Interview of Hadding Scott by Jim Rizoli

A interview was broadcast on WBCQ, 6160kHz at 10PM and 7490kHz at 11PM New York Time on 15 November 2024. Download an mp3 file of this show here (right-click, and pick “Save Link As…” from context menu).
All broadcasts and podcasts by Hadding Scott’s “Devil’s Advocate Radio” are also accessible on X/Twitter @UnapprovedRadio.

The following is condensed from an interview that I gave on Valentine’s Day in 2017.

Hi everyone, Jim Rizoli here. And I have another special guest for the show today. It’s Hadding Scott. Hadding, again, welcome to the program.

Well, hello!

So, what would you consider yourself?

Well, I really hate to see somebody prevail through lying. This is something that you could notice in various things that I’ve done. But, you know, I really came to Holocaust revisionism through other things. My origin has a lot to do with it. My parents were about a generation older than other people my age. I was born in the 1960s. My parents were born in the 1920s. And my mother was raised by her grandparents, who were born not very long after the war between the states. So I got a very old perspective from my mother. And my mother always used to say, “Don’t believe everything that you hear.” And she gave me another perspective when I brought home what I had learned about Abraham Lincoln in school. And she also told me that all the stories about the cruelty of slavery in the South were not true. That this was exaggeration, and that the slaves generally were treated very well, and that the war was not about slavery.

So this really is a nice analogy to Holocaust revisionism, and I grew up with that.

Are you a teacher or anything like that? Are you an academic person?

I have been a teacher, but not presently.

All right. So basically, you’re like me. I got into this because I didn’t like lying. So, I didn’t like people saying things that were just completely absurd, and they’re lying, and you’re trying to figure out why are they saying this if it’s not true? So I can understand that.

So what were the first things that you took up? I mean, you mentioned Abraham Lincoln, but what other things did you do?

Well, I can tell you how I arrived at Holocaust revisionism, all right? From this dissident perspective that was inherent in my parentage and my upbringing, I was already accustomed to the idea that much of what we hear in mass media is not true. I grew up with that, all right? But I had other things still that I needed to learn. I needed to learn that there was lying also about the Second World War, because my parents didn’t really have any inkling of that. My mother was very well informed about how there was lying against the South, but not about lying against Germany. But it was not a big leap to think that there might have been lying against Germany.

But a lot of this depends on what you think about the character of the Jews, right? I grew up with this idea that the Jews were pretty much like everybody else, except they had a different religion, and the poor innocent Jews were victimized by some mass psychosis that swept over Germany. And you have to learn about the Jews to understand that this is not really how it was. And the way that I became acquainted with the real character of the Jews was by listening to the Larry King radio show on the Mutual Broadcasting Network, beginning around 1978 and into the early 1980s.

I had actually dropped out of high school at a very early age, actually, got away with that. And I would stay up all night listening to the Larry King radio show. And this was a big eye-opener for me, because Larry King, from my perspective, was insane. This was a man who professed to believe in racial equality, whereas I, as a southerner, knew firsthand that this was clearly not true. And I noticed other things about Larry King. Well, for one thing, he made no secret of being a Jew. He talked about it often, and he would have guests on his show all the time that he identified as Jews, and many of them were buddies from the old neighborhood in Brooklyn. And you could learn from listening to the Larry King show the character of New York City Jews, and the fact that Jews were very prevalent in mass media, and had no shame about using their positions in mass media to promote specifically Jewish interests. And Larry King was also extremely unfair to callers that disagreed with him on these particular issues like race and, well, especially race.

If you disagreed with racial equality, he was very likely to badger you until you became incoherent and then hang up on, and then play the Looney Tunes thing, right? So this was extremely unfair, and this was really how I learned about Jews. I mean, it’s sort of like seeing the platonic form of something. You see the platonic form, and then you see how that form exists in an imperfect form in the others. So Larry King was sort of the concentrated Jew, and I saw that there was a little bit of Larry King in a lot of Jews.

Right. Did you ever call in the show?

I did a couple of times.

And what happened?

It was a long time ago. I managed to get some stuff out and got hung up on.

Yeah. So that was your bad introduction to Jews. And again, he’s such a whack job anyway, that guy.

The thing about Larry King is he’s completely different on television compared to how he was on radio. On television, he’s very toned down. You don’t get the shameless promotion of Jewish interests on his television shows that he used to do on the radio.

