David Cole & the Holocaust NarrativeBeau Albrecht
Imagine that you’re an organic dairy farmer in Pennsylvania, as trad as can be. One day, while you’re supposed to be milking the cows by hand, someone catches you at your side gig. Specifically, you’re working on your cloud-hosted Hyper-V cluster, adding a DNS reverse lookup zone to the Active Directory domain controller so the DHCP server can assign PTR records when it leases IP addresses. Obviously, your Amish brethren won’t cotton to that. They might shun you for apostasy, and perhaps stack one count of felony TCP/IP administration onto your sentence. Still, luckily for you at least the Amish Ordnungspolizei won’t put out a contract on you.
David Cole wasn’t so fortunate after a sacrilegious act of a similar magnitude in his own community, though at least he survived. He’s best known as a Holocaust revisionist. Since he’s Jewish, this makes him perhaps their biggest heretic since Jacob Frank. Note well: Revisionism isn’t a single counter-orthodoxy, but rather a range of interpretations. He rejects the polemical term “denier,” since he agrees with substantial facets of the story’s orthodox version. (Few would deny that any persecutions took place, which I concur would be an untenable position.) He believes that there were four death camps instead of six, for instance. Auschwitz is one of the alleged death camps that he identifies as having been only a labor camp — which, of course, happens to be the big banana in the mainstream account. The major problem is that, according to the Guardians of The Narrative, the Holocaust is a package deal, and no part of it may be questioned.
The heresy that started it all
In his younger days, he produced a documentary about Auschwitz that poked some big holes in the part of The Narrative described above. For a recap of the findings, Carlo Mattogno’s book Curated Lies: The Auschwitz Museum’s Misrepresentations, Distortions and Deceptions offers a good summary of that outing:
In the summer of 1992, the U.S.-American atheist Jew David Cole went to Auschwitz and recorded on video tape what the attractive young Polish tour guide there was telling him about the alleged gas chamber inside Crematorium I at the Auschwitz Main Camp. She claimed that everything David was seeing there was indeed authentic, genuine and in its original state (Cole 1993, starting at 9:47).
Later during his tour, David managed to interview Franciszek Piper, at that time curator of the museum’s historical archives. He confirmed in front of David’s camera that what tourists are seeing to this day is neither authentic nor genuine nor original. It was all “reconstructed” shortly after the war to look similar to what the Auschwitz Museum’s authorities claimed back then it would have looked when this place was allegedly used by the SS to mass murder Jews and other inmates with poison gas.
In particular the four holes in the ceiling of the purported gas chamber, through which the SS murderers ostensibly poured in the lethal Zyklon-B pellets, were confirmed by Dr. Piper to have been put into place after the war on orders of the museum authorities. Yet Piper insisted that they were put at exactly the same spots where the old, SS-made holes had been, as traces of these holes, which were supposedly filled up by the SS in 1943 or 1944, were allegedly still visible after war’s end (Cole 1993, 28:38-28:51).
One can see a tear developing in the narrative about the Auschwitz “Krema 1” alleged gas chamber in this video. When Cole asked the right questions, the response created a new dialectic on the fly, and I’ll fill in some of the details:
- Thesis: The original official narrative was that the “Krema 1” room was always a gas chamber, nothing more and nothing less.
- Antithesis: The revisionist findings are that the room was originally an air raid shelter. (There’s a lot of supporting evidence, among other things including a lack of cyanide compounds in chemical assays. Other interesting details are outlines on the floor suggesting wall partitions and an obvious toilet. Cole himself noticed a manhole, which was standard operating procedure for an air raid shelter, leading to an emergency exit in case the front door became blocked.) Then it was refitted after the war by the Soviets to look like a gas chamber by removing the partitions and the bathroom fixtures, and chiseling some holes through the fortified ceiling. The reconstruction included the ominous smokestack that, oddly, doesn’t connect to the building.
