This document is part of a periodical (Smith's Report).
Use this menu to find more documents that are part of this periodical.
David Cole on Robert Faurisson
“I’m going to make this short, and it will be my final word on the subject. I’ve been hearing a lot recently about Robert Faurisson badmouthing me. This is nothing new. This is what Faurisson does. He has systematically alienated, via his unwarranted insults, Mark Weber and David Irving, the two finest revisionist historians there are. Faurisson is displeased that I point out in my book that he froze on the witness stand at the Zundel Trial when asked about the Einsatzgruppen operations in the East after the invasion of Russia. If he is angry, let it be with his own behavior on the stand, preserved in the record of the proceedings (and accurately reproduced by me in my book). If Faurisson does not like Faurisson’s words being recorded, Faurisson needs to take that up with Faurisson. Just as in the case of ‘skeptic’ fraud Michael Shermer, Faurisson is upset that I recounted his own words. Tough shit, boys.
“After my outing, Freddy Leuchter Facebook friended me like we were old pals. I’d met him maybe three times in my life, and I’d never had any conflict with him. A few days ago, Faurisson declared me an enemy, and Freddy concurred. And all of a sudden we were old enemies instead of old pals. The truth is, we were neither. Freddy isn’t a historian; Weber and Irving are. If Weber and Irving are on Faurisson’s enemies list, I am happy to be in their company. I'd rather be Weber's real-life friend than Leuchter's Facebook friend.
“Mark Weber and I have been friends for almost a quarter century. It is a friendship built on respect. Have we disagreed? Sure. All friends do every now and then. But we’ve never taken it public or made it a spectacle. Same with Bradley Smith, a friend of mine since 1989. But Faurisson? When he declares you an infidel, he makes a bigger spectacle of it than Cecil B. De Mille on acid.
“I have never sought conflict with Faurisson, but he has come at me time and again, and time and again I have stated that I don’t give one small damn about his opinion of me. He should be thankful to a man like Weber for giving him a forum for as long as he did. Instead, Faurisson strikes out at anyone who ‘displeases’ him, and, in doing so, violates the tenet of a free and friendly exchange of ideas that separates revisionism (in theory if not in practice) from ‘orthodox’ Holocaust historiography.
“He’s insignificant to my work and my life. I’m sorry that he’s bitter, but I can’t help that. He’s not worth another one minute of keyboard-typing. End of story.” https://www.facebook.com/BigInfidel?fref=browse_search
Smith Asks a Question
I thought David going off on Faurisson this way was somewhat more than just unnecessary, but I did want to see the quote “accurately reproduced by me [David] in my book.” I wrote to ask that he help me find that quote in his book, which is not indexed.
“Are you running the Treblinka piece [this refers to an article he wrote for SR ] or not? If you have my book, the Faurisson comment is on page 30. But that's irrelevant to the Treblinka piece. The Faurisson comment you quote was from a Facebook post. The Treblinka piece is something scholarly that I prepared specifically for you.”
Following that, I received a second message.
“First of all old man, if you're going to troll my Facebook page, be aware that I do not treat social media like a book or essay. It's SOCIAL MEDIA. It's ephemeral. It's a conversation with my friends on my private page. I do not expect my private conversations to be critiqued as though I were submitting a scholarly essay
“I'm curious—are you similarly grilling Leuchter on his claim that I am not a revisionist? I used the term ‘reproduced’ as in ‘represented.’ I accurately represented Faurisson’s behavior on the stands based on the trial transcripts (as I was not in Toronto in ’85 to see the trial myself). Faurisson is too unimportant a figure for me to have devoted even one page to reprinting the actual transcripts. It's a throwaway paragraph about a marginal kook. He was asked on the stand if he had ever studied the mass killings following the invasion of Russia, he admitted that he never had, and it was embarrassing. End of story.”
“I do intend to run your piece on Treblinka. I think you present it well. I also expect it to be criticized. I did buy your book and perused it all, read the appendix more closely. [Re the quote we are discussing] ‘If Faurisson is angry, let it be with his own behavior on the stand, preserved in the record of the proceedings (and accurately reproduced by me in my book).’
“Is this behavior reproduced in the Appendix? Or? You can save me some 15 minutes or maybe an hour if you tell me where.”
A bit later I caught up with his question about my trolling his Face Book age where his diatribe on Faurisson appeared.