Did he ever talk about the Holocaust or anything like that?

I’m sure that he had Simon Wiesenthal on there and Elie Wiesel. But at that point, I wasn’t really suspicious about the Holocaust. I believed in the Holocaust until the late 1980s. I started to have some questions about it in the late 1980s. Before I started to question the Holocaust, I had become interested in psychology. And I read a lot of psychology books. And one of the books that I read was by a Scottish psychiatrist named R.D. Laing. And R.D. Laing’s message was that – his message is really – he really goes too far, but there’s still something there that’s valuable, which is, when somebody is labeled as crazy, you should really try to understand what’s going on with them, and try to understand their perspective. And they may not really be crazy. They might actually have their own side of the story, and these people around them may just not want to hear their side of the story. You should try to understand this person that’s been labeled, right?

Now, the most obvious person that would need to be given this indulgence to try to understand what’s really going on with him, because he’s been so labeled and demonized, is obviously Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists. So because of R.D. Lange, I was open to the idea that Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists might have their own story where what they did does not seem crazy, right? What they supposedly did, right? So, before I arrived at questioning the Holocaust, I arrived at the position of trying to understand why this happened. What did the Jews do to bring this on them, right? That seemed to me a logical question.

Now, I did know, from having been exposed to Larry King and also some other experiences with Jews, that it was entirely possible that there was exaggeration and distortion, but I still believed that the Holocaust must have had at least some truth in it. It was not until about 1992 that I was convinced that the Holocaust was false. I had started listening to shortwave and the alternative media on shortwave, like Radio Free America with Tom Valentine, and I stumbled across also the American Dissident Voices radio program, which was usually Kevin Strom, but once a month Dr. Pierce would make a broadcast, and I wrote to them because I was very interested in the fact that the way Dr. Pierce talked about racial problems was very similar to the way that I talked about these things, and he presented a rational discussion of these things, and I was certainly already open to it.

I knew from listening to Larry King that Jews had a lot to do with these problems, that Jews in media pushed racial equality, and I ordered books and magazines from them, and one of the magazines that I ordered was an issue of National Vanguard magazine from 1989 that had Adolf Hitler on the cover. It was the 100th birthday of Adolf Hitler issue of National Vanguard magazine, and that magazine had an article in it called “The Evidence of the Prussian Blue.”

I had heard and read before then about the Zundel trials. I heard Ernst Zundel interviewed on Radio Free America with Tom Valentine. I had read an article by Professor Robert Faurisson that somebody had reproduced, but I wasn’t sure how much of what they said I should believe. I didn’t know who Robert Faurisson was. He could have been a crazy man, for all I know. He said that there was no chemical residue in the gas chambers, and there should have been chemical residue in the gas chambers. Well, that seems to be a valid argument, but I don’t know who is Robert Faurisson. What is his expertise? How can I be sure that there really should have been residue there? He just says that there should have been. How do I know it?

But with Dr. Pierce, when I read it from him, I believed it because he had a lot of credibility with me because he spoke my language, I mean in terms of how he talked about race, racial issues, and he also was a physicist. You know, he would know things like whether there should be cyanide residue in the bricks. You couldn’t fool him on these things, and I knew that he was a man who consistently told the truth. Therefore, when I read this very concise presentation about the Leuchter Report from Dr. Pierce, I was convinced, and he presented it very concisely. He talked about the blue staining in the bricks, which was in the delousing chambers at Birkenau, but not in Crema I at Auschwitz, nor in the other Cremas, and this convinced me.

All right. So that was a good awakening for you to see that. So then, how did you pursue it after that?

I didn’t do very much with Holocaust revisionism after that until about 2002, 2003, during the propaganda for war against Iraq, because it was very clear at that time that Hitler comparisons and invocation of the Holocaust played a very large role in this anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda. Saddam Hussein was supposed to have gassed the Kurds, Kurdish civilians, for no reason. It was just an unprovoked gassing of these poor Kurdish civilians that Saddam Hussein was supposed to have done for no reason, and this was supposed to make Saddam Hussein like Hitler, and he wanted to conquer the whole world like Hitler, right? So, there were all these comparisons of Saddam Hussein to the legend, which I knew to be false by that point, about Adolf Hitler, and I wrote some articles in early 2003, before the U.S. invasion, in which I debunked the propaganda about Saddam Hussein. It was not true that Saddam Hussein had gassed any Kurdish civilians.