- Synthesis: The new orthodox narrative is that the room was originally a gas chamber, and then the Germans refitted it at some point to be an air raid shelter. After the war — as the new story goes — it was reconstructed to look as it did when it had been a gas chamber. (Occam’s Razor in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 . . .) Franciszek Piper seemed rather evasive during Cole’s interview, but he affirmed that it had been reconstructed, despite the tour guide claiming it was in its original condition.
Obviously, the Auschwitz video made a bit of a splash. So did other appearances, such as David Cole’s discussion two years later with Ernst Zündel. Among several noteworthy items, he presented a rare look into the Jewish community’s workings, which is more diverse than we generally give it credit for being. Also, he revealed how the usual alphabet soup foundations and other big Zionist pressure groups take it upon themselves to call the shots.
Cole’s meeting with Zündel was quite cordial, even if Cole’s autobiography Republican Party Animal gets slightly snippy about him in places. It certainly is an entertaining page-turner, but there are a few grating moments now and then. For that matter, I get the feeling that David considered himself the biggest brain among the revisionists. He certainly dished out a lot of criticism about many of the others.
Still, much to his credit, the book brings up the tremendous hypocrisy concerning Zündel’s ultimate fate. The People’s Democratic Republic of Canuckistan put him in solitary confinement (with the connivance of the American immigration authorities), then eventually arranged for his extreme rendition to Germany. He was no longer a citizen there, yet he got railroaded anyway for “crimes” committed outside of Germany – effectively, extraterritoriality in reverse — for which there is no affirmative legal defense; basically Kafka at his finest. However, “At the same time that Zündel was locked away in his tiny Toronto cell with no charge or trial, Canada had granted permanent residency and a teaching position to Léon Mugesera, the former Rwandan government official accused of having launched the Rwandan genocide of the early ’90s that cost an estimated 800,000 lives.” Precious, isn’t it? Oh, Canada!
The underground year
Because of these videos, as well as talk show appearances (often with rhinestone “skeptics” and mainstream media bottom-feeders), the Guardians of The Narrative made it personal. Ultimately he had to change his name due to very plausible death threats. Even after he quietly dropped out of the revisionist scene in 1995, the price on his head was increased to $25,000 in 1998. (Advertising murder-for-hire gigs online is illegal, but apparently the authorities had other priorities in this case.) As he states in his autobiography, this prompted him to recant disingenuously and pay off his tormentors. In a separate interview, he revealed that he haggled their initial $5,000 blackmail demand down to $2,200 —good one, Dave!
He then reinvented himself as David Stein. What follows is quite a dizzying story. (I’ll add that in his earlier years, he looked rather like the lead character in the Israeli sex comedy Lemon Popsicle. His love life would turn out to be about as troubled, too.) Unstable girlfriends feature prominently. They’re basically the starlet-wannabe types so common in Hollywood, who often have more issues than National Geographic.
Earlier he’d been too scrupulous to monetize his interest in history, but things changed. Short on cash, and after a girlfriend maxed out his credit cards and dumped him, he needed income. Using a couple of pseudonyms, he produced both orthodox and revisionist Holocaust material. (Playing both sides of the fence? What a clever bastard! Another good one, Dave; you’ve revalidated your Jew card!) This part of the autobiography gets a bit surreal:
I had to speak to a lot of professors over the phone, but I wasn’t going to be doing any media. There were times when the routine was frustrating, especially those times when this or that Holocaust history professor, not knowing that he was actually speaking to David Cole, would mention my old work with a sneering “yeah, that Jewish denier kid was actually on to something about Auschwitz, but we just can’t talk about that stuff publicly.”
I remember having a phone conversation with a professor from Boston University, a good customer, in which he was complimenting me on “Cal’s” film about Dachau. Somewhat solemnly, he said “You know, there are times I wish we could just tell the world that the ‘gas chamber’ at that camp was built by our troops after the war. But we can’t encourage denial.”
