This document is part of a periodical (Smith's Report).
Use this menu to find more documents that are part of this periodical.
The three-page introduction serves to set the scene of a self-declared-reluctant author giving an interview to a late-arriving reporter of the JTA—Jewish Telegraph Agency. As he sits in a bar awaiting the reporter’s arrival he reflects upon his own alcoholism and how he had experienced social condemnation because of his Revisionist views, which made him worse than “pedophile Hitler strangling a puppy”.
When I read this sentence I wondered what kind of mindset—only a sick mind—could come up with such an expression, which is fully in tune with the obscenities one finds in the racist-imbued Talmud.
And again I recall German philosopher Martin Heidegger’s words of wisdom that blows Judaism’s “racist-cover”, when he states: “The Jews, with their marked gift for calculating, live, already for the longest time, according to the principle of race, which is why they are resisting its consistent application with utmost violence.”
Although claiming to be free of ideological baggage, David Cole does make a lot about his own ideological fixations as expressed in his own words above. It includes claiming he is not “a racist”, something that is, of course, clarified by Heidegger’s analysis of Judaism.
Cole’s claim once to have been an atheist Jew, which changed when he met a notable Rabbi, rings hollow—but more on that later. It is common knowledge that the racist principle of birth, as determined by the female lineage, is part of the hallmark of Jewish identity. And the advantage of having the two powerful words—racist and anti-Semite—at his disposal is amply illustrated by Cole’s outright amoral behavior, i.e. moving from one exploitative particular situation to another without ever developing for himself an overarching-universal belief system, except for the racist principle of adopting the identity of a Jew.
Such a worldview writes large its maxim: live to the full a life of sense-gratification, either as victim or as oppressor. Such a primitive mindset also reflects the hedonistic-nihilistic nature of our consumer-driven society where predatory capitalism is the wellspring of our existence and where living by moral/ethical principles is deemed to be a sign of weakness, if not of decadence.
Cole reflects on his second outing: “The truth is, I neither denied the Holocaust, nor did I ever spread hate (except when referring to Nazis, who I do, indeed, hate).” So, Cole is setting the scene by creating a new image of Adolf Hitler as the perpetual hate object, which he links to pedophiles who kill small pet animals. I asked myself why Cole would do such a thing, but then elsewhere he did admit that he has a “feverish mind”, and that would also explain his use of foul language within the book.
Chapter 2: The ten quotations that introduce this five-page chapter present commentary on Cole’s 1992 video wherein he captures his interview with the curator of Auschwitz Museum, Dr. F. Piper, the admission—and what Revisionists knew all along—that Krema I is a “reconstruction”, which van Pelt/Dwork confirmed four years later, in their 1996 book Auschwitz, 1270 to the Present, where at pages 363-64 they admit what is sold to the public at the Auschwitz-Stammlager as a homicidal gas chamber is a fake!
“At 23, David Cole is becoming one of the leading spokesmen for the Holocaust ‘revisionist’ movement. He is outspoken, he is determined, and he is Jewish.”—The Detroit Jewish News. Although Cole doesn’t like his former associate anymore, he takes pride in having been labeled a “meta-ideologue” by Dr. Michael Shermer, editor and publisher of the US Skeptic magazine, and Alex Grobman of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Los Angeles. Cole says that from 1988 onwards he consciously attempted to straddle the divide existing between hard left and hard right, and he found both hated Israel.
A letter to a newspaper from David McCalden started Cole off into Revisionist research. Cole claims that “McCalden had co-founded the largest revisionist publishing house in North America, the Institute for Historical Review, in Orange County, California.” Why didn’t Cole mention that the founder of the IHR was Willis Carto?
Then Cole states it was not through the material McCalden gave him, which was “incredibly amateur crap”, that he began in earnest to question things but by coming across the name Fred Leuchter, who had also been profiled on a television program not because of his claim that the homicidal gas chamber walls at Auschwitz had no cyanide residue but on his expertise as an execution equipment expert.
And he encountered another problem: “The problem was, mainstream historians would never address revisionist concerns, and the revisionists, for the most part, were sloppy and (mostly) ideologically motivated.”