This was a story that originally had been put out by the Iranians because what happened was that the Iranians were attacking this town in northern Iraq called Halabja, and there was nobody in the town, but then some Kurdish rebels went into Halabja, and the Iranians thought they were Iraqi soldiers, and shelled them with cyanide, and the Iranians accidentally killed these Kurds in Halabja. What happened after the Iranians went into Halabja and saw the dead Kurds is they blamed it on the Iraqis, and they called in journalists to see what had happened there, and they said, look what the Iraqis did. If you read the early reports about this incident, you can tell that they’re somewhat skeptical. The reports are somewhat skeptical. It’s, you know, the Iranians say. The Iranians said that there were 5,000 dead Kurds killed by the Iraqis. Reporters said that they saw 100 or so bodies, right? This is the kind of initial reporting on Halabja.

But what happened was, after Iraq came out of the war much stronger and as a sort of a regional superpower, Jews started in with their anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda. It happened on September 1, 1988. There was a news article and also an editorial by William Sapphire in the New York Times, in which William Sapphire mentioned that this cyanide gas that had been used to kill the Kurds at Halabja was the same gas used in Auschwitz. George Herbert Walker Bush also made an explicit Hitler comparison, compared Saddam Hussein to Hitler. And Saddam Hussein also returned the comparison comparing George Herbert Walker Bush to Hitler. Everybody that you want to motivate people to attack apparently is just like Hitler.

So, we had this war in 1991. I’m perfectly willing to believe the Iraqi side of the story, that the Kuwaitis provoked the Iraqis and that April Glaspie told them that the USA wouldn’t care if they invaded. And also I found out, the CIA had made a fake satellite photograph showing Iraqi tanks on the Saudi border to try to get the Saudis to support the whole project of invading Iraq, attacking Iraq. So anyway, this anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda about the gassed Kurds went on for 15 years until we had the invasion and overthrow of the Iraqi government in 2003. Really the gassed Kurds story was the basis of the whole propaganda, because this is an observation that I’ve made about how propaganda works.

Most people are so overwhelmed with information that they can’t bother to check everything that they hear or even very much of what they hear. So, what people will do is they will take a few bits of information that they’ve heard and that they believe, and they’ll construct a picture based on assumptions. So, they basically try to see a pattern, and fill out the picture based on that.

In Gestalt psychology this is called reifications, where you have a few hints about what a shape might be, and you imagine that the shape is there. That’s called reification, literally means making the thing, thing-making. So this tendency of people to fill out their knowledge gaps with imagination is exploited in propaganda. And the biggest way that they do this is by misinforming people about somebody’s character. Once it was spread that Saddam Hussein had gassed the poor Kurds and had done it with no cause, people would believe that he could do anything. Obviously, this is a crazy man, a man who might very well have been involved in the 9-11 attacks.

You couldn’t really convince people that he wasn’t involved in the 9-11 attacks, because that would require checking evidence, and most people would never do that. But if people implied that he might have been involved in the 9-11 attacks, they were very ready to believe it because of what they had been told about Saddam Hussein’s character.

And this is something that has to be addressed also in regard to the Holocaust. One thing that a lot of people in revisionism seem to do is they seem to focus on these details about gas chambers and crematoria and they don’t really look at questions like, what kinds of people were these that are accused of doing these things? And what is the character of the people making the accusations? That’s extremely important. Now, since 9-11 and actually since the late 1970s, when people started becoming critical of the state of Israel, but especially since 9-11, there’s a lot less trust of Jews, because a lot of people noticed after 9-11 that there was a lot of dishonesty.

I just had a conversation yesterday with a leftist, and I asked him privately if he believed in the Holocaust, and he said he wasn’t sure but he doesn’t trust Jews. This guy’s a leftist. He says he doesn’t trust Jews. Because he doesn’t trust Jews, he’s open to the possibility that the Holocaust could be a big lie. That’s very important. This is something that has to be addressed.

If you try to say that there was no Holocaust while maintaining that, oh yes, the Nazis, they were these horrible people, you’re not going to be very convincing.

That was a big thing for you to understand how a lie could be propagated upon us. It seems like it only resonates with a certain type of people, the psychology aspect of it. I mean I think it’s a good aspect of it. What’s her name? Elizabeth Loftus? Is that her name? She’s the one that talks about the false-memory syndrome. But she didn’t get into the Holocaust.

