Counter-Currents
Ron Unz
3,243 words
Introduction
Last month, Ron Unz of the Unz Review posted a 17,600 word article about Holocaust denial as part of his American Pravda series. Not only does he offer a brief history of Holocaust denial and a compendium of its literature, he also attempts to cast enough doubt upon what’s known as the Holocaust to suggest that perhaps it didn’t happen exactly the way mainstream historians say it did. I don’t think Unz ever flat out denies that the Holocaust happened. (Numerous times in the article he reminds his readers of how new he is to this subject and how little he has read compared to experts.) Rather, he just points out enough irregularities in the historical record to make his readers suspicious of the prevailing narrative; perhaps even deeply so. He’s like a defense attorney that way. All he has to do is raise reasonable doubt and his client walks.
Well, one person who didn’t let him walk was David Cole, a man whose reputation in large part stands on what he thinks of the Holocaust. As I understand it, Cole is a revisionist who challenges some of the scholarship surrounding the Holocaust and claims the final death tally is a bit lower than the accepted six million figure. For this, he got in a lot of trouble in the 1990s with, among other people, the Jewish Defense League. You can read his bio here. But if there is one thing David Cole isn’t, it’s a Holocaust denier, a point he banged into the center of Ron Unz’s forehead with a number two pencil as hard as he could. Cole’s piece over at Taki’s however just dented the scalp. Their follow-up correspondence and Cole’s profanity-laden parting shot is what really drove it home, deep and wide.
For sheer entertainment value, you can’t beat the correspondence (I always like to see a good fight, and these two Jews really let each other have it). Cole also has the art of the abusive insult down, and, I have to say, is fun to read. He is, shall we say, creative in his contempt. Here’s a taste:
So yes, one can, at the same time, denounce the Allied postwar propaganda nonsense while STILL accepting the veracity of contemporaneous German documents. You don’t have to choose. Well, WE don’t have to choose. You, in that cobweb-infested cavern of a mind, probably think you do have to pick one, like a carnival game. Hope you win a stuffed ducky!
Are you a performance artist? Is this an act? PLEASE tell me it’s just an act. Please. I would sooner believe that a human can possess telepathic powers than that one can be as dumb as you appear to be.
But shit, look at me . . . talking to you like you have comprehension skills. Jesus, who’s the dumb one here? Literally, who’s more stupid, the poo-flinging baboon, or the human trying to reason with the poo-flinging baboon?
Round 1: Advantage, Cole
Aside from marveling at Cole’s wit, however, greater meaning from this exchange emerges after some consideration. Like with great art or fiction, one can view the principals from multiple perspectives and come away gaping at the mystery of life and reflecting productively on one’s own. Although in general I have greater sympathy for Unz than for Cole, I feel that Unz’s article was rambling, anecdotal, undisciplined, and ultimately unconvincing. One minute he seems to promote Holocaust denial, then Holocaust skepticism, then a distrust of tendentious Holocaust affirmers like Deborah Lipstadt, then a distrust of Jews in general, and then back again. After reading him, I’m still not sure where he stands on the Holocaust as a historical phenomenon—he’s so all over the place in his article, I’m not even sure he is. I think we can best summarize his main points like this:
- Holocaust denial can be perfectly reasonable and has a body of literature to support it.
- Holocaust deniers are unfairly suppressed, abused, and oppressed by Holocaust affirmers, many of whom are powerful Jews who behave like theological zealots.
- Many powerful Jews weaponize the Holocaust while ignoring Jewish culpability in similar atrocities in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe prior to World War II.
Of course, these points can be true irrespective of the Holocaust itself being true. But in order to establish point 1 at least, Unz must either cast doubt on the Holocaust as a historical phenomenon or quote people who do. He must throw shade on the Holocaust affirmers as well. Here are some examples (emphasis, all mine):
Dr. James J. Martin, a contributor to Reason magazine from 1970s:
I don’t believe that the evidence of a planned extermination of the entire Jewish population of Europe is holding up. I have been influenced over the years by the works of Paul Rassinier, and he still has to be reckoned with. His works have been ignored for a long time, and sooner or later somebody’s going to have to do a decent job of coping with what he has presented. I think Rassinier’s general case is sound at the moment and I haven’t seen any strong evidence to upset his allegations or his assertions that there was no planned program for the extermination of European Jews.
