Prominent Academic: “Absolutely no problem at all” saying “Auschwitz was not a death camp”

This is the story of how one of the many attempts by my friends-turned-foes to ban my writing from the public square (yay conservatives who favor censorship! You guys are the true heroes) inadvertently led to some very important pro-revisionist quotes from several mainstream figures. In their successful attempt to ban an ephemeral essay of mine, my foes accidentally created a situation that will benefit Holocaust revisionism for years to come. The essay that was banned would have been forgotten within a week, but the quotes that resulted from my foes’ actions will be useful to the cause of historical accuracy forever.

Nice job, especially considering I’d tried to warn my former Hollywood conservative friends about just this kind of thing last year, in this piece in which I used an old W. Somerset Maugham tale to illustrate the fact that “some people, because of their fears, can be manipulated into bringing about the very thing they most dread.”

There are still some people out there who think I’m some kind of evil denier pseudohistorian justifiably shunned by the good folks in the media who see me as a menace with nothing of value to offer. In fact, since my “outing,” I’ve worked with the mainstream media on many occasions, and behind the scenes these people understand that I’m not my caricature.

What I want to challenge here is the phony good guy/bad guy narrative that soothes those who don’t want to confront the fact that there are serious problems with the standard version of Holocaust history, specifically regarding Auschwitz, and that it’s not villainous to try to make the historical record stronger by correcting the errors. The narrative that “Cole is barred from the media because he’s an evil self-hating Jew whose views are false and reprehensible” is simply incorrect. That’s not how it actually is. Many reasonable people in the media have no problem with me. The problem comes from the fact that none of them want to endure the nonstop trolling and harassment that happens any time I’m hired. None of them want to risk the ire of the “unreasonables.”

Eric Golub is one of the “unreasonables,” a former GOP ally who is actually quite proud of the fact that no amount of reason or evidence could change his mind that I’m a devil to be destroyed. Golub was always a marginal player in my former world. Too insignificant to get into the Hollywood conservative group Friends of Abe without my help, he’d haunt my events begging me to arrange book signings for his self-published tomes. He was also a figure of outright ridicule, having made his first impression on my “inner circle” in 2009 at a congressional candidate’s fundraiser by clumsily using the same terrible pick-up line on the two young ladies I’d brought, not realizing they were friends. From that point on, he was a laughable but tolerable nuisance.

hqdefault (1)

I say tolerable because he had one thing going for him – a position as blogger for The Washington Times’ online “Communities” op-ed section. So he was, maybe I shouldn’t say “tolerable” as much as useful. I let him speak at an early Republican Party Animals event, and I allowed him free entry into others. As a result, I received some good write-ups in the Times. A fair trade.

Following my “outing” as Cole, during the two miraculous weeks in which my old allies actually managed to keep a lid on the story (I was outed April 20th; The Guardian reported the story May 3rd), Golub tried, pathetically, to convince the “big dogs” who outed me (specifically National Review and NY Post scribe Michael Walsh aka “David Kahane”) to let him take the story public. Like a momma’s boy, he needed permission. And like a coward, he buckled when Walsh/Kahane told him no. My destruction was supposed to be a controlled burn; it was never intended to go public. Of course, idiots being idiots, Walsh/Kahane didn’t know that someone in his circle had a connection to The Guardian. He was genuinely surprised when the story jumped the firewall.

Once The Guardian let the cat out of the bag, and every major political and entertainment site covered the story, Golub was free to write as he pleased. He took to the Times to call me “pure evil” (subtlety was always his strong suit), a “Nazi,” a “monster,” and “the Jewish guy with the nasally voice” (for the record, my voice is gravelly). He even accused me of “dishonoring 6,000 years of Jewish tradition just to make a few bucks.” Apparently, Golub’s definition of “Jewish tradition” involves censoring opinions with which he disagrees. Personally, I consider that to be a perversion of Jewish tradition. To me, “Jewish tradition” means asking questions and challenging norms. Too many of today’s Jews, from the ones in Europe who pushed for laws criminalizing Holocaust revisionism to the ones here in the U.S. leading the fight to ban “sexist,” “racist,” and (insert victim group name here)-phobic speech, believe “Jewish tradition” means enforcing an ideological orthodoxy. Golub’s view of “Jewish tradition” is no different than that of the left-wingers he claims to oppose.

