reported, there was interference with the preparations we had made for the liquidation of the Jews in Glebokie. Without contacting me, the Army Rear Zone Command liquidated 10,000 Jews, whose systematic elimination had in any case been planned by us. In the city of Minsk about 10,000 Jews were liquidated on July 28 and 29. Of these 6,500 were Russian Jews – mainly old men, women and children – and the rest, Jews incapable of work, who were sent to Minsk in November of last year by order of the Fuehrer, mainly from Vienna, Bruenn, Bremen and Berlin. The District of Sluzk has also been relieved of several thousand Jews. The same applies to Nowogrodek and Wilejka. Radical measures are planned for Baranowitschi and Hanzewitschi. In Baranowitschi there are still another 10,000 Jews in the city itself, of whom 9,000 will be liquidated next month.
In the city of Minsk about 2,600 Jews from Germany have remained. In addition all of the 6,000 Russian Jews and Jewesses remained alive who were employed during the Aktion by various units [of the Wehrmacht]. In future, too, Minsk will remain the largest Jewish element owing to the concentration of armament industries in the area and as the requirements of the railroad make this necessary for the time being. In all other areas the number of Jews used for work will be reduced by the SD and myself to a maximum of 800, and, if possible, 500, so that when the remaining planned Aktionen have been completed there will be 8,600 in Minsk and about 7,000 Jews in the 10 other districts, including the Jew-free Minsk District. There will then be no further danger that the partisans can still rely to any real extent on Jewry. Naturally I and the SD would like it best if Jewry in the Generalbezirk of Belorussia was finally eliminated after their labor is no longer required by the Wehrmacht. For the time being the essential requirements of the Wehrmacht, the main employer of Jewry, are being taken into consideration.
In addition to this unambiguous attitude towards Jewry, the SD in Belorussia also has the onerous task of continually transferring new transports of Jews from the Reich to their destination. This causes excessive strain on the physical and spiritual capacities of the personnel of the SD, and withdraws them from duties within the area of Belorussia itself.
I should therefore be grateful if the Reichskommissar could see his way to stopping further deportations of Jews to Minsk at least until the danger from the partisans has been finally overcome. I need 100 percent of the SD manpower against the Partisans and the Polish Resistance Movement, which together occupy the entire strength of the not overwhelmingly strong SD units. After completion of the Aktion against the Jews in Minsk, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Strauch reported to me this night, with justified indignation, that suddenly, without instructions from the Reichsfuehrer, and without notification to the Generalkommissar, a transport of 1,000 Jews from Warsaw has arrived for the local Luftwaffe Command.
I beg the Reichskommissar (already warned by telegram) to prevent the dispatch of such transports, in his capacity as supreme authority in Ostland. The Polish Jew, exactly like the Russian Jew, is an enemy of the German nation. He represents a politically dangerous element, a danger which far exceeds his value as a skilled worker. Under no circumstances should the army or the Luftwaffe import Jews into an area under civil administration, either from the Generalgouvernement or from elsewhere, without the approval of the Reichskommissar, as this endangers the entire political task here and the security of the Generalbezirk. I am in full agreement with the Commander of the SD in Belorussia that we should liquidate every transport of Jews not arranged, or announced to us, by our superior officers, to prevent further disturbances in Belorussia.
Do these sound like the words of a man who is running a bucolic no-kill resettlement village for Polish (and other) Jews? That transport of 1,000 Jews that Mattogno and Graf wave above their heads like the Stanley Cup was unexpected and unwanted. Plus, there’s all that talk from Kube about mass murder. But I think you probably got that point already.
I’ll add that just two months after getting the final Korherr Report, Himmler ordered the Ostland ghettos permanently closed, with any Jews capable of work being sent to camps, and the remainder being “evacuated to the East.” Uh, this is the fucking Ostland. There IS no “east.” This is as far east as Nazi territory went. What more proof is needed that, in this instance, “evacuated to the East” is a euphemism?
So even if one wants to place the Ostland ghettos as the final “resettlement” destinations, two months after the final Korherr Report, the ghettos were dissolved. Where you gonna put those 2.4 million Jews NOW, bright boys?
Oh, and let’s not forget that in May of ‘44, Himmler bragged at Sonthofen about how secure the Eastern Front is because the Jewish ghettos of the General Government have been removed from “existence:”
I am convinced that things would look bleak for the front that has been built up to the east of the Government General if we had not resolved the Jewish problem there, if, for example, the ghetto in Lublin, or the massive ghetto in Warsaw, with its 500,000 inhabitants, were still in existence.
If your position is that Himmler moved the Polish Jews CLOSER to the front, from Poland to the Ostland, can you comprehend how stupid that sounds in light of Himmler’s remarks at Sonthofen? Basically, you would have Himmler say, “I strengthened the front by removing the Polish Jews from areas close to the front and putting them in areas even closer to the front. If large Jewish communities still existed in the General Government, it would be a threat to the front. So what a good thing that I put all of those Jews WAY closer to the front!”
C’mon…just use your logic. That’s a damn stupid theory. Himmler is CLEARLY stating that the removal of the Jews from the General Government has made the front more secure. He is patting himself on the back for REMOVING hundreds of thousands of Jews from an area that close to the front. And your position is that he “resettled” them in the Ostland, right at the front? So, Himmler is saying that 500,000 Warsaw Jews were a threat to the front when they were in Warsaw, but not when they’re at the front itself? Seriously?