Unz on historian David Irving:
[Irving’s] entire approach to controversial historical issues was to rely as much as possible upon hard documentary evidence, and his total inability to locate any such documents relating to the Holocaust drove Lipstadt and her fellow ethnic-activists into a frenzy of outrage, so after many years of effort they finally managed to wreck his career.
The following is a paragraph which seems to sum up Unz’s opinions on the matter:
Over the years, Holocaust scholars and activists have very rightfully emphasized the absolutely unprecedented nature of the historical events they have studied. They describe how some six million innocent Jewish civilians were deliberately exterminated, mostly in gas chambers, by one of Europe’s most highly cultured nations, and emphasize that monstrous project was often accorded greater priority than Germany’s own wartime military needs during the country’s desperate struggle for survival. Furthermore, the Germans also undertook enormous efforts to totally eliminate all possible traces of their horrifying deed, with huge resources expended to cremate all those millions of bodies and scatter the ashes. This same disappearance technique was even sometimes applied to the contents of their mass graves, which were dug up long after initial burial, so that the rotting corpses could then be totally incinerated and all evidence eliminated. And although Germans are notorious for their extreme bureaucratic precision, this immense wartime project was apparently implemented without benefit of a single written document, or at least no such document has ever been located.
And here is where he takes on Holocaust Studies expert Joseph Bendersky:
Much of this very interesting story is told by Joseph Bendersky, an expert in Holocaust Studies, who devoted ten years of archival research to his 2000 book The “Jewish Threat.” His work chronicles the extremely widespread anti-Semitism found within the U.S. Army and Military Intelligence throughout the first half of the twentieth century, with Jews being widely regarded as posing a serious security risk. The book runs well over 500 pages, but when I consulted the index I found no mention of the Rosenbergs nor Harry Dexter White nor any of the other very numerous Jewish spies revealed by the Venona Decrypts, and the term “Venona” itself is also missing from the index. Reports of the overwhelmingly Jewish leadership of the Russian Bolsheviks are mostly treated as bigotry and paranoia, as are descriptions of the similar ethnic skew of America’s own Communist Party, let alone the heavy financial support of the Bolsheviks by Jewish international bankers. At one point, he dismisses the link between Jews and Communism in Germany by noting that “less than half” of the Communist Party leadership was Jewish; but since fewer than one in a hundred Germans came from that ethnic background, Jews were obviously over-represented among Communist leaders by as much as 5,000%. This seems to typify the sort of dishonesty and innumeracy I have regularly encountered among Jewish Holocaust experts.
So, like a capable defense attorney, Unz seems to be more interested in casting reasonable doubt upon the accusation that his clients are not telling the truth rather than flatly insisting that they are. This may be suitable in a court of law where the high bar to establish guilt corresponds to the high value we place on human life. After all, a perfectly guilty perp can walk if his attorney can prove that his accuser or the witnesses for the prosecution are unreliable. But when it comes to historical revisionism, in my opinion, this is approach is weak since everything the attorney is attesting could be true, and his client could still be wrong. Unz’s three points above are definitely true regardless of whether the Holocaust actually happened. This means that Holocaust denial really isn’t central to Unz’s position, but he never outright says so in his article. It would have been better if he had.
Unz does however say this:
Any conclusions I have drawn are obviously preliminary ones, and the weight others should attach to these must absolutely reflect my strictly amateur status. However, as an outsider exploring this contentious topic I think it far more likely than not that the standard Holocaust narrative is at least substantially false, and quite possibly, almost entirely so.