He then found that McCalden had died and that a trustee had decided to hand the 3000+ books and boxes of papers “to someone a bit more rational than some of the well-known names in the revisionist field. The documents let me know who in the field was a nutcase, and who seemed to simply share my intellectual curiosity. The ones who seemed to be decent and rational, I reached out to. Through McCalden’s associates, they had all heard the wild story of a Jew who was interested in revisionism. They were eager to finally meet me.”
Chapter 3: When I read the following I wondered whether I was wasting my time going on:
“There are two principles I live by when I decide I want to accomplish something successfully. The first principle is, ‘just do the fucking work.’… The other principle by which I live is the old saw ‘in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.’ I find it best to work in fields where I’m surrounded by ninety percent idiots, because I can accomplish more that way. The field of Holocaust history, as I found it in 1990, and politics, as I found it in 2008, were perfect for me. My one eye beat most of the tin-cup-holding blindies who populated those fields.”
Then the next paragraph captured my attention anew: “I first realized that I was perfectly cut out for the Holocaust revisionism field when I discovered the obvious manhole in the floor of the supposed gas chamber at the Auschwitz main camp. The manhole was typical of an underground or semi-underground air-raid shelter.… I was also the first person to note that the ‘gas chamber’ locks from the inside, not the outside.... And no one had ever seen the manhole, or the door lock, as obvious as they were. No one.”
If what Cole asserts here is true, this is a serious allegation of negligence on the Revisionists’ part. Fortunately Professor Faurisson can reply to this allegation, and in fact I asked him to do just that. Here is his reply to Cole’s statement:
“David Cole is a clown! A manhole for the evacuation of water is normal in a washing room. No revisionist needed to insist and point his finger and say: See, this washing room had a manhole! Remember that on March 19, 1976 I discovered the plans of all the Kremas of Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II, plans that the Auschwitz Museum had always kept hidden after the war. I already explained how I managed to get those plans from Tadeusz Iwaszko. As far as Auschwitz I is mentioned here by Cole, one of the plans I discovered and published was clearly entitled ‘Luftschutsbunker für SS-Revier mit einem Operationsraum’ and subtitled ‘Bestandsplan für Wasserversorgung und Kanalisation’. So, what? Now, if Cole means to say that this manhole was for escape, it should normally mean that he opened it, examined it and found the way for a man to get outside the whole bunker. He never did such a thing. He never brought any evidence. As for the doors, what a chutzpah! I said repeatedly that the doors opened inside, which means where the dead bodies would have been!”
It gets worse with Cole’s narrative when he next fixates on the 1985 Ernst Zündel Toronto Holocaust trial, which he refers to as “the amazingly inept, self-defeating criminal trials of Holocaust denier (yes, denier not revisionist) Ernst Zündel in Canada throughout the ’80s, which made a lot of people who would have otherwise ignored revisionism think twice about the reliability of the Auschwitz story.” And Cole lambastes the Canadian legal system for having given Zündel the opportunity to contest the charge that he was “spreading false news”. Cole does not mention the fact that this was the last time physical facts about matters Holocaust were canvassed in open court, and that the switch was now to use “hurt feelings” in legal proceedings to uphold the Holocaust-Shoah orthodoxy. The 1985 and 1988 Toronto Ernst Zündel Holocaust trials broke the Holocaust-Shoah narrative.
I don’t know whether Cole is smirking when he states that the Zündel trials had a huge impact on matters Holocaust and that they directly “led to more serious people like me getting involved in the field.”
Why doesn’t Cole mention the fact that Sabina Citron took Zündel to court under that antiquated British law: spreading false news, which Canada’s Supreme Court scrapped in 1993 when Zündel appealed against his 1985 and 1988 jury convictions? That alone made the trial worthwhile—not to mention the pioneering Holocaust Revisionist results it achieved. Had it not been for the Zündel trial, the 20 plaques at Auschwitz-Birkenau would still have carried the four-million figure, which had then to be replaced with a new figure of 1-1.5 million.
And Fred Leuchter’s pioneering forensic investigations of the alleged homicidal gas chambers would not have happened without Zündel’s pioneering work. Leuchter had this to say about Cole’s denigration of Faurisson in his book: “Robert Faurisson has done more and given more as an Academician than any of the other Revisionists. He was not the first, but early on he was the strongest. Zündel knew this and involved him in both trials. He was responsible for my involvement and the avalanche that followed. He has more than paid his dues. David Cole is not in the same category as Faurisson. I am not even sure he is a Revisionist. His claim to fame was the Piper interview which is a mere footnote to Revisionist History” (personal communication 21 July 2014 to which Cole has responded at https://www.facebook.com/BigInfidel).