Well I’ll tell you another psychologist that wrote something that casts a lot of doubt on the Holocaust is Leon Festinger. He wrote A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. This was published in 1957. You really have to wonder what Festinger had in mind, because in one section of the book he talks about Japanese interned in the United States, and he points out that many of these Japanese really were not loyal to the United States, and they had a bad conscience. And because they had a bad conscience, they were ready to believe that terrible things were being done to them. They were inclined to believe that terrible things were being done to them in the camps because they had a bad conscience. And since there wasn’t any overt sign of anything cruel being done to them, they imagined that terrible things must be happening secretly. They imagined that Japanese were being secretly killed in these American internment camps.

It’s irresistible to make the analogy to Jews hearing rumors in Auschwitz or someplace like that. If they had a bad conscience, if they really hated the Germans, if they were communists and had bad intentions, and had been locked up in this camp, but were being treated way better than they expected, they would be disposed to believe the same kind of rumor that these Japanese interned in these American camps believed. They had this rumor that they were being secretly killed, and it was the same rumor that the Jews had.

What do you think about… Here’s something that we’ve been discussing here, Diana and I. We’ve been discussing what’s happening in the revisionist movement. A lot of people, not a lot, but some pretty high-ranking people in the movement are kind of recanting their views now. Like, for instance, Eric Hunt. What do you think about what’s going on there?

I don’t have a lot to say about Eric Hunt, but I did have an exchange with him a few weeks ago, and apparently he had an argument with Cole.

Oh, David Cole, yeah.

And apparently he felt badly about his performance and the argument with Cole and he felt that he had been defeated, I guess. He says, we really need to prove that those Jews weren’t killed in the Aktion Reinhardt camps. Well, wait a second, the burden of proof is on the accuser. That’s one of the reasons why I wrote this essay called Semi-Revisionism is Dead.

Yeah, I read it. It was excellent. I thought it was very good. In his last article I just saw, he writes all about the Reinhardt camps, and that people were killed in those camps because where did they go if they weren’t killed? And the thing that really bothers me is, they make all these assumptions that the Jews had to go somewhere if they weren’t killed, but they forget all the other information showing how ridiculous the hoax is.

That’s right.

I hear David Irving, he’s kind of capitulated, we’ve gone back. Mark Weber, he’s the same way. He basically says, well, I think that a million Jews were killed, but he doesn’t get into how it happened. He just says it happened.

I thought you humiliated Mark Weber by asking him, “How were they killed?” and he couldn’t answer to that.

Well, I mean, how do these guys show their face? David Cole is the same way. You’ve got David Irving, David Cole, and obviously Mark Weber, and now we’ve got Eric Hunt. Who’s next that’s going to say, “oh no, it did happen”?

Irving, Weber and Cole have different motives. David Irving, he wants to have his career back, right? I don’t think he’s going to get it, but that seems to be, that’s what somebody opined, somebody very well-informed and prominent and famous opined to me in 1996, when Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich book came out, David Irving wants his career back. So that’s why David Irving is espousing this semi-revisionism that continues the demonization of Goebbels and Himmler, but it’s really a reversion to the position that he had in the 1970s. That was always his position. He constructed this drama where Hitler was doing good things and he had these evil men around him that were harming Jews behind his back. This is the kind of drama that David Irving has constructed, and he’s really just gone back to that. Mark Webber has a different motive, I think he just wants to avoid Holocaust revisionism and not discuss it to the extent that he can avoid it. I mean, this is according to Faurisson’s account, Mark Webber is a weak man. He’s a weak man. He’s not very brave. When they were, I think, in Germany and police had detained Ernst Zündel, they were going to have, dang, I don’t remember the story now, but they were in Germany and they were in danger of being arrested, and Mark Webber’s teeth were chattering. I mean, just look at him. He does not convey strength.

Yeah, he, at that point that you’re talking about, I’m going to use a term that, there’s no other way I can use it any differently. He was ready to shit his pants, okay? Because he was so afraid of getting arrested, and that’s what happened with him. So, you know, but, you know, I look at Fred Leuchter and, you know, hey, Fred, you know, he took it. I mean, he, you know, he was going to go to jail too, and he hung in there. I mean, he eventually got out of there, which was the smartest thing to do, too. But if he goes back there, they’re going to put him in jail. So, you know, Fred hung in there, and he’s, you know, he’s not going back on any of his views about how things were done and, you know, the Leuchter Report and all that. And he suffered more than anybody, you know? So, you know, when I see these people talking about suffering, like Eric Hunt, “oh, you know, my whole life has been topsy-turvied by this and this or that,” I just say, please!