See how sneaky this is? Unz is not saying the Holocaust didn’t happen; he’s saying “the standard Holocaust narrative” is either partially or entirely incorrect. This means that Unz could claim vindication if it turns out only four million Jews were killed, or if the majority of the killing didn’t happen in concentration camps, or if the Soviets were responsible for half of it, or what have you. He’s careful to leave a lot of wiggle room to allow for multiple ways of being correct. Therefore, his conclusions from a pure factual standpoint strike me as timid, equivocal, and unconvincing.
In contrast to such defensive posturing, Cole’s methods are direct, forthright, and impossible to misinterpret. He takes a firm, positive stand and backs it up with an intimidating amount of research and knowledge. Regardless of what one thinks of Cole or the Holocaust, one must respect this. Cole finds errors in Unz’s approach (he refers to them as “lies”) and then smashes them mercilessly. Watching David Cole maul the arguments of Ron Unz is a little like watching seals getting clubbed to death; only, the seals in question represent what Cole sees as lazy or dishonest historical revisionism, and so deserve to die.
In response to Unz’s treatment of David Irving above, Cole writes:
That is a complete lie. A 100% complete lie, and if you ran it by Irving himself, he’d tell you so. Have you READ Hitler’s War? It’s not a denial book. Have you READ his Goebbels biography? It’s not a denial book, and it contains DOZENS of “documents relating to the Holocaust.”
In 1994, in his speech before the IHR international conference, Irving informed us that he had, in fact, recently authenticated arguably THE most important “document relating to the Holocaust,” Goebbels’ diary. From that speech:
More chilling is another diary entry a few weeks later. On March 27, 1942, Goebbels dictates a lengthy passage about another SS document that had been submitted to him, and which appears to have been much uglier in its content. “Beginning with Lublin,” he states, “the Jews are now being deported eastward from the General Government [occupied Poland]. The procedure is pretty barbaric and one that beggars description, and there’s not much left of the Jews. Broadly speaking one can probably say that 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated, while only 40 percent can be put to work.”
It’s a very ugly passage, and it’s easy to link this diary passage with everything we’ve seen in the movies and on television since then.
I’ve known Irving since 1991, and it bothers me to see his work so mischaracterized. His beef was not with “the Holocaust” (“Aktion Reinhard,” the Ostland exterminations, the Einsatzgruppen) but rather with the specific Auschwitz extermination story.
In response to Unz’s claim that the Holocaust “was apparently implemented without benefit of a single written document,” Cole writes:
Completely untrue. Himmler commissioned a census to lay out, by the beginning of 1943, how many Jews were still living, how many had emigrated before the war, how many were in camps and ghettos, and how many had been “dispatched” in 1942 via “special treatment” in the camps in the East (Treblinka et al). This figure also included the number of “todesfällen” Jews killed by the Einsatzgruppen in ’41. Altogether, this figure of “dispatched” Jews came to 2.4 million by April 1943.
Along with Himmler’s census, we have Stroop’s reports about sending Jews for “liquidation” at Treblinka, Kube’s reports of liquidations, and Himmler’s speeches at Sonthofen.
Cole also employs logic numerous times to dismantle Unz. For example, in response to Unz’s claim that Treblinka was merely a “transit camp,” Cole brings up Unz’s earlier claim about the lack of contemporaneous Holocaust documentation and asks why there would be no documentation if all they did at Treblinka was innocently transfer Jews.
Granted, Cole never gave Unz a chance to respond in the end. Still, after digesting tens of thousands of words on this, Cole’s arguments ring true to me more than Unz’s do. So, that makes it Cole one, Unz nothing.