Please. Stop being stupid. The Jews had not been resettled to the Ostland. It’s as clear as day.
And before you say, “well, that there Sonthofen speech was probably a fake cooked up by them Holohoaxers,” remember that this is the same speech in which Himmler informed the generals that the Hungarian Jews were being brought to German territory to be used as labor. Why would the “Holohoaxers” fabricate a speech that annihilates the core of the 1944 Auschwitz extermination story?
The Ostland ghettos, like the Reinhardt camps, were part of a deadly enterprise. Korherr gave the recap. 2.4 million Jews were not frolicking freely in the Ostland ghettos or in the Reinhardt Camps. Thousands of Jews did avoid death during the Reinhardt period through labor, but one cannot account for the over 2.4 million departed Jews who were not in camps or ghettos except by admitting that they were departed Jews who were not in camps or ghettos.
If I could make it any more simple, I’d have to use finger puppets.
In his reply to my first statement on Treblinka, Eric Hunt pointed out that the Minsk ghetto isn’t mentioned in the Korherr Report. He’s not helping his case. You know what else isn’t mentioned by name in the report? Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec. The purpose of the report was to inform Himmler of how many Jews had died, how many were alive, and where the living were held. There was no need to list by name the one-way death stops. That info was covered in the section of “departed” evacuees.
To show that my views regarding the Ostland ghettos are not the product of my Joo-ishness or alcoholism, I’ll quote someone else on the topic:
Meanwhile, from mid-November 1941 onward, the Reichsbahn sent trainloads of Jews – rounded up in Vienna, Brünn (Brno), Bremen, and Berlin – direct to Minsk, while others went to Warsaw, Kovno, and Riga. At Kovno and Riga the Jews were shot soon after. At Minsk the German Jews survived at first, but not for long: the Nazis liquidated 35,000 of the native Russian Jews at Minsk to make space for the newcomers, who were housed in a separate ghetto, the ‘Hamburg Ghetto’ – indicating the city that the first consignment had come from….Wilhelm Kube, Rosenberg’s general commissioner of White Ruthenia, would record on July 31, 1942, that ten thousand had been liquidated since the twenty-eighth, ‘of which 6,500 were Russian Jews, old folk, women and children, with the rest unemployable Jews largely sent to Minsk from Vienna, Brünn, Bremen, and Berlin in November last year on the Führer’s order.’
You know who wrote those words? David Irving, in “Hitler’s War.” And yet he was still welcomed at IHR conferences and Zundel rallies all throughout the ‘90s. He wasn’t called a sellout or a traitor. Oh sure, Faurisson attacked him. But Faurisson is a sick man. The more important point is, the revisionist audience back in my day was somewhat different from the audience of today. There was no insistence on Faurissonian “purity.” A man like Irving could be celebrated for his skill, even if some in the crowd disagreed with his conclusions.
Not anymore. The Faurissons and Grafs and Mattognos have taken over, and a self-described “delusional” like Hunt has become a respected authority.
Fredrick Toben, on some white supremacy podcast (I think it’s called the Nutty Nordic Chuckle-Time White Purity Partycast, or something like that) recently lamented the “new” positions taken by me, Weber, and Irving. “New?” I’ve been saying similar things since the ‘90s, and Irving long before. We didn’t change; revisionism did. It’s a shame. For some of us, it used to be about the challenge of doing research and filling in the gaps in knowledge that others had ignored. It was about eschewing identity politics and politics in general, in favor of the pursuit of facts, wherever they might lead.
Even if, let’s say, only 15% of the revisionists I mixed with in the ‘90s actually felt that way, that was enough to make it rewarding. It’s not rewarding now. Don’t get me wrong – I’ve met some incredibly cool people since being thrust back into revisionism. I’d go so far as to say I’ve made several new “friends for life,” and even more new Facebook friends who I truly look forward to meeting in person someday. I’m simply making the point that, for me, the scene has changed.
Here’s something that may best personify my angst – Eric Hunt seems downright unapologetic for knowingly misleading his viewers in his Treblinka video:
In the first cut [of the Treblinka video] I said “This is a report from September 1942, of the Joint Distribution Committee providing medical aid to 600,000 Polish-Jewish refugees in Asiatic Russia.” I also showed a newspaper article. The day of release, Germar Rudolf corrected this and pointed out that they were evacuated well before Treblinka was alleged to have been gassing Jews by the trainload. It’s obvious these Polish Jews were evacuated by the Soviet Union. The mistake was a result of putting an old misidentified placeholder into an early draft, rushing to get the project out and not running it by other people….I kept the older version up simply because the comment page was more active.
So that’s where we are now? Spreading false and misleading information is perfectly acceptable in revisionist circles because a “comment page is more active?” Using Youtube’s free and convenient annotations feature to correct an error is considered an undue burden?
This is the state of revisionism right now?
Thomas Wolfe once wrote, “Stay the fuck away from redheaded fashion models who’ll dial your life back to 1994.” I think he also wrote “You can’t go home again,” which, come to think of it, would have been a better quote for me to use here. Because indeed, you can’t go home again. So here’s where I exit the elevator that Eric Hunt is riding in.
Given the choice, I’d rather take the stairs.
(Pictured above: Cole, Faurisson, Irving, Weber, Graf, Mattogno, Zundel, and others, from 1994. You’re not likely to see this group get together again soon)