Cole then makes an astounding admission that indeed reflects upon his immoral, dare I say, typical amoral Talmudic-inspired mindset: “But I needed to mix with the revisionists and deniers in order to win their trust. Because they were the ones with vital pieces of evidence. I earned Zündel‘s trust because I was willing to be seen with him publicly. ... Once the revisionists came to trust me, I could start to go to work. It wouldn’t be long before I’d clash with them. But as I said at the beginning of this chapter, I was now able to ‘just do the fucking work’.”
Chapter 4: Herein Cole addresses his personal beliefs and he emphatically states that he hates being asked what he believes about the Holocaust because of the harm that came his way because of it. He states that his 1998 recanting of his views occurred as he embarked on a new career.
He goes on: “The evidence of the mass murder of Jews was largely buried or erased by the Nazis long before the end of the war.” He does not acknowledge that it was Zündel’s trials of 1985 and 1988 that forced the reduction of deaths at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1-1.5 million as is now represented on the 20 plaques, and he states the number of deaths [at Auschwitz] is around 900,000.
Cole sums up: “Maybe some Holocaust claims were overstated, but isn’t a little overstatement worth it to fight fascism?” This statement does not sit well with his constant claim that he is about the only serious revisionist who carries no ideological baggage.
At the end of the chapter he then equates “global warming” with “denying Auschwitz was an extermination camp”, stating that “denying something that will lead to the end of the world is a bit worse than denying any one racial or ethnic group’s past suffering.” So, has David Cole now become a Climate Change advocate?
Chapter 5: Cole relates his time in the Revisionist scene. He recalls how in 1981 survivor Mel Mermelstein sued the IHR, which, through David McCalden, had offered a $50,000 reward if he could prove Jews were gassed at Auschwitz, which he could not, but then Mermelstein sued the IHR for damages by having inflicting emotional distress on him. “Under Evidence Code Section 452(h), this court does take judicial notice of the fact that Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944” and “It just simply is a fact that falls within the definition of Evidence Code Section 452(h). It is not reasonably subject to dispute. And it is capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. It is simply a fact.” See http://bit.ly/1k6v0eZ
The IHR settled for $90,000, and upon this, Bradley Smith in the IHR Journal of Historical Review labeled Mermelstein a “demonstrable fraud” and Mermelstein sued anew. But due to Jewish gay judge Lachs, and Jewish Mark Lane heading the IHR defense, the case was dropped. Cole then makes a remarkable claim: “I was the first Jew to devote serious time to the topic.”
This is not true because Joseph Burg-Ginsburg, 1908-1990, a friend of Ernst Zündel, was looking at Revisionist material during the 1960s, and wrote about a dozen books. By the way, Burg was also beaten up, and he was refused a burial but Zündel organized one for him. Burg, however, was an anti-Zionist Jew and so Cole would not have liked him at all.
His strained relationship with Revisionists occurred when he gained access to the Natzweiler-Struthof camp in Alsace-Lorraine where, so he states, 100 Jews were gassed in 1943 in an SS tear-gas training room. He claims that no-one had ever been inside this building and only because he had obtained “diplomatic credentials” from the World Jewish Congress was he able to investigate the claims that gassings occurred because Dr. August Hirt wanted a Jewish skull collection.
“Nutty nutbag denier Robert Faurisson, who had never cared for me (and vice-versa), was incensed. Not only had I dared to reveal a genuine still-existing gas chamber, but I’d done it on his home turf. He began spreading rumors that I was a World Jewish Congress ‘infiltrator,’ because of the credentials I openly used to force the French government to allow me to examine the building.”
Such typical character assassination/name-calling illustrates Cole’s own moral and intellectual bankruptcy. Interestingly, Cole attended the 1994 IHR conference, and he says of David Irving: “He’s a true revisionist, not a denier.”
Of course, this is another nonsensical statement from Cole who, for whatever reason, attempts to align himself with Irving who in his own words is not a Holocaust historian but an historian of World War Two, which is a far broader field than the narrow Holocaust issue. Also, Irving is wrong when he claims Jews weren't gassed at Treblinka but machine-gunned into giant pits, despite having absolutely no evidence to back up this claim, changing the alleged murder weapon to bullets.