Round 2: Advantage, Unz
David Cole
But there is another way to look at this, a way that the Dissident Right should not overlook. Ron Unz, by defending the right of Holocaust deniers to deny, is standing up against Jewish power, specifically, liberal diaspora Jewish power. He recognizes how destructive and insidious it is and wishes to shake two of its most fundamental pillars: the concept that Jews are always the victim and the concept that Jews are morally superior to white gentiles. If it can be proven that the Holocaust was an elaborate smear job, similar to what the Russo-Jewish Committee did to Tsarist Russia in the late nineteenth century, then much of the support and credit Jews get from gentiles would evaporate and their influence would begin to dwindle. This is why the majority of the hardcore Holocaust deniers appear on the Right: the outcome of a fraudulent Holocaust undermines the power of their enemies. Rarely do conspiracy theorists promote theories that threaten their own ingrained worldviews.
So from this perspective, Ron Unz is the hero in this struggle because he’s fighting the good fight. Holocaust denial as a factual claim is only one of the many weapons he uses. He also advocates for the right to deny, exposes the zealous hysteria and dishonesty of many Holocaust affirmers, and points out Jewish hypocrisy when Jews weaponize the Holocaust while ignoring the prior Jewish role in the Holodomor and the Gulag Archipelago.
Apologies for lifting so much text from Unz’s article, but he says it so well that his words should be preserved and remembered. His sources should be followed up upon as well:
Back in those late Cold War days, the death toll of innocent civilians from the Bolshevik Revolution and the first two decades of the Soviet Regime was generally reckoned at running well into the tens of millions when we include the casualties of the Russian Civil War, the government-induced famines, the Gulag, and the executions. I’ve heard that these numbers have been substantially revised downwards to perhaps as little as twenty million or so, but no matter. Although determined Soviet apologists may dispute such very large figures, they have always been part of the standard narrative history taught within the West.
Meanwhile, all historians know perfectly well that the Bolshevik leaders were overwhelmingly Jewish, with three of the five revolutionaries Lenin named as his plausible successors coming from that background. Although only around 4% of Russia’s population was Jewish, a few years ago Vladimir Putin stated that Jews constituted perhaps 80-85% of the early Soviet government, an estimate fully consistent with the contemporaneous claims of Winston Churchill, Times of London correspondent Robert Wilton, and the officers of American Military Intelligence. Recent books by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Yuri Slezkine, and others have all painted a very similar picture. And prior to World War II, Jews remained enormously over-represented in the Communist leadership, especially dominating the Gulag administration and the top ranks of the dreaded NKVD.
Both of these simple facts have been widely accepted in America throughout my entire lifetime. But combine them together with the relatively tiny size of worldwide Jewry, around 16 million prior to World War II, and the inescapable conclusion is that in per capita terms Jews were the greatest mass-murderers of the twentieth century, holding that unfortunate distinction by an enormous margin and with no other nationality coming even remotely close.
See the difference here? There’s no equivocation. No wiggle room. Instead, Ron Unz argues like a mensch in the way David Cole does above, making firm, positive claims, with only one avenue towards being right or wrong. Saying something this brazen is tantamount to daring someone, anyone, to try and refute you. Per capita, are Jews indeed the “greatest mass-murderers of the twentieth century”? Quite possibly, I would imagine. I would like to see evidence or arguments to the contrary.
But because David Cole doesn’t offer any, he’s the one who now seems timid and unconvincing. He focuses on the one aspect of Unz’s thesis he can refute and ignores the rest. Why? Does he tacitly agree with Unz when he describes Deborah Lipstadt and other Holocaust affirmers as hysterical incompetents? Does he tacitly agree with Unz that Holocaust deniers are essentially being denied their First Amendment rights for political reasons? Does he tacitly agree with Unz’s massive accusation against the Jews? Does he just surrender on every single point Ron Unz makes except for his rather soft Holocaust denial?