Family responsibilities took me away for the entirety of 2014. As the year came to a close, I began trying to catch up. I’d always wanted to respond to Golub’s “pure evil” Times op-ed, but when I tried to locate it again, I found that the Times had cut loose the “Communities” section of bloggers, and the editor of that section, Jacquie Kubin, was trying to keep the platform afloat as an independent entity, no longer tied to the Times. The Washington Times Communities was now CDN (“Communities Digital News”). CDN is run by three very mainstream folks:

Editor in Chief Lisa Ruth is a former intelligence analyst for the CIA, having spent eleven years in the CIA’s Directorates of Operations and Intelligence. She’s a contributor to Newsmax, The Washington Times, and other publications. She’s also a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers, and MENSA.

Editor in Chief/Political Editor James Picht Ph.D. is associate professor of economics at the Louisiana Scholars’ College, Northwestern State University. Previously, he was a policy analyst for the Institute of Public Administration, Cabinet of Ministers, Ukraine; fiscal advisor to the Ministry of Finance and State Duma, Russian Republic; technical advisor with the U.S. Department of Treasury at the Ministry of Finance, Bosnia-Herzegovina; senior advisor and chief trainer for the Asian Development Bank project, Ministry of Finance, Kyrgystan; senior fiscal advisor to the Ministry of Finance, Republic of Kyrgystan.

CDN President Jacquie Kubin is a former marketing and public relations whiz for clients such as Dove Bar (ice cream), Brunswick Bowling, and Peppers Waterbeds. She started Communities Digital News in 2009 under The Washington Times banner, growing to nearly 3 million page views a month before re-launching as CDN in 2014.

commdiginews

I reached out to Kubin: “Any chance I could ever get a rebuttal (to Golub’s piece) published?” I asked. “Absolutely,” she replied. “Email me at jacquiekubin@gmail.com. Eric has his opinion! And while we encourage those opinions, he has to take the rebuttals in all fairness.”

Well, this is gonna work out GREAT, right?

Due to the same family responsibilities from 2014, I was not able to write a rebuttal until June of this year, at which time I asked Kubin if she was still interested:

I couldn’t quite find a way to make the piece topical beyond just rebutting Golub’s points (I think readers get bored by writers settling scores without offering anything more). But the Rachel Dolezal/NAACP story has given me an opening, as my story somewhat mirrors hers, but from a conservative perspective. If I may, I’d like to submit something. However, I wanted to make contact again first, as it’s been about five months since we were in touch.

Her response: “Absolutely. Thank you, David.” So I submitted my piece. You can view it here in its entirety. It’s important to point out that my essay included specific revisionist content (in fact, I limited any mention of Golub to only 68 words out of 1,205). My essay included these passages:

In the early 1990s, I became a minor celebrity due to research I conducted in Poland at the Auschwitz State Museum. I had a simple thesis: I disputed the notion that Auschwitz functioned as an extermination camp in 1944, when upwards of 400,000 people were said to have been murdered in gas chambers. … The one time I had an opportunity to test my thesis publicly, on The Montel Williams Show in 1992, an Auschwitz survivor was brought on to call me a fraud for suggesting that people like his brother might still be alive. When the show aired, the brother was found alive and well, having newly immigrated from Eastern Europe. My thesis was not “anti-Semitic.” Quite the contrary; I thought I was doing valuable work.

Indeed, my views were far less extreme than those of Arno Mayer, Professor Emeritus of European History at Princeton. In his 1988 book Why Did the Heavens Not Darken, Mayer, a Jewish refugee from Hitler’s Europe, wrote: “From 1942 to 1945, certainly at Auschwitz, but probably overall, more Jews were killed by so-called ‘natural causes’ than by ‘unnatural’ ones.” I devoted my life to what Mayer had referred to as the “many open questions” regarding Auschwitz. My work led to appearances on 60 Minutes, 48 Hours, The Phil Donahue Show, the Montel show, and many others. Phil Donahue called me “the Antichrist,” and my work was damned as “powerful and dangerous” in the pages of The Jerusalem Post.

After reading my submission, Kubin responded “Really interesting article! Like it.” She added, “Also, if you think you might want to be a regular contributor to CDN (and we always welcome a new voice) a column title. Finally, a photo, if the one I sent you is not you, and a brief bio.” I sent her a photo. She replied, “You don’t look pure evil. However, I need to ask (not that it makes a difference to your writing for us or not) do you really believe they did not kill people at Auschwitz? I need to look into your thesis on this because I am curious. We support any theory – as long as it is supported! I guess Eric’s head might explode…He will get over it.”

I sent Kubin a condensation of the appendix to my book. Her response after reading my Holocaust views?