“Yes, too bad,” I replied, “we need to safeguard those secrets.” Meanwhile, in my mind I was throttling the lying prick.
Selling revisionist VHS tapes to Boomers didn’t earn him much money. On the other hand, it turns out that there’s no business like Shoah business:
My Tinbergen Archives mailing list had become a hot property. Although only about 12,000 names strong, it was aggressively sought-after because most of the names were West Coast Jews (the typical Jewish mailing list consists of the same old East Coast names). I was repped by Negev Direct Marketing, the largest Jewish mailing list broker in the world, and I was able to trade my list for dozens of others, including the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Museum of Tolerance, the World Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Historical Society, and the Jewish Foundation for the Righteous. I also made some decent cash by selling the list to Jonathan David Publishers, Elderhostel, and MBI. By the end of it, I had a mailing list that included the home addresses of Spielberg and Streisand (and filmmaker Wes Craven, who actually wrote a fan letter to “Tinbergen”).
David later branched out and made inroads into the film industry. He also began organizing Republican Party Animal events, which were a real-world manifestation of a Facebook group. He rose to high places within a nearly-underground conservative Hollywood club. Cole/Stein also became prominent in online political commentary, going considerably further with it than my own humble efforts since 2016. He met a number of Republican luminaries and fairly high-ranking Hollywood figures during this time. Doors kept opening for him. It’s amazing where someone with the right connections can go in just a few years!
Eventually, the party was over. The catalyst was his last ex-girlfriend, who left him for Tipjar Mike, a perennially penurious “alpha fucks” guitarist. In my opinion, David — who played the “beta bucks” role — had already been much too patient while their five-year relationship circled the drain:
It didn’t entirely end that abruptly. Chris’ conscience got the better of him, and he told me he’d known for months about what Rosie was up to. And I was faced with the cold realization that the thousands of dollars Rosie had taken off me the previous few months had been squirrel-style nut-storing . . . something to tide her over for her summer with Tipjar.
After monkey-branching to the guitarist of humble means, she had to do without the daily $200 lunches — apparently she’s a big eater with Los Angeles tastes — and the other perks accompanying continuous access to Jew money. (I doubt he’d be offended with me putting it this way, since he was every bit as blunt when writing about it.) Apparently, real life was a rude awakening for Ms. Princess Complex. Then she dumped Tipjar Mike after he fêted her with a $6.99 soup-and-salad lunch on Valentine’s Day. Che orrore!
No longer being maintained in the lifestyle to which she became accustomed, she blamed David for her reversal of fortune, even though she was the one who had pulled the plug on their relationship. Her next boyfriend, obviously recruited as a proxy, avenged the damsel-in-distress. Specifically, he tattled to their common social circle about David’s secret past as a Holocaust revisionist. Way to go, Sir White Knight!
While I was on the phone, I noticed the membership in the private Facebook “think tank” group dropping rapidly. Minus five. Minus ten. Within fifteen minutes, we’d lost twenty people. That was irregular. We never lost anyone before.
This omen was merely the beginning of the drama. The pearl-clutching mainstream Republican pussies were dropping him like a hot potato, all because of things he had done two decades prior. Even his friend Larry Elder conveniently forgot to pay him for a video editing job as agreed.
To me, this all looks quite familiar: the usual rush of lukewarm conservatives to disavow anyone ever caught treading a millimeter into forbidden territory. They’re scared witless of being called names by their opponents, as if that were a fate worse than death. They’ll fall all over themselves to cancel any of their own who strayed outside of “acceptable” opinion. That’s why they fall for the salami-slicing trick all the damn time. They’re like crabs helpfully pulling their buddies back into the fisherman’s bucket.
My take is that this serves as a lesson: If you do tread into forbidden territory, then the only thing to do after that is to keep moving forward until victory. David Cole tried to walk away quietly, recanting and even cutting a check to the people who tried to hire a hit man to rub him out. Still, his past caught up with him.