Further, after penning his extremely long article, Unz replied to Cole’s email with an additional 1500 polite words. In comment 395 of his article, he also corrected a pair of errors he had made. If this doesn’t indicate good faith, I don’t know what does. And for this, Cole poured a cauldron of profane spite over his head. In his follow-up email, which he posted on his blog, unsent, Cole calls Unz stupid three times, variations of dumb six times, a cretin, a dipshit, an asswipe, a shit-for-brains, an imbecile, a moron, and an idiot twice. He also describes Unz as “worthless” and speculates that he is mentally retarded. After reading such a jaw-dropping rant, one wonders if there are any English-language insults he didn’t use. Clearly, David Cole comes across as the villain here despite how clever or consistent his arguments are. Like anyone else Ron Unz could be right or wrong but he does not deserve this abuse; his classy demeanor and the amount of research he put into his article precludes it. Furthermore, Cole doesn’t seem to realize that he himself is A) proving Unz’s point that Jews tend to fly off the handle when the topic of Holocaust denial comes up, and B) living down to some of the more prevalent Jewish stereotypes (i.e., being stiff-necked, pushy, overbearing, etc.). Does he really think his complete lack of manners is helping his cause? Quite the opposite I would say.
For me, that makes it a one-to-one draw in this fascinating debate.
Spencer J. Quinn is a frequent contributor to Counter-Currents and the author of the novel White Like You.
30 comments
Would Goebbels describe the procedure of gassing Jews as “pretty barbaric” and “one that beggars description”? It’s easy to imagine that he is talking about families being torn apart, with those “liquidated” being anyone incapable of work (too young, too old, or infirm), forcibly separated from their loved ones, perhaps never to see them again, via trains to the East. Would not that constitute a “pretty barbaric” treatment as well?
For Cole to suggest the lack of documentation can only mean that very bad things happened at Treblinka isn’t very convincing. To answer Cole’s question, one need only imagine Zionist operatives embedded in American, British, or Soviet agencies getting their hands on said documents, and either destroying them or confiscating them to ensure the Treblinka narrative. There are many potential reasons for the destruction or confiscation of documents (perhaps the Germans destroyed them, or the Soviets have them hidden away in their archives somewhere, or they were misplaced?). In the end, physical evidence supporting the claims made about Treblinka ought to be easy enough to find, so why not go digging?
“Liquidation” is a Bolshevik euphemism for mass murder.
Do you think the Germans used it that way, as well? A furniture store down the street said they were liquidating their inventory, but I didn’t bother to see if that meant gassing and burning the furniture.
Yes, the Germans used it that way.
The Germans also spoke of eradicating Jews. People talk about eradicating poverty, but when they talk about eradicating weeds, or insects, or people, they don’t usually survive the process.
Mr. Johnson, what were your thoughts on Unz’ essay? I’d be very interested to know.
I have not read it. His 9-11 essay was pretty inconclusive though.
Greg, how familiar are you with the specific claims made about Treblinka? The accepted death toll of 750,000 could be easily and definitively proven with a ground-penetrating radar and geological survey of the area showing the location of the two mass graves capable of holding 700,000 bodies based on the contemporary eyewitness claims from the Jewish camp escapee.
From what I’ve seen, what little survey was done there shows what appear to be mass graves but they are small (meant for dozens or hundreds of bodies) and haphazardly positioned. When taken as a whole, they are nowhere near the total land area necessary to hold tens of thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands that were supposedly buried (and later exhumed and cremated) there. If Cole and others want to say that possibly tens of thousands were murdered there, I’d be perfectly fine with that but then the official narrative saying 700,000 were buried there would have to change.
Besides that there are numerous claims made about Treblinka and Sobibor by the main eyewitnesses that simply don’t add up. Would the Germans really dump 700,000 bodies within meters of Treblinka’s primary well? The camp’s fence was made mostly out of wood, and was only meters away from where the bodies were being cremated on open fires. Did the Jews involved in the cremation process never think to set the fence on fire to halt the whole operation? At Sobibor, initial escape attempts were supposedly foiled when their underground tunnel hit groundwater at a few meters, yet the same eyewitnesses claim there were burial pits much deeper for all the victims killed there. The land is flat and so one would expect the water table to be at the same depth throughout the camp. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg, the stories are so full of contradictions and unscientific observations (such as the bodies being blue after the cyanide poisoning when they’d be bright pink) that it beggars belief.