That is really interesting. History is how those who write it choose to present it. But it is a hard narrative to challenge. A lot of emotion attached to it. It is not that you are denying the holocaust, but that the tourist attraction is not what they sell it as. As I said, interesting.

Former CIA analyst Lisa Ruth also emailed me: “Thank you for the article. I will have it posted this morning. And welcome to the Communities!”

And with that, I was added to the site as an author, and I was given a password and a user page for all future submissions.

The important point to recap here is that Kubin and Ruth had no problem with the revisionist information in my piece. In fact, Kubin was downright supportive.

The piece was posted on June 18th. Kubin had removed the 68 words about Golub, and I was fine with that, as it was much more important to me that the revisionist content stayed in, which it did. By early afternoon, however, the piece was pulled. I was given no warning or explanation. I emailed Kubin asking what was up, and she replied:

We are aware that is off line and yes it was removed.  This is not something I was to comment on in text.  However, Lisa and I will talk to you tomorrow and give you the courtesy of what is behind the decision.

It got funnier. She added:

In your future writing, I would like to see you steer away from the holocaust. You are a smart writer and can surely turn your talents toward other things.

Being too much of a gentleman to tell Kubin where she could cram her condescending career advice, I asked her what was wrong with the piece. After all, it had been approved and everyone said they liked it. What changed? Kubin replied:

It is not with the piece. The piece, in general, was/is fine. I will not have this conversation via print. We will talk tomorrow and all your questions will be answered. I need to know what time you would be around for a conference call. It is not beyond the caul that we would repost the article. But we need to have a discussion first.

At that point, amusement and curiosity were my only motivating factors in agreeing to the conference call, which included Dr. Picht as well as Kubin and Ruth.

The conference call was surreal. Kubin was incapable of providing a simple answer as to why the piece was dropped. Having already strongly suggested in her email that it was dropped due to the subject matter (the Holocaust), over the phone she initially claimed it was because she didn’t like the 68 words about Golub. I reminded her that those words had already been removed when the piece was posted.

Kubin then decided to tell me the “real” reason the piece was pulled:

Kubin: I interpreted…that some of the public comments that you said, the comments you made on Facebook including the comments you made where you used my name in reference, you know, I was all for you attacking Eric for his “evil” comment, I can find it on Facebook…

Me: Wait, I used your name publicly? I never used your name publicly. Never.

Kubin: Well, uh, maybe I’m wrong. I mean, that was yesterday. Maybe I just thought I saw my name in there.

(Laughter from me)

Kubin: I’m looking, I’m looking David. Give me just a second.

(Long pause, sounds of keyboard clicking. This goes on for a while)

Kubin: I can’t find…it doesn’t really matter. I’m having a hard time…figuring this out here.

And with that, the “real” reason (that I had dropped Kubin’s name on Facebook, a complete invention) “didn’t matter” anymore and it was never mentioned again. Kubin now turned again to the Holocaust:

Kubin: Hopefully, you have within you the ability to write about more than the Holocaust. Because, how much, you know, how many articles can we have (about the Holocaust)? You know, there’s a lot going on in the world, and, and, I would hope that as a columnist you would apply your abilities and your intelligence and your skill to a wide range of subjects. And that could include travel and book reviews!

Me: When you say “we can’t have everything about the Holocaust,” well, as of right now, as of this moment, the number of pieces on your site by me about the Holocaust is zero. So I would like ONE on there, and I would like to be able to rebut Eric’s comments.

Kubin: I would be much more interested as a reader to read a story as to why your views on the Holocaust are legitimate. I don’t necessarily care about whether Eric called you evil or not.

See that? In that brief exchange, Kubin went from “write about something other than the Holocaust” to “I’m much more interested in your views about the Holocaust.”

At that point, Dr. Picht spoke up. The schizophrenic nature of Kubin’s “it’s this, no it’s that, no it’s actually this, no it’s actually that” babbling was probably as annoying to him as it was to me. Picht explained that Golub was waging a crusade to keep me off the site. Golub’s hatred of me, based on his unreasonable belief that it’s evil to accurately revise any historical detail about the Holocaust, had turned the supposedly anti-jihad neocon into a one-man jihad machine.