Chapter 6: Cole states that in 1995 he decided to leave the scene—“There’d be no pounding sense into the revisionists, and no being treated fairly by the non-revisionists.... The feeling of futility was overwhelming.”
Meeting Dr. Carlos Huerta is Cole’s method of introducing the virtues of rabbinical values. Huerta aimed to include revisionist material in Holocaust education classes, and “I’ll betray a hundred confidences in this book, but not his. Had he said no, you wouldn’t be reading this section.”
Cole continues: “One of Carlos’s points was that the reason is that the revisionists are not always wrong factually, but deniers like Faurisson use actual facts in order to extrapolate, to force, a broader and incorrect conclusion. According to Carlos: ‘The flaw (in revisionist literature) is not necessarily in fact but rather in use of that fact’.”
Cole continues to load virtues on the orthodox Rabbi, who had a large family, and who had made contact with him in 1993—and who subsequently had become his guide as to how properly to handle revisionist research, something about which most Revisionists-deniers were careless, especially with regard to asking the right questions.
This reminds me of my 1997 visit to Rabbi Cooper of the Los Angeles Simon Wiesenthal Center, who asked me: “Do you question the gassings?” and then hearing my reply: “Of course I do because I want to know what the murder weapon looks like”, terminated our meeting. I had asked the wrong question but I knew I had struck the heart of the Holocaust-Shoah story.
Still, Cole concludes: “I would say that knowing Carlos Huerta was one of the few things during my first forty-five years about which I can’t be cynical. It was an honor.”
Dr. Michael Shermer: Cole’s greatest worry is that Shermer gave him the “racist” label, which, if I follow Heidegger’s definition, is a fact, but Shermer did apologize to Cole for having labeled him a racist. Cole knows that Jews can adopt a racist, nationalist and religious position while denying the first two to other peoples. This adopted mindset/worldview is what is currently destroying the cohesion of many political entities. Anti-racist and multicultural rhetoric destroys the core cultures of European-western nations while it enables minorities to dominate the majority—all for the benefit of a global village where predatory political capitalism, as lived out by Cole in his subsequent role as David Stein, rules supreme.
In 1993 J. S. Hayward had also completed his MA thesis on Revisionism’s focus on the German gassing story at Canterbury University, New Zealand. It created a massive storm among the Holocaust believers when, after its five-year embargo ended, he sent it to me so that I could in 1998 use it as evidence before the Human Rights Commission to counter the Jewish claim that Revisionism is not an academic subject.
In 2000 the university bent to Jewish pressure and initiated an enquiry into the process that enabled someone to write about Revisionist matters. The result was that it apologized to Jewish interests but did not, as demanded by the New Zealand Jews, demote the MA to a BA—because Hayward “did not lie”. In any case Hayward recanted because of death threats. After a nervous breakdown he obtained a job in the UK at the Defense Force Academy, then converted to Islam, and is now in Kuwait (?).
Faurisson’s maxim cuts through all this Cole busy work: “No holes, No Holocaust,” which reminds me of what French chemist Jean-Claude Pressac said to me when I visited him in 1997: the word Holocaust should be replaced by “massive massacre”.
Chapters 7-8: In these chapters Cole recounts how he gets the Irv Rubin bounty on his head removed by recanting—and David Stein emerges, and he begins his new life:
“So what’s a knowledgeable but disgraced Holocaust revisionist to do? Play both sides. And make some decent scratch. I created two pseudonyms—one to sell books and videos to Holocaust studies departments around the world, and one to sell books and videos to revisionists.”
For the former it was Cal Tinbergen and The Tinbergen Archives, the latter Desmond Boles of Contrarian Press. Cole had joined the Holocaust industry producing what he called intellectual morphine.
Chapters 9-10: In order to escape a violent physical relationship with a woman Cole engineers his death by drowning and thereby also ends his second persona—David Harvey. He then fluctuates again between Cole and Stein. In 2004 Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ was about to be released and Jewish groups pressured him to renounce his dad, Hutton Gibson, who had been labeled a Holocaust denier and anti-Semite.