Nah, I’d say it’s actually pretty goddamn hard to imagine he’s talking about separating families when Goebbels says “pretty barbaric”. Barbaric means “like barbarians”. Did barbarians separate families? Or did they slaughter some and enslave the rest? An SJW might describe separating families as “barbaric” but Joseph Goebbels?
Keep in mind, Goebbels is a man who murdered his own children. And you really think he would get all weepy about Jews being split up from their families? So much so that he would describe doing so as “pretty barbaric”? So much so that he couldn’t even bring himself to describe it?
Tell me another one.
Anywho, David Cole addresses Triblinka at length in the post.
http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/5348
They weren’t just being separated, of course. They were also being sent to an unknown fate with nothing but the shirts on their back, to be dealt with however the Soviets pleased. That is barbaric enough on its own without getting into captured Soviet tank and submarine engine-powered gas chambers.
As I did with Greg, I must ask you Travis how much of the Operation Reinhard story you know, because the inconsistencies and outright contradictions in the small handful of eyewitness claims are too egregious and numerous to ignore, and the physical evidence for the same is lacking to say the least. Yet we’re told this is rock-solid evidence by the exterminationists.
But there are records of hundreds of thousands of Jews going to the so-called “transit” camps and none of them have been found alive afterward. Did they vanish into thin air?
Revisionists can’t produce the name of one Jew who is known to have been sent to these places and was living after the war. Instead they just avoid the question and seem to have an attitude of “I know the Holocaust couldn’t have happened, because something something gassing is impossible (??) so these Jews must be somewhere, just nobody happens to know exactly where.”
This is one of the main reasons Eric Hunt (who pretty much singlehandedly revitalized revisionism’s rotting corpse with his well-produced videos) turned away from revisionism, and then subsequently, myself as well.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If people want to claim millions of Jews who were sent to camps – which everyone who was at, including scores of Germans, said were extermination camps – were not killed, then where did they go?
Our movement and our right to survive does not hinge on whether or not the Holocaust happened, or whether it happened exactly as we’ve been told it did, anyway. The only thing that changes after weighing the evidence and realizing that revisionism is almost all factually indefensible is our being relieved of the burden of having to look like kooks and malicious conspiracy theorists to the vast majority of the people we are trying to reach.
I suppose Ben, you’ll be providing us with the names of the nearly 1.5 million Jews who were not killed at Majdanek? Recall that the Soviets initially claimed 2 million were killed there, then at Nuremberg they claimed 1.5 million. Now thanks to the work of revisionists the number is something like 60,000. According to your own logic, and the revised tally at Majdanek, there are 1,440,000 Jews initially thought to have died there that didn’t. Where did they all go?
Perhaps the initial figure was simply pulled out of thin air and there are not 1,440,000 names to track down at all? In fact, that is essentially what many exterminationists now claim (“oh, those numbers were just estimates and no respected historian truly believed them anyway, move along…”). Why would the numbers attributed to Operation Reinhard be any different?
Or perhaps they relocated and changed their names. Many changed their names from Yiddish to Hebrew after the war, should we count the dead Yiddish names as dead people? Where people fled and from where and using what name, things are difficult to track especially during and immediately after the chaos of the war. Israel alone demanded and received reparations for some 500,000 Jews who they claimed fled there during the war. One might be forgiven for presuming that if such a small country took in that many, that other countries closer to the conflict took in similar numbers, which added up easily cover those transferred through Treblinka.
Finding inconsistencies in numbers between 1946, when the fog of war was still very heavy, and current scholarship on the Holocaust, and making up theories in real time to cover holes in your other theories (they all changed their name to Hebrew now??) is not very convincing.
I really don’t want to debate the Holocaust though. I don’t care if you believe in it or not. I understand many don’t, and I know the futility of arguing about it.
Ben, I am genuinely curious. You had the brass to asked me, so now I am asking you: what you do with the 1.44 million Jews who the Soviets erroneously claimed were murdered at Majdanek?