Having saddled the editors with his ultimatum that I must not be allowed on the site, he left them to explain to me why. Kubin, being a stuttering fool, could only shift back and forth from one “reason” to another. Picht was more direct. He explained that Golub had given him an “earache” the previous day, yammering over the phone about the evils of revisionism. And Picht stated to me with complete clarity that he did not agree with Golub’s point of view:

When he (Golub) called me yesterday, I was getting an earful about revisionism. If you want to write why Auschwitz was not a death camp, I have absolutely no problem with that, I have absolutely no problem at all. If you have the evidence, if you can support this…if you have evidence that the Soviets baked this up, that’s the sort of thing that we would not be afraid of.

This is an exceptionally important statement, because, to the unreasonables, the idea that Auschwitz was not a death camp and that the Soviets “baked up” the evidence is not a possibility to even be entertained. To them, saying “I have absolutely no problem with that” is every bit as bad as being an advocate for the position. To the unreasonables, one must have a problem with it, one must dismiss the notion out-of-hand, one must attack and shun those who hold that position, and one must not give that position the legitimacy of a fair hearing.

Picht’s statement not only violates the “code of the unreasonables,” but German law as well. In Germany (and possibly France and a few other European nations), he could be prosecuted for that statement alone.

Picht told me that if I would agree to keep the content about Golub out of the piece, he’d fight for it. He confirmed this in an email following the conference call: “I talked to Jacquie and Lisa and told them that I think we should republish it mostly as is,” adding that the Holocaust material “will stand.”

That was June 22nd.

The piece never got reposted, and no one from the site ever returned a single one of my emails. And I’m not the least bit upset. As I said at the start, the Dolezal piece would have been quickly forgotten. The bigger picture, the more important aspect of this story, is that Golub’s antics created a situation that provides a window into a world few get to see – a Holocaust revisionist’s interactions with the mainstream press.

And there are two important takeaways:

1) Behind-the-scenes, there is surprisingly little resistance to my Holocaust historiography. Reactions range from “you make a strong case” to “even if you’re wrong, this is still something worthy of public discussion.” And that’s all I ask. I am the same sane, rational person whose political pieces have run everywhere from The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post to FrontPageMag, the History News Network, Independent Journal Review, Breitbart.com, the L.A. Jewish Journal, American Thinker, Gateway Pundit, The Larry Elder Show, and the Orange County Register (among many others). My work, whether political or historical, is sound.

2) There is a small group of very committed fanatics, the people I refer to as the unreasonables, who have made a cottage industry out of trolling and harassing any publication or website that considers running my work. The unreasonables are too blinded by zealotry and hatred to understand the inherent illogic of their mission: If my work really is nothing but vile hate-filled gibberish, if my work actually is what they say it is, they’d have no reason to labor so hard to keep me out of print. No respectable site would even consider running my work if I were the ugly cartoon character they’ve created in their minds.

One can only wonder what the unreasonables think when sites like CDN, the Times of Israel, and Gateway Pundit (last month Jim Hoft asked me to come on-board as a content provider for his sister site “Progressives Today”) bring me in. When their trolling and harassment campaigns get me dumped, do the unreasonables congratulate themselves for defeating a monster that only they can see?

Who knows. What matters is, because of Eric Golub’s lack of reason, I have this:

“If you want to write why Auschwitz was not a death camp, I have absolutely no problem with that, I have absolutely no problem at all. If you have the evidence, if you can support this…if you have evidence that the Soviets baked this up, that’s the sort of thing that we would not be afraid of.”  Dr. James Picht, associate professor of economics at the Louisiana Scholars’ College, Northwestern State University; editor-in-chief, Communities Digital News

And this:

“That is really interesting. History is how those who write it choose to present it. But it is a hard narrative to challenge. A lot of emotion attached to it. It is not that you are denying the holocaust, but that the tourist attraction is not what they sell it as. As I said, interesting.”  Jacquie Kubin, president of Communities Digital News; editor, The Washington Times Communities (2009 – 2014)

Thank you, Eric. Thank you very much.

*

Comments
25 Responses to “Prominent Academic: “Absolutely no problem at all” saying “Auschwitz was not a death camp””
  1. Todd Elling says:

    What cowards! If I actually read their crappy site, I’d stop now. But I don’t, so boycotting these wimps will be no big deal. Nice to know I was “boycotting” them all along!

  2. Paula says:

    I don’t know what’s more pathetic, that the “Golub” guy is so afraid of facts, or that the losers that run the site caved to him. Either way, screw ’em all. Keep speaking the truth, David.

  3. Frank F. says:

    It must be frustrating to have people who know you’re not an evil “denier” censor your work due to pressure from others. The hacks at CDN should be ashamed of themselves. They are a disgrace.