“I first got it I think from Santomauro. Then I went to take a look. I may be an old guy, you're acting like a child. I asked you a simple question. You get defensive. You get defensive because you wrote saying you had done something you did not do. Your FB page is private in no way whatever—other than your wish that it were so if you say something there that is not true. If this sounds like I am getting impatient with you, it is because I am.
“Don't get pissy with me, or have a hissy fit. I do not think I am going to be in the mood for it.”
“A) My Facebook page is private. But when one of my friends shares something, it can be seen by others. That doesn't mean that my page is not private. But if one of my friends decides to share something, he can.
“B) If you want me to go fucking dig up the transcript of the Faurisson cross-examination from the Zundel Trial (which I only have in hard-copy, unless you know of a complete online source), I will, just to prove a point. Unlike you, Weber read my book front-to-back, and gave me various positive and negative notes. There was no disagreement regarding the way I presented Faurisson's behavior on the stand. He was ill-prepared and ignorant on the Eastern Front killings. It will take me several days to find the transcripts. As I said, I will find them, if you insist, but, regardless...
“C) We're finished. Permanently. You've always been a pathetic puppet dancing at the end of Faurisson's strings, which, considering how unimportant he is in the big scheme of things, is pathetic to an even greater degree. I was prepared to let it go, because I realize your need for money and I equally realize that since the ‘official’ Faurisson / IHR split, having him in your corner helps you out financially. You should have understood that I was being tolerant by letting it go, and you should have refrained from pushing it further. You did not. I, on the other hand, have been willing to let things go, including behavior of yours toward Weber after the 2009 ‘split’ that I consider to be in direct contradiction to your supposed belief in ‘open debate.’
“Faurisson will be dead soon, and where will that leave you? You've alienated Weber, and now you've alienated me. You're not good at long-term thinking. I suppose you'll still have Rudolf, who, from what I have seen, has been enough of a gentleman to not get involved in the recent attacks against me from Faurisson.
“Parfrey [Cole’s publisher] will run my Treblinka piece as the thing that Brad Smith was too much of a pussy to run unless I kowtowed to Faurisson. Fine. It will only de-monstrate that I have (as always) tried to remain independent of revisionist orthodoxy and pressure.
“Your mailing list is drying up faster than Faurisson's health. I tried to offer you something for the future, out of friendship, not respect. There is no respect there, as there is regarding how I feel toward Weber. But there is/was friendship, and I try to be loyal to my friends, even the ones I find better suited for ridicule.
“No more. We're through. You do not have the right to use any footage from Gran Tabu. We had already decided mutually that it was owned jointly by you, me, and Rudolf, and that all three parties must give consent before any use can be made of the film. I withdraw my consent.”
I wrote to say that I had not replied to the above originally as I was running errands with my wife but that now I was back.
“Sure, get me the relevant passages with re to Faurisson that you mention [above], even tho I did not ask you for them. That's an expression of your hysteria. But do as you say you will.
“Re your tolerance: it is nothing compared to your hysteria in defending yourself. With a bit more manliness, take your time and think about this, you would not feel the need for these lady-like hissy-fits.
“With re to running your article on Treblinka: I did not say or even suggest that I was not going to run it. It's your hysteria that causes you to think I will not run it. Man up, David. I expect to run it, and have a reply to it.
“Re El Gran Tabu: understood.
As of this writing there has been no further reply from David Cole/Stein. The entire exchange took place on one day, 22 July 2014. It’s all over. One question was too much. Perhaps the implications of the question. Not for me, but for David Cole Stein. Some 25 years and it’s come to an end. I’m OK with it. When he gets anxious, I don’t care for the quality of his hissy prose.
A follow-up thought: David Cole Stein now has the opportunity to go off on Smith. The above screed is nothing to what he is capable of. I can picture him doing it even now. And what he does, if he does do it, will be out-of-this-world exceptional. You will never have read anything like it. I almost look forward to it. I do look forward to it. He’s that good.