If such a large number of Jews weren’t killed there, where did they come from and where did they go? What, in your opinion, was the basis for coming up with this number to begin with? Were these 1.44 million simply unaccounted for by census and the World Almanac prior to, and after, the war? Please explain to us how you account for all the Jewish lives that were retroactively wiped off the tallies attributed to Majdanek, Auschwitz, and the other camps.
Are you smoking crack or are you a troll? There are of course plenty of those infamous “Holocaust survivors” – why, one could actually think that “surviving” was the rule, not the exception? If the National Socialists really had a plan to kill all the Jews, they did an amazingly poor job. It is easy to kill people that you have in your power. Why was not the last Jew dead by say, lets be very generous, June 1944?
Look at the most famous concentration camp victim Anne Frank: She was in that notorious death camp Auschwitz for years but for some inexplicable reason was not gassed but transported west with the rest of the inmates when the Soviets drew near. She died of Typhus shortly before the end of the war. Her father was sick at the time and left behind in the camp hospital.
Whenever one looks at actual historical persons that were imprisoned in concentration camps, Jews or otherwise, the majority come out OK after the war or if they died the reason is documented (The main reason for death was disease, but also old age, allied bombing raids and a few were actually executed – but none in a gas chamber)
Originally the Holocaust memorial in Berlin was planned to exhibit the names of the six million Holocaust victims. But then suddenly this plan was dropped…
The key point is: The Holocaust victim narrative is not connected to the identities of actual historic persons, even though the massive amount of available documentation should make it straightforward to do so.
Someone appropriately placed could actually land a powerful blow against the holocaust narrative, all with perfect plausible deniability:
Initiate a research project, that tries to trace all persons that wer imprisoned in concentration camps with their waystations and their ultimate fate, i.e. whether they were released or liberated or whether they died there and for what reason. But divide the work up among several groups (Because of the size of the task this will likely be necessary anyways), so that no one will be able to see the puzzle in its entirety and be able to ring the alarm. Best use personnel that up until now was not directly connected to the Holocaust industry and so will more likely be naive in regard to the advisability of not probing too extensively. When the work is completed, merge the data from the teams into a database and put it online with a convenient front end as a humble service to the memory of the Holocaust. There will probably be some friendly mentions in the mainstream media. Then, after word gets around about the not quite political correct results that one gets by perusing the dataset, it gets suddenly pulled with some incongrous excuse. But, unfortunately, the dataset itself had been offered as a download (Of course encrypted with hashtags, so the data can’t be manipulated) and so the cat is out of the bag.
Of course this alone will not explode the Holocaust myth. But the problem with the Holocaust narrative is that it is so hazy and vague – this will give revisionists a solid base that now the exterminationists will have to explicitly attac and debunk, which of course they will not be able to.
Ben G.:
A good start would be to produce reliable numbers. I do know that during the war countless Jews were doing business and going about their lives in Germany. So where do these numbers of “hundreds of thousands” and “six millions ” or “eleven millions” come from?
That we are dealing with a major disinformation and black propaganda operation is quite clear from the history of the “six million”, a number we encounter even in the early part of the 20th century, only it was the Russians who were the bad guys.
Until there is a trustworthy basis for the numbers, dates, places, persons involved so on, the discussion ought to be quite free. In various European countries, even posing questions leads straight to prison.
This is the jewish tradition of Jewish Controlled Opposition explained by Gilad Atzmon, where two jews go at it with each other, keeping the goyim in awe as a spectator only, and then moves the cattle along again afterwards like nothing had happened when the smoke clears, making them feel that the topic has been thoroughly looked at.
as always, superb writing & analysis by Spencer Quinn! btw, for an entertaining, impressive, & comprehensive synopsis of David Cole (Stein)’s work explained by David himself, see Jim Goad’s Group Hug podcast, episode 20.
https://soundcloud (DOT) com/jim-goad/ep20
En masse sterilization and assassination of mental ill people really was effectuated in Nazi Germany?? Lebensraum and nazi experiments too?