  4. RightAsRain says:

    So in the end, they didn’t let you do anything? Not refute that Gollum dick, or write about the Holocaust? What morons. They wanted you to do travel reviews? How about this one: “The route my foot takes from the floor to your ass.” You should have offered them THAT travel review.

  5. Alan Folsom says:

    Numerous people have investigated Auschwitz (and other so called “death camps”) and all of them have reached the same conclusion: There were no “gas chambers” to kill Jews. Lice, yes. Jews, no.

  6. Lucas Bodjanac says:

    Those Communities scumbags probably go to bed each night congratulating themselves on being such FINE supporters of “free speech.” Free speech for everything except revisionism, even when they know the piece is worthwhile. Hypocritical bastards.

  7. Ryan says:

    The squeaky wheel get the oil. They know that if they organize and spam someone with a few complaints that they will look like a much bigger force than they really are. They can browbeat people down into censoring you even when those people know you’re not evil or hateful.

  8. ole yeller says:

    What you’re missing, D, is that a factual analysis of any part of the holocaust cannot be allowed, because, when you argue, or worse demonstrate, that Auschwitz was not a death camp, there are implications, beyond the fact that Auschwitz was not a death camp. There are implications regarding the character of the USHMM, Yad Vashem, every academic that says it is a death camp, and so on. But, of course, you know this, right?

  9. Hope says:

    It feels like critical thinking is illegal and the only thing worse is asking a direction question that requires a factual answer. I have recently read a lot of your writings and watched old interviews and am amazed at the reactions. As of yet I have never heard you say that really horrible things did not happen to people or that there was not a specific bigotry against jews; just as there was against slavs, homosexuals, gypsies, and communists (although, communism being an ideology doesn’t fit in as well). I don’t know why I was surprised, I have practically been called a nazi myself for having the audacity to say, “Dresden was carpet bombed” which is not an ‘anti-semitic opinion’ but rather a statement of fact.
    But we live in a world of my feels are the facts.
    The estimations are between 50 and 80 million people died. Can you trust documents? Not necessarily, they are easy to fake and some are without even an attempt to get the German right. But I think if you look at the larger picture and accept that Nazis did use gas to euthanize disabled people, that soldiers found mass shootings demoralizing, it is not too far-fetched an idea that gassings more than likely did occur, and the particulars are important. If I was tasked with getting rid of large groups of people, I would think that carbon monoxide gas while they slept would be easiest and most humane on everyone. Lucky for me I am not living in a war torn continent.
    It is so unfortunate that we are so spell bound by this hysteria surrounding WWII as it would be valuable to be able to ask questions especially as to the whys and wherefores; there are a lot of elements at play now that were in play 100 years ago that I think led to the disaster in the first place and I think it would be wise to do what we can to prevent another global meltdown, but when have humans ever been wise?
    Incidentally, I used to work for USHMM and that was one of the first places I started to think; something is not right here.
    I am glad to know you are still alive, I would have worried for your well-being otherwise, because even though I can’t help myself from saying, in that one interview speculation about a photographers motivation is just speculation. I am sorry people are so lame but they are. I wish you the best

  10. Hope says:

    *ooops sentence jumble-fingers tired

    at the end re: photograph meant to include a bit about ‘your arguments are very sound’

  11. Clito says:

    So relevant. Thanks, to you and Eric. I, for one, have thought about and questioned the “reality” of the Holocaust. Or rather, “Holocaust”. As a child, and while not universal, generally one has questions. (Oh, and to mention your “unreasonables” is something to which I also label those who lack reason — OBVIOUSLY!) And as we who have some semblance of self-reflection and awareness, it would not be unreasonable to question issues especially regarding self-preservation. Not only is it a choice, but an instinct. It is against our nature as humans, sentient beings, to allow ourselves to become hurt or die at the hands of another. Unless you’re Jesus of Nazareth. Another story. Moving on… THAT defies reason and is illogical. And the fact that we, as the only living organism capable of reason and self-reflection, so we know, are so capable of denying that most essential faculty which forces one to separate illusion from fact, terrifies me. However, to deny is to choose. We are creatures of habit and comfort and instability becomes unsatisfactory, instead of something which is necessary for change. And yet here some of we are! The few and VERY far between, but are none-the-less. The fact that the powers that be chose to deny, or projected, the disuse of that faculty is enough to dumb anyone. I think that is their one major flaw. The one flaw that will eventually bite them in the ass. Because it is inevitable, and reasonable to intuit that one day the jig may be up. However, the lack of technology afforded us today could never had been foreseen, thus realizing the global “PSYCHE!” It’s happening, slowly, but happening. We who are brave enough to question that which is unreasonable are just that. Brave. Thanks for your contribution and bit of fleeting hope.