*** This morning at the computer I find that Cole’s publisher, Adam Parfrey, has posted Cole’s article on Treblinka online. http://tinyurl.com/outwmr6 I got it from Santomauro, as I did Cole’s attack on Faurisson published above. This thing is moving too fast to cover well in this newsletter. I now see that when Cole spoke of “publishing” his piece on Treblinka he meant for me to “post” it on my Blog, http://codohfounder.com/ (also in the CODOH library at http://codoh.com/library/document/3922/He was not thinking of Smith’s Report. Which is where I was. Well, it’s published now, and it will be addressed by others. I will have to use the Blog now just to keep up with the story. Then I will summarize it here. That’s where the brain is now. We’ll see.
*** Several months ago David began calling me every once in a while to chat, confidentially, about the book he was working on. He just wanted to chat. We did not talk about any details of the manuscript and I never saw any of it before I bought the published book itself in early July. In the main he wanted to chat about the publishing plan in general.
One observation he made early on was that he had done no work in revisionism for some 15 years and would not have the time to do any new research for this book. That in any event the core of the book was not about revisionism, it told the story of his personal life before, during, and after, focusing largely on his stint as a Republican Party Animal. From what I could tell, it was a sound publishing idea with many hooks for promotion.
With that in mind, I made one observation several times, by telephone and via email. David would address his revisionist work in the book, and there was a good chance that some of his positions, based on work he did fifteen and twenty years ago, would draw criticism. If that turned out to be the case, it was my view that it could prove to be advantageous to him if he would acknowledge where he was wrong about something back then, accept the criticism and make use of it. That would boost confidence in his objectivity.
I repeated the idea more than once—that if he were to admit to an error of fact, or judgment, years ago, it would add to his credibility today. It would be to his advantage to say yes. I was wrong.
I had mentioned specifically that Eric Hunt had done work on Treblinka that might affect how he was to think about that camp now, as opposed to how he thought about it fifteen years ago. His response in the end was to go off on a hysterical rant about the failings of revisionist research and the worthlessness of Hunt’s work. The tone of his reply had all the hysteria in it of his posts about Faurisson and his replies to me above.
In short, I had already experienced his self-defense hysteria and I didn’t like it though I took the trouble to explain more than once the advantage that could accrue to him by admitting he was wrong about something he was wrong about, if there were any such thing, weeks before we got into this last exchange over one simple question about one quote on one FaceBook post.
It’s odd to observe how a guy, who has such sound capacities in so many directions, can be so insecure about himself, an insecurity that expresses itself in the most vulgar ways, using an attack-psychology that no man needs if he feels himself to be a man. It is around that point that we, and he, may have a problem with David Cole Stein.
*** Just got this from Santomauro, where Fred Leuchter comments on the latest Cole escapade. http://tinyurl.com/nselxz2
July 25, 2014
“David Cole and his Publisher have issued a statement that Gassing occurred in the now destroyed camps that Revisionists claim to have been Transit Camps. Myself and Dr. Faurisson were called Holocaust Deniers because we do not believe this. I am a denier of nothing. I cannot deny something that there is no evidence for, at all. I am only a reluctant Revisionist because I was sent to Poland by the court as an expert to investigate and found nothing.
“Cole and his publisher are idiots. They are caught up in the Religion of the Holocaust. As happened in the past, the search for gas chambers stretched across Europe. First France, then Germany, then Poland and now Russia. Every time investigations have proved the gas chambers did not exist, they moved to another location. Now they're in camps that no longer exist. We can do no forensic study. So they can further the Religion of the Holocaust. The Revisionists have done an excellent job at showing the camps were not gassing centers. But that is apparently not enough. Incidentally, it is not possible to prove a negative but only a positive. Cole and his publisher are engaging in what engineers and scientists call “mental masturbation”. In the final analysis, no one has to prove anything. The fighting will continue because those involved are not scientists or technicians, but academicians. They are peers fighting among peers (some are not but claim to be). I am a technician of execution technology, Certified by United States courts, Canadian courts and German courts. I have no peers, unfortunately for Cole and his publisher. We do not have the technology now, nor did the Nazis then, have the technology for mass executions utilizing hydrogen cyanide gas. The argument is academic. If the technology never existed, mass gassings were impossible. Quod Erat Demonstrandum! And this is for publication!”
*** This story is getting far ahead of me. New stuff is appearing daily on the Internet. Some of what I publish here will be old hat by the time you have this issue of SR to hand. I’m going to have to turn my attention to the blog at http://codohfounder.com/
Eric Hunt replies to David Cole’s article on Treblinka
I have not published Cole’s article on Treblinka, and do not have space to publish Hunt’s reply to Cole. But you will find in the following remarks an introduction to Hunt’s view of Cole’s thinking on Treblinka.