Since then, Cole has had to do his best to make lemonade out of lemons. He started the Big Infidel website, which later became Counter Contempt, but it’s been offline for some time. One of his ongoing pursuits is writing for Taki’s Magazine. There, he wrote about his earlier years:
I was beaten up on three separate occasions, but every time it was by the same group of thugs from an organization called the Jewish Defense League, run by a golem named Irv Rubin. When the beatings didn’t sway me, the JDL put a $25,000 bounty on my head in 1998. I changed my name and spent the next 18 years living as David Stein, making mainstream Holocaust films. I eventually became a conservative blogger whose work was carried by sites like FrontPageMag, the Daily Caller, and Fox News.
Granted, some of that might seem like backtracking on his part. To clarify, he also stated:
For the record, I never denied the Holocaust. My position was that Auschwitz was not an extermination camp, and the buildings displayed there as gas chambers are Soviet fakes. I never denied mass exterminations of Jews at camps like Treblinka and Sobibór.
It’s possible he might change his mind if he had a look at some of the research his fellow revisionists have done since he left the scene. On the other hand, as objective as he’s been in the past, I could still hardly blame Mr. Cole if he does not look into it or wish to comment further. He’s already come close to getting the ultimate penalty for heresy.
Speaking of the Operation Reinhard camps
For example, the 2006 documentary One Third Of the Holocaust by Dean Irebodd devastatingly picks apart the narratives about Treblinka, Bełżec, and Sobibór. It runs for over four hours, and I couldn’t summarize it properly without writing an independent review. To put things very briefly, the orthodox story claims that a million and a half Jews were gassed in Treblinka using the diesel fumes from a captured Soviet tank engine. Later, the decaying corpses were all dug up and incinerated, handily destroying the evidence. Fuel consumption was no problem, since the exhumed cadavers burned readily, and women were especially combustible.
Is the story starting to sound a bit flaky yet? Beyond physical and logistical impossibilities, which the Dean Irebodd video discusses in great depth, the problem is that most of the legends surrounding Treblinka and the other Operation Reinhard camps come from just a handful of eyewitnesses. Some are German confessions made under torture and other forms of duress, or obviously to avoid the death penalty by telling the Nuremberg judges what they wanted to hear. Even then, some slipped in clearly unbelievable details as a tip-off for anyone who cared to look into it later. Apart from those, there were a few Jewish ex-prisoners with an ax to grind. Although their accounts included obvious tall tales, they nevertheless were accepted into the orthodox canon.
Note well that there are a lot of powerful and influential people who don’t want you to see books and videos explaining the other side of the story. They don’t want you even to know that there is another side to the war propaganda that’s been endlessly rehashed long past its expiration date. For David Cole and Ernst Zündel (among several others), advocating revisionist positions meant having their lives turned upside down. In several “liberal democracies” in Europe that pride themselves on their freedom, disputing any elements of the orthodox Holocaust story is punishable by imprisonment.
What’s the big deal here? It’s hardly remarkable for historians to arrive at different conclusions about. It’s entirely possible to write a biography of Julius Caesar or even Genghis Khan that questions other versions without working oneself into a moralizing lather. Nobody goes to jail for arguing whether Napoléon was an asshole dictator or a great leader. Pinkos are perfectly free to say that Chairman Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and Fidel Castro were the good guys. (Heck, that’s nearly a qualification for a full professorship lately.) Remember, if an event in the past is held to be beyond question, and disagreement can be met with violence, ruination, or imprisonment, then it’s not history; it’s propaganda. No government has to pass laws to protect history, unless they’re trying to protect a lie.