Yes, it was. But there was such an out cry of disapproval of the policy by the “evil” German public when they found out about it, that the National Socialist government actually ended the policy.
“He’s careful to leave a lot of wiggle room to allow for multiple ways of being correct.”
What’s wrong with that? If he is just presenting the case for doubt and scepticism without taking a side, that’s perfectly legit.
I have grave doubts about David Cole (which is only one of serial pen-names), although I enjoy some of his articles.
As for this one, I have read Irving’s bio. of Goebbels, twice, I do not recall any clear mention of systematic mass-murder of Jews, let alone ‘twelve’, as ‘Cole’ claims.
Perhaps Irving has published a new version. He was certainly cowed by the illegal seizure of his archives, his cruel and physically injurious treatment (very gravely so) in prison in Austria, etc.
I know that he is a brave man, but take his words on some topics since as not sincere. It is not surprising.
Very much doubt that Irving would welcome the sight, much less the company, of ‘Cole’, although the latter is making much of a long-ago and slight connection.
Thank you for the kind offer.
I don’t think I am very vulnerable to doxing.
However, the book is in the public domain, and several transcriptions are on-line, so if you have a physical copy, you should treasure it, pass it on to family, or sell it for profit to a stupid collector.
Not that I dislike collectables, have a few myself, but despise the collector’s mentality (only concerned with owning the object, not with appreciating its content or form).
In any case, I had heard of it before, but thank you for the reminder, will read it soon.
Can’t speak for Cole, but what pissed me off about that article was not the holocaust denial itself. Like Cole, I’m a dissident Jew, but to the extent that Jewry’s interests are my own, holocaust denial won’t harm them. Nobody smart is going to believe it, the evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming. The problem is that Unz ‘s crap is going to fall down on everyone who writes for his site. Yeah, it’ll be “unfair” “guilt by association” but they’ll still have to deal with it. It reflects sh*t leadership, and sh*t leaders mean a losing movement.
Has anyone read Debating the Holocaust by Thomas Dalton? Its a really great book on Holocaust revisionism.
There can be no ‘absolute’ truth about events that took place in the past. By definition the past cannot be experienced. The only certain knowledge is experiential (one’s experiences). Accordingly, knowledge claims about the past are based on inferences from remnant documents and physical archeological remnants (e.g. bones) .
By way of an analogy: In jury trials the judge does not charge the jury to find indubitable guilt. Rather, the judge tells the jury that they must find guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” in a criminal trial or guilt based on the “preponderance of the evidence” in a civil trial.” The jurors having no direct experience (not being present when the alleged crime was committed); therefore, they cannot know for certain if the defendant is guilty. The best “judgment of the jurors is probabilistic (not certitude).
Similarly, regarding the “holocaust”, the best truth an historian can attain is probabilistic judgments. Readers of history cannot even rise to that level of knowledge. Readers of history books and articles, not have access to source documents or the knowledge and skill to analyze the docuemts, are relegated to ‘belief’ (do you know that there was an event in the past called holocaust or do you ‘believe’ there was such an event?)
This “debate” by Cole & Unz was engineered for our entertainment.
I think Cole was annoyed by Unz’s use of the term “Holocaust Denial” and “denier” (especially when applied to people like David Irving). In reality there is no such thing as a Holocaust Denier, because the Holocaust involves a lot more than gas chambers and official death tolls that no one can reasonably deny. David Irving certainly isn’t a denier.
The term Holocaust Denier is a wonderful example of how Jews manipulate public perception of their enemies by applying loaded labels to them. Let’s not fall into the trap of adopting these labels when discussing the Holocaust.
It was originally claimed that Jews were killed at Treblinka not by poison gas but by steam – https://codoh.com/library/document/2373/
One thing I’ve come to see over and over–Mr. Unz is a hands down genius.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.