“With no source of new income at the time, dollar signs flashed in my eyes when I read that Mel’s wacky dad wasn’t talking to the press. ‘I can make him talk,’ I said to myself. ‘I have ways.’ Because I knew a little secret from my revisionist days: anti-Semites love talking to Jews. It validates them, because you know, since we run the world, they must be important if they merit our attention.... I can be a charming motherfucker, and it worked.”
This is absolute nonsense because Revisionists do not need Jewish validation. If push comes to shove, then the Jews need the Revisionists more than the Revisionists need the Jews because Revisionists have truth on their side, which is more powerful than any human validation. Truth needs no validation.
And then he needed more money and so “it was time to revisit the revisionist trough. I’d always stayed in touch with revisionist Bradley Smith, even during my days in exile in El Segundo. I like Bradley. I’ve known him since 1989....”
Through Smith he learns about Irving, Rudolf and Zündel facing long prison sentences, and he categorizes Zündel “to be precise, Zündel‘s a denier not a revisionist”, which is a nonsense.
The problem with Cole’s understanding is that he’s worried about his Zionist Judaism but he cannot understand that Ernst Zündel wants to know, as many other Germans wish to know, whether their fathers were “homicidal gas chamber murderers” as Cole still maintains.
Of course he does not accuse the Germans but rather limits himself safely to Nazis. But this is the same tactic used by those who are attacking Israel and calling it a Zionist state in an attempt not to be labeled an anti-Semite, or worse, a Jew-hater.
However, only recently its Prime Minister expressed the desire of establishing a Talmudic-based Jewish State of Israel, which makes logical and ideological sense for all Zionists.
Chapters 11-23: deal with his exposé of his working in the film industry, making Holocaust documentaries. It is exactly what most individuals know about the smoke-and-mirror world of sex, drugs and delusional individuals who believe they can do anything and be anyone they like.
When in 1998 he becomes David Stein he is worried that his then girlfriend could reveal to others his secret of having been David Cole. Perhaps this is why David Cole didn’t wish to meet up with me in 1997 and 1999 when I conducted my world revisionist trip, and instead I met up with Bradley Smith, among others.
On 20 April 2013 Cole’s “Stein” persona disintegrates and Cole—he remarks that this day is also Adolf Hitler’s birthday—experiences his third death as his RPA associates learn of his revisionist activities during the 1980s. For Cole the concept guilt-by-association becomes a stark reality when he realizes that fewer than a handful of individuals stand by his side as the party machine disconnects from the “Holocaust denier” Cole-Stein.
Just a little reading of German philosopher Immanuel Kant would have acquainted him with the Categorical Imperative: Act in such a way that your actions can become a universal law. Thus, don’t lie, because you don’t want to be lied to; don’t steal, because you don’t want to have your things stolen, etc.
With clarity Cole does square off with individuals who broke with him when the media outed him from his RPA position: “if I’m figuratively dead, which I am, let this book be my middle finger from beyond the grave”.
But anyone who has managed to read this far in the book can only conclude that his final isolation is one of his own making, and the finger bit reminds me of that horrible Al Goldstein who celebrated himself as a pornography king.
Epilogue: He concludes his reflections by scoffing at those who now use his “earlier revisionist work” in order to latch on to the current conspiracy theories, 9/11, Aurora shooting, Boston Marathon bombing, etc. because that was also his aim when during the 1980s he joined the revisionists, whom he calls “buffoons”: “Pro-revisionists fool themselves into thinking their work will topple a nation, and anti-revisionists fool themselves into thinking that their work will save a nation. Both sides are wrong. The Jews have survived way worse than a cyanide residue analysis on a crumbling wall in Poland, and Israel has survived greater existential threats than David Cole walking around with a video camera in a Krakow swamp.”
The emptiness of Cole’s Zionist Jewish value system is reflected in this sentence: “The simple truth is, I’d prefer not to be hated or embraced, because I’m not terribly happy with the reasons that someone would do either.”
So much for the expression, consciously or otherwise, of Talmudic dialectic materialism, which cannot cope with the ideal of Love but obsesses with the ideal of power only—the power of the law! And thus the love of learning, of discovering the truth of a matter, escapes Cole because everything he does must have a materialistic reward. The accountant analogy comes to mind—he knows the price of everything but the value of nothing!
I have heard that lecturers confronted with those hard questions respond: “Your question borders on the offensive!”
Appendix A: In these final 25 pages of his book Cole attempts to offer the reader an overview of where Holocaust historiography was at when he came on to the scene. He mentions the 1988 Arno Mayer classic: Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?