So you think that’s why he’s backing away from this?

That’s what I think. I think even Germar said that too.

In the case of David Cole, David Cole’s revisionism only after the 1988 false news trial when the Leuchter Report appeared, and Leuchter testified, and David Irving testified on behalf of Ernst Zündel and the Holocaust industry in general was in retreat at that point. And you can see this, for example, in Yehuda Bauer, his letter to the New York Times, article about Yehuda Bauer to the New York Times, followed by a letter from Yehuda Bauer, talking about the need to lower the death toll at Auschwitz because those neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers, they can count, you know. They realized that they were under a lot of scrutiny and criticism, and that they needed to make revisions themselves to try to save their holy myth. And this is when David Cole got involved. By his own account, it was 1989 when he got involved. And the first time that the world heard anything about David Cole wasn’t until 1992, David Cole as a Holocaust revisionist. There was this period when Holocaust revisionism appeared to be this great chariot leading to victory, right? And, you know, that’s what David Irving clearly believed in 1988. He believed that revisionism would prevail within, he said, 5 to 10 years, and then the history books would be rewritten. Well, it didn’t turn out that way. But during that time, David Cole got involved, endorsed the findings of the Leuchter Report, and he made this video at Auschwitz where he basically duplicated what other revisionists had already done. There’s really no new information, I don’t think, in Cole’s Auschwitz video, but it is very well done, you know. It has a nice tempo to it and good audio and it’s watchable, all right? But David Cole was basically just putting a Jewish face on what others had already discovered. That’s what he was doing. It’s Jewish damage control.

But you’ve got to understand, too, with David Cole, they threatened David Cole. They had a hit on him to kill him. He was supposed to, he was going to be killed.

Yeah, it’s an interesting thing. They didn’t kill him, did they?

No, no, I know. Well, yeah, because he talked to, what was his name again?

Irv Rubin.

Irv Rubin, okay. Okay, Irv Rubin, at the time anyway. He went to jail. He actually ended up going to jail, but he actually ended up talking to him, and as far as I understand the story, what Cole said, he ended up paying him money or something not to do anything to him. That’s the story that I heard, I thought I heard from Cole when I was listening to one of Cole’s audio videos like we’re doing now. But the point is, it seems like a lot of these people might have been threatened.

Irv Rubin has been dead some years now, and I don’t think that Irv Rubin is the reason for what David Cole is doing now. I presented in my essay “Semi-Revisionism Is Dead” a background that would support the inference that David Cole was never really interested in debunking the Holocaust as such. That’s never what he wanted to do. Like Yehuda Bauer, he wanted to revise it to keep it alive. That’s my thesis.

I mean, you’re a good writer. You have a nice style and insight, I would say, about things, and I think that’s important that people see that stuff. I mean, that article you wrote about the three revisionists you took up?

Yeah, “Semi-Revisionism is Dead” is the name of it.

Yeah, that was a super article. That was a great article. So, anytime you get something new, well, you sent them my way anyway, so we get what you’re doing now, so that’s important, you know. And Germar, I think Germar, out of all the revisionists, he’s the one I think is the top one now, you know, that’s really doing something and, you know, trying to make this work, Germar. I mean, that’s my opinion anyway. I don’t know any other one that’s doing anything as much as Germar.

Well, sure, Faurisson some years ago referred to the amazing energy of Germar Rudolf or something to that effect.

Yeah, I mean, it’s phenomenal what he’s doing. And, you know, we interviewed, we went down to Pennsylvania, interviewed Germar and, you know, he was really a good man. I really like him. What do you think the future is for us? You know, the movement, you know, revisionism, the truth movement and all that?

I think we have some people falling away from Holocaust revisionism right now that maybe haven’t really thought through their position very well. Initially, maybe their commitment wasn’t very deep to begin with. So, I wouldn’t worry about that too much. You know, I just worry about what I’m doing, and try to make sure that I’m doing the right thing, and keep doing it. You know? And as long as I can, that’s what I keep doing. Right, right.

Well, I agree. I’m the same way. You know, I was saying to Diane, I was saying, I really don’t care what anybody, even the revisionist views are.

You contribute a lot to the cause. I just want to let you know that.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, I mean, you’re a good man and, you know, keep continuing on.