The Holocaust narrative’s character
There’s a compelling argument that debate about the Holocaust is irrelevant, and even a distraction. The pressing matters of today do not hinge on what was or wasn’t happening eight decades ago. Even if the sufferings of Jews in the past were exactly as described, the argumentum ad misericordiam doesn’t grant Zionists license to engage in the usual sorts of bad behavior in perpetuity. That argument not only makes sense, it’s bulletproof. The problem here is that this isn’t a dispassionate debate which stays within the boundaries of formal logic.
The Holocaust has gone beyond an actual series of events and taken on the characteristics of an elaborate and very politically-charged narrative. It’s no longer merely a historical matter; it has become the stuff of legend. It coalesced from an inextricable mixture of actual facts, camp rumors, war propaganda, tall tales from former inmates, and a pungent whiff of smoke from the Moloch story. Thus, it’s hardly a surprise that there are so many exaggerations. It’s not even too much to think of it as a secular religion.
Like most legends, this one has changed over time. For instance, the soap, lampshades, and shrunken heads that I was told about in high school have been dropped from the story. (I wonder what my history teacher would have to say about that?) Lately, orthodox sources concur that the only actual death camps in the concentration camp system were located in territories later to be occupied by the Soviet Union — surely an odd coincidence. The plaque commemorating four million victims at Auschwitz was quietly changed to one million. (The Red Cross’ figure was 52,589.) But as fuzzy math would have it, the six million total remains unchanged. Despite all this, challenges to The Narrative are treated as heresy or blasphemy if they’re from unapproved sources.
The Holocaust is effectively the State of Israel’s foundational myth (sometimes piously called “ha Shoah” in Hebrew, including the definite article) to an even greater degree than the Aeneid was Rome’s national epic. This has certain practical implications. For one, it gave the Israelis license to run the Palestinians off their land. It justifies the ongoing shakedown payments from Germany. It also serves as a magical “get out of criticism free” card for bad behavior, and even I must admit they have a pretty high trouble-per-capita ratio. Anyone who dares criticize Zionists is “the next Hitler” and all the rest of it. It likewise allows Jews of a certain sort to present themselves as eternal victims, allowing them to ascend to the apex of the sociopolitical pecking order.
This is all tremendously useful, given the present anti-white “privilege” rhetoric, to which Zionists have contributed heavily. Ironically, Jews are the most “privileged” ethnic group of all, according to the economic statistics typically considered in such discussions. Moreover, they routinely practice the sort of ethnic nepotism that, for garden-variety whites, would be called “systemic racism” and penalized under anti-discrimination laws. Despite all that, they still get a free pass because of their prior persecutions. They have a constellation of lobbies, foundations, and “watchdog” outfits which generally enjoy a favorable relationship with governments. (Organizations formed in the interests of ordinary whites are called “hate groups,” of course.) Essentially, Zionists get to play the Victimization Olympics on God mode.
Apart than that, the Holocaust is the keystone of the “Good War” narrative. This became the national epic of that globalist empire sometimes called the New World Order. For the United States, this broader narrative served as a smokescreen hiding the FDR administration’ many misdeeds, such as unwisely saving their Soviet buddies, who turned against us shortly afterward, resulting in a decades-long nuclear standoff. For the Soviets themselves, their “Great Patriotic War” narrative was a distraction from their own towering heap of dirty laundry. It served as a smokescreen for the British government’s conduct of the war, when they spread democracy one bomb at a time. (Those who claim the moral high ground should try acting the part.) Moreover, the “Good War” business explained to the British public why they had to endure a generation of post-war poverty and lose their once-proud Empire.
The Holocaust is not merely a blood libel against the German people. There’s also a secondary result, one that has become more prominent in recent times. Namely — so goes The Agenda — the Holocaust is the underlying reason for why white countries shouldn’t exist, and why white people should eventually be crossbred into oblivion. After all, unique among all the races in the world, there’s a little Hitler in each of us, so we’ve all got to go: QED. The logic behind this six-megaton guilt bomb is a bit dodgy, of course. (For one thing, did they forget which side the US, Britain, and France fought on during the Second World War? We shouldn’t have bothered, most especially if that’s the kind of thanks we get.) Still, a lot of sneaky Zionists and ethnomasochistic sickos believe the collective guilt narrative, and unfortunately, some of them have considerable power and influence.