*** A Revisionist sent me a link to David Cole’s written response defending his alleged belief that 900,000 Jews were “gassed”, buried, dug back up, cremated, and reburied and/or scattered at Treblinka 2. I was disparaged along with my documentary and I’d like to respond.
To support Cole’s view on Treblinka and “Action Reinhard Death Camps”, he relies on two general documents (the Korherr Report and the Höfle Telegram), two sinister but vague entries in the Goebbels Diary and statements by Himmler. However, Cole denies the large amount of physical, photographic and now, testimonial evidence which supports the idea that no mass gassing could have occurred at Treblinka 2 and it primarily served as a transit camp where Jewish wealth was seized before Jews were divided into appropriate groups and sent on to other locations.
Most of Cole’s argument is based on the alleged lack of physical evidence at “Treblinka.”
“Did the inmates at Treblinka eat? For a year-and-a-half, did they ever ingest food? Did the commandant ever eat? Well, show me the Treblinka stove. Did the inmates ever go to the bathroom? Did the commandant? Well, show me a Treblinka toilet. Show me or draw me a Treblinka toilet. You can’t? Then none existed.”…
“My sarcasm aside, the fact is, we all know that Treblinka existed. Studying the barren land where Treblinka once stood isn’t like looking for Noah’s Ark. We know that what we’re studying did exist. And we know that the camp was razed. The case for Treblinka (and Sobibor, etc.) must be made through documents.”
David thinks the case for Treblinka and Sobibor, etc., must be made through implying homicidal intent via documents and “code words.” But he’s wrong, as similar documents can, have been, and are falsely interpreted.
Not only that, an incredible, undeniable amount of physical evidence still exists a few feet below the current ground level of Treblinka 2. The story is that the Nazis took sand from the nearby gravel pit and dumped it all over Treblinka 2. After all, Caroline Sturdy Colls’s archaeological dig showed that remains of the alleged “gas chambers” exist below the ground at Treblinka 2. But of course, many “deniers” claim these terra-cotta tiled floored structures inmates entered after getting a haircut were likely real shower rooms, reinforced to protect against air raids.
So one can find structural remains similar to those latrines or the kitchen at Treblinka 1 beneath the ground at Treblinka 2. So David, one could very well show you a Treblinka 2 toilet or a Treblinka 2 stove, just as you sarcastically request. After all, Caroline Sturdy Colls proved “the Nazis couldn’t destroy all remains”, right? Colls’s archaeological dig shows that Treblinka 2 could very well appear quite similar to the current ruins of Treblinka 1 when approximately 3-4 feet of ground are removed.
So David is repeating an exterminationist meme which is not true. That is, that Treblinka 2 was entirely razed and it’s a land barren of evidence.
Of course the exterminationists, like Cole, claim the alleged “document trails” are the “mountain of evidence.” However there is an actual little mountain of evidence currently at Treblinka 2 waiting for proper forensic investigation.
So David’s analogy is correct, it’s not like looking for Noah’s Ark.
However, it is like being told the exact location where Noah’s Ark is known to be buried under four feet of ground, yet having the chief rabbi of Poland prevent anyone from ever digging there.
For Hunt’s full reply see: http://holocausthoaxmuseum.com/response-to-david-cole/ [domain currently dysfunctional; ed.]
Here is Cole’s original article:
Smith, August 2014
*** This experience with a fast-moving story of consequence on the Web has forced me to consider handling this material differently. There are a couple thousand words relating to this Cole/Stein story that cannot go here, and I was not up to-date with them on the web. We’re talking about “new” media here. Am I the only one among us now who publishes a revisionist newsletter in hardcopy? In the moment, I think so. There are probably good reasons why this is so.
*** Here is my new photo that I will use for the next year or two. I look normal. Eh?
*** Until next month then.
Additional information about this document
|Author(s):||Bradley R. Smith , Fred A. Leuchter , David Cole|
|Title:||David Cole Calls It a Day with Bradley Smith|
|Sources:||Smith's Report, No. 208, August 2014, pp. 8-12|
|First posted on CODOH:||Oct. 5, 2014, 7 p.m.|