  12. Clito says:

    Oh, and may I also add: “Brilliant!!”

  13. Clito says:

    Sorry, one last thing. Since we refer to the “unreasonables” it should be: Unreasonables, capital “u”. They have reached proper noun status.

  14. Clito says:

    Ok, the last, last thing… I had never heard of you. At least not enough to recognize your name. See ya!

  15. brett says:

    If it is illegal to investigate the gassing of 6,00,000 Jews, why not investigate the gassing of 5,000,000 Christians? is that a loophole? not offending the Jews and surely Christians would want to know what happen to their families?

  16. Zimriel says:

    SJWs Always Lie.

    Even before Vox Day, there was David Cole; demonstrating that liars have power at the moment, but that truthtellers win in the long-run.

  17. Matthew James Hoyland says:

    Alright David, I’ve been taking time out, a lot of things going on this side, I’ll tell you latter, life and all, hope you’re in good health, email me sometime. The sun is always in the sky if we stay awake. Best wishes bud, Matt 🙂

  18. Matthew Hoyland says:

    Hiya Dave, get in contact bud, miss talking to ya bud, email me , when you have time, details are included, best wishes and all that shit 😉

  19. Matthew Hoyland says:

    Hiya David, a lot of family deaths this side and crazy goings on, don’t wanna post a downer, but it would of been nice if you could of got back, much as I love ya bud. maybe we can connect in the future, but,I gotta say I’m disappointed you weren’t there for me when I was for you, well, that’s life, no hard feelings, maybe in the future we’ll get back, I mean, I’m a fan of your work, with all due respect, stay beautiful, stay fresh, and burn the enemy to the ground 🙂 Love ya x

  20. Matthew says:

    Hiya bud, hope things are going well your end, I know your busy, but wanted to pop by one last time, it been a bad year for me, three close deaths in the family and a lot of bullshit in-between.Hope we can touch base. Get in contact if you canif you like .Email included,shame to loose contact, keep safe, keep well, fucking burning bright and sunny this side(all good) smoke em if you got em. x

  21. Matt H says:

    You still in the loop bud, shame to fall out! ! !? ! ?! ! ?

  22. Matt H says:

    Miss your Youtube posts bud, keep rolling, we need cheer in our lives and good taste 😉

  23. Rachamim Slonim Dwek says:

    Cole, virtually everything you have written since Rosie Tosch outted you in 2013 has been contentious for contention’s sake. Shermer and many others have described you simply as a serial contrarian. Indeed that describes you to a tee. What is worse, and your sadsap “friends” fail to even realise this, is that you aren’t even man enough to own your views. “I’m not a bigot. I do not deny that the Holocaust took place. All I am saying is that certain aspects aren’t presented as they actually occurred.” That actually is laugh inducing. Your one claim to fame is that you pimped your heritage for media exposure in the early-1990s. You never discovered a single fact. You never even produced tenable arguments. All you did was serve as a Kapo, the “Good Jew” who says what his racist pals want to hear. The perennial “insider.” Yet nothing you have ever done ever amounted to anything. The most anyone can say is that you promoted parties. Wow. How novel. Yawn. Wonder what your “supporters” would say knowing that you still claim to be an ardent Zionist.

  24. Marcy Fleming says:

    Dwek, a great name for you. Cole and many others have refuted the standard ‘holocaust’ anti-history. See Debating The Holocaust (Rev. Ed.) by Thomas Dalton, Ph.D.
    You have no arguments, nothing but ad hominems and there are dozens of books as well as 700 pages of Robert Faurisson from IHR. com (not in book form) that take apart everything from Frank’s Diary to Babi Yar to the gassing humans fable to you name it.
    As a Jew I support revisionism and not just on the ‘holocaust.’

    If Cole was really the non-entity that you assert without any real argument then waste time on him ?

    You are the very nothing that you proclaim Cole to be, it’s called projection.

  25. SoftFabric says:

    David Cole,

    This borders to conspiratorial behavior from the part of unreasonables. One can obviously see the success in Europe in how the unreasonables got support from the judiciary system of each country to jail anyone carrying a magnifying glass when visiting Auswicz.

    If you want to learn about what is to be considered a conspiracy and what not I recomment Matthew RX Dentith.

Leave A Comment

*