Finally, the Holocaust is also the justification for every lame reductio ad hitlerum argument that’s ever been made. Given all the things listed above, it seems pretty clear that this historical legend is no mere distraction. It’s not much of a stretch to think of it as something like the One Ring of Sauron.
Yes, revisionism is good for the Jews
Although it would be a tough sell, accepting revisionist findings would improve relations tremendously. Jews are told that in the 1940s their people were singled out for the deadliest, sadistic, and monstrous persecution by far in the entire history of the world. It occurred because the Germans were jealous of their moral superiority. Worse, non-Jews have unpredictable tempers that, without the least bit of provocation, will simultaneously turn their friendly neighbors into bloodthirsty fiends. This stuff is drummed into Jews from childhood onward. They’re told that this gruesome event defines them even more than their religion, their ethno-cultural identity, and certainly more than citizenship in their country of residence. Every time Hollywood comes out with a creatively sadomasochistic new spin on these events, it reopens these old wounds. It’s difficult for the rest of us to imagine what unending mental anguish all this must create.
Worse, it tends to inspire paranoia to believe that the knives can come out all at once and for no reason whatsoever — and maybe it’s only a matter of time before IT happens again. Their above-average neurotic traits will exacerbate this feeling. The resulting collective paranoia will motivate some of them to organize and then figure out sneaky, manipulative, and destructive ways to destabilize their host countries and gain the upper hand “just in case.” (Obviously a prime example is agitating for open borders, which their lobbyists have a pattern of doing everywhere except Israel.) Every step that their host population takes toward reasserting their sovereignty will be considered a step closer to the dreaded gates of Auschwitz. The problem is that sneaky, manipulative, and destructive stuff has a way of getting noticed, and tends not to win hearts and minds. This in turn causes a lot of friction that wouldn’t have existed otherwise. Come on, just stop doing that.
How would their perspective be different if they accepted revisionist findings? First of all, it should come as a relief that the grim death toll that everyone has heard so often was basically a journalistic trope created long before the war. In actual fact, this prediction of a frightful outcome turned out to be a drastic overestimate. Massive internments did occur which were an unfortunate reaction to considerable and avoidable friction which made them appear to be security risks. Still, these labor camps were not intended to be death factories. Jewish casualties did occur there and elsewhere, but mainly from wartime conditions and their aftermath. Major causes included malnutrition, typhus, exposure, combat, Allied strategic bombing, and so forth — fairly similar to the perils suffered by other civilian populations caught up in the deadliest war in history.
Again, it would be a very tough sell. Still, an accurate understanding of these events would tend to encourage them to become peace activists. That’s hardly objectionable, and in fact it’s badly needed now that America’s Commander-In-Cheat can’t tell the difference between the nuclear football and his rubber ducky.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
 For countless visitors, this prominent feature looming over the horizon must surly have been their first impression as they approached Auschwitz. Imagine, if you will, the dread upon contemplating the unfathomably terrible war years when four million innocent souls, prematurely snuffed out, departed into the heavens through the belching smoke emerging from that very monstrous spire of Moloch! It’s unlikely that many of the visitors went off the guided path of the tour to look behind the “gas chamber,” because they then would have wondered why the infamous smokestack didn’t adjoin the building.
This was obviously erected by a construction crew that hadn’t been told what it was for, probably in sparse instructions like “Go build a huge smokestack over there.” In Soviet military culture, following orders to the letter was what mattered, and one couldn’t be blamed for the result if the orders lacked clarity or just didn’t make sense. On the other hand, if they had subcontracted the job to a local construction crew, then perhaps there’s a kernel of truth in Polack jokes.
Prioritizing Prestige Over Accomplishment: Britain from 1950 to 1956
Will Woke Capital Soon Go the Way of the Dinosaur?
Úryvky z Finis Germania Rolfa Petera Sieferleho, část 3: Nové státní náboženství
Biden and Bibi
The Worst Week Yet: May 21-27, 2023
How Much Would Slavery Reparations Actually Cost?
Úryvky z Finis Germania Rolfa Petera Sieferleho, část 2: „Věčný nacista“
Úryvky z Finis Germania Rolfa Petera Sieferleho, část 1
Interesting to see this published on Counter-Currents.
I remember Greg Johnson declaring something to the effect:
“You can either make WWII revisionism or defend the White Race. I opt for the latter.” (not his exact words)
I agree with Beau Albrecht:
Without debunking the Jewish “Holocaust” narrative, we will never be able to defend the White Race.
No, I never said it was one or the other. I said that revisionism is simply not necessary. So I certainly disagree with your final statement.
Bingo! The big H is the ultimate narrative. Everything flows from that. Enoch Powell’s speech came about when “Did 6 Million Really Die” was published. The whole thing has become a propaganda war. Even the trans thing takes a Holocaust-like defensiveness. It always was just a narrative against whites who want to defend their own communities.
If Britain’s latest PM is ‘British’, then, why are people in India celebrating? Because Sunak is Indian, he is not British. When are the British going to wakeup?
The Tories have been trying to out-left the lefties, and that’s how they ended up with the PMs they did, which in the latest instance is someone who isn’t even British. The real reason is that they don’t work for the people; they work for the globalists.
The British people have been awake for a long time. After Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech in 1968, a Gallup poll was conducted to judge public opinion. A whopping 74% of Brits favored Powell’s comments, with only 17% opposed.
Similar results have been noted in other countries whenever the question is posted, which is why questioning is so rarely done.
“It’s possible he might change his mind if he had a look at some of the research his fellow revisionists have done since he left the scene. On the other hand, as objective as he’s been in the past, I could still hardly blame Mr. Cole if he does not look into it or wish to comment further.”
Cole has, in fact, had a look at that research, and he vehemently disagrees with the conclusions of his fellow revisionists (whom he calls “deniers”). He has expressed these views both in his former Big Infidel/Counter Contempt blog and in a series of YouTube videos he has been posting since 2020.
I should probably clarify that Cole doesn’t disagree with the conclusions of all of his fellow revisionists, nor does he label all of them “deniers” — just the ones who have reached different conclusions from his regarding “one third of the Holocaust”, like Dean Irebodd (or “Denierbud”). The ones he’s more or less in agreement with are David Irving and Mark Weber.
The Irebodd video is quite devastating. He shows who the sources are and what they say, he does the math. The official story the world was told about Treblinka, Belzec, and Sobibor was a big fairy tale. I’d even review the video, if there is sufficient interest and editorial approval. On the other hand, if someone rebuts the video point by point, I’d be willing to look it over.
From what I’ve read, Cole considers the fact that Treblinka was decommissioned to be proof of everything said about it. He also mentioned some documents (I can’t speak to the provenance of them) which generally indicate evil intent, though by themselves seem rather weak. Personally, I think he’s avoiding the revisionist position, and I hardly could blame him since he got a $25,000 price on his head for his revelations about the Auschwitz “gas chamber”.
The trial of the commandant of Treblinka occurred during 20 minutes of discussion in the Nuremberg Schauprozess. Most of the discussion was a prosecution “eyewitness” who the defense declined to cross examine. If you put it all together, obviously there wasn’t a strong case here, and this smells like the defendant cut a deal to let them just put it on the record effectively with no contest. Otherwise, since when does someone get a 4.5 year sentence for killing 1.5 million people? Not even O.J. Simpson could pull off something like that.
I remember watching 1/3rd of the Holocaust years ago. Back in YouTube’s free, Wild West, days. What times those were. I never knew the distorted voice was identified. Have to look his story. He did a lot of work on that series.
Cole has pretty good political instincts and Republicans in more left leaning states could win more by paying attention to him. But he’s gone over to the pro-holocau$t side now. Doesn’t pay to tell the truth about that issue and you’ve got to be pretty tough and financially secure to do it. He still thinks he’s got a chance to get a foot in the door but that will never happen. Even Steve Bannon ripped him as a “denier”.
Great article Beau. I always enjoy your writing. David has a piece from yesterday at Taki that would almost serve as a great companion piece to this if you haven’t already read it. I sometimes grow tired of his “listen up, Q-tards, follow my path to victory or else” schtick but I still read him weekly.
I agree, this is another solid and informative article from Beau Albrecht.
I used to look forward to Cole’s articles, but his writing has been deteriorating over the years. More often than not now, I don’t get any farther than the title or a few sentences. All he does is sneer and jeer. A little bit of that is okay, and maybe even funny, but it quickly becomes tiresome. He should just try to shed some light on whatever subject he’s writing about. I wonder if a comment section would help to keep him in line?
This is exactly why I don’t even bother with Taki’s. The writers are spared any challenge and Cole could sure as hell use some. “Sneer and jeer” indeed. Always the smartest guy in the room, but only because no one else is allowed in. (And yes, I know Taki has a paid comments section. We all got kicked out for (((noticing))).
Yes, back in ca. 2015-17 there was a Golden Age at Takimag, in the comments sections especially. So many well-informed, well-read commenters there opened my eyes to truth, more than the essay writers did. Some of the latter were very good too, including Jim Goad. And frauds like Gavin McInnis were held to account somewhat in the comments. I remember McInnis got very agitated more than once by commenters pounting out uncomfortable truths. From what I understand, Taki’s daughter killed the goose that was laying golden eggs. I very rarely darken their door anymore.
Like the Scientific Method, Historical/Holocaust Revisionism should be thought of as a process and not as an outcome.
This requires a willingness to accept dialog (including with the enemy) and certainly freedom-of-speech, assembly, and of conscience ─ which implies freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion.
(I personally have zero faith in the old rites or superstitions to save us, either individually or as a race. That is how we got to the pickle of where we are. Of course, your mileage may vary, and I respect that.)
The viewpoint of Holocaust theologians like Deborah Lipstadt is that those whom she calls Deniers are simply obscene. Full stop.
The illiberal corollary to that ─ which Prof. Lipstadt will deny ─ is that Deniers or Denial should be silently silenced. The postwar Germans are particularly vigilant about doing this, but so are the Canadians and most other advanced countries. This is a fundamental problem that isn’t going away.
It goes directly to the heart of the so-called Jewish Question itself.
If you step outside of the Kosher safe space you get squashed like a bug. Or to use another metaphor, the FLAK implies that you are flying over the political target.
Whatever did or did not happen during World War II, the case for what the Columbia-educated historian Harry Elmer Barnes called “Globaloney” has been staked on the iron premise that a certain German Freiwilliger extrajudicially gassed Jews just for their religion or race.
Ultimately this has crucial implications for history, nationalism, race, culture, and for the truth itself.
“Nazi Gassings” is not an irrelevant question that can be avoided.
I can by Coel’s figure of 3-4 million Jews murdered by Nazis. The idea that ‘only’ 200k died and all due to typhus seems absurd to me.
There’s a certain kind of Jew obsessive who seems to think that the Shoah didn’t happen…but it should have!
For the record, I’m not out to get anybody.
I wasn’t implying that you were.
I have never been one to dicker about whether the Holocaust happened or not, or about the head count (6 million, by the way, is half the population of Los Angeles County — the largest county in the U.S. — plus or minus a large number of uncountable illegal aliens), but what I have never had explained to me was “The Why” of the German people in 1939+ not stopping the roundup, or else turning