Cole does not mention that as early as 1978 Willis Carto had established the Institute for Historical Research, which became the powerhouse of global revisionism until Mark Weber, et al, sabotaged it in September 1993 by legally wresting control of the IHR from its founder Willis Carto.
This was a significant break because Weber became one of those individuals who adopted the claim that matters Holocaust were not really that important and, in any case, “limited gassings” had occurred, just the same line adopted by Cole, and David Irving—also without any physical proof.
Likewise with Hayward—I am still waiting for him to advise me what material it was that caused him to recant his position. The vague answer about material emerging out of the 2000 London Irving-Lipstadt trial was not satisfactory for me.
Had this IHR sabotage not happened, then the IHR by now would have developed into a tertiary educational institution, and so the old lesson of “the enemy within” once again rang true. Fortunately, Revisionists such as Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Thomas Kues, Eric Hunt, among others, are right into this problem and The Barnes Review is publishing their works.
After I read these sentences my view firmed on David Cole’s problem, and I would say it is not alcohol-based, but I would question his basic moral and intellectual integrity. “Following orders” and “killing of Jews” is such a cliché that I expected him to come up with better than that. But having made it his premise, anything that flows from it is then inevitably garbage, and only a feverish mind can construct something on such a false and unproved premise.
In summary Cole says that by 1943 the four extermination camps in Poland—Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec and Chelmno—had been closed, and Auschwitz had been renovated after the 1942 typhus outbreak. Pressac’s information describes this renovation as also including the developing of a “massive health camp” at Auschwitz.
And, let me stress again, Cole should know that it is absurd to even entertain the thought that at Treblinka a Soviet Diesel tank engine was somehow engineered to pump equal amounts of exhaust into 13 Treblinka gas chambers.
It should also be remembered that it was Australian Revisionist Richard Krege who in 1999 pioneered the Ground Penetrating Radar research at Treblinka, which was partially duplicated by a UK researcher, whose results have been, as the Hayward work was, embargoed for five years. Why? Research is instantly communicated—unless someone wishes to fiddle with the results because they do not fit into the overarching narrative, of which we have that classic example of the 9/11 story.
Cole’s final sentence reflects that ulterior motive, which has the academic world in lockdown for fear of being branded a Holocaust Denier. He writes: “As long as the ‘outing’ has renewed interest in my old work, I might as well try to explain myself, as I don’t want anyone—friend or foe—to think that I ever ‘denied the Holocaust’.”
CONCLUSION: This is an ugly, obscene and perverse book because it distorts the integrity of historical revisionism. It does, however, have one redeeming feature in that it confirms Heidegger’s observation, whose specific quote I now repeat: “The Jews, with their marked gift for calculating, live, already for the longest time, according to the principle of race, which is why they are resisting its consistent application with utmost violence.” Cole states that he had overcome his physical inadequacies of being short and not attractive through “smarts and charm” but without a moral compass.
It never occurs to Cole that another way of finding that home within oneself is not only to self-reflect but also to develop a moral/ethical framework, which will inevitably then also imbue him with some idealism that would have prevented his numerous empty and nihilistic rutting exercises. For example, he could have listened to Beethoven’s 9th Symphony where Friedrich Schiller’s Ode to Joy expresses a worthy goal in life: He who can call one soul his own.… Such cultural endeavours would perhaps also directly lead to a value-system that Richard Wagner gave expression to in Der Ring des Nibelungen where the universal human battle-of-the-will is between Power and Love, and what work it is to get the balance right.
It is appropriate to end this review with a response from Professor Arthur Butz on the Faurisson-Cole issue. Butz says: “Faurisson has critics among some good revisionists, who have denounced his actions in various respects. However nobody who both understands, and is sympathetic to, Holocaust revisionism could possibly view Faurisson that way.”
[I’m not sure if this article was proofed before I got it. We did some little work here. This suggests that where this review is published elsewhere there will be a few sleight discrepancies.]
Fredrick Töben’s Website is here: http://www.toben.biz/
Additional information about this document
|Title:||Republican Party Animal, by David Cole, A Review|
|Sources:||Smith's Report, No. 208, August 2014, pp. 1-8|
|First posted on CODOH:||Oct. 5, 2014, 7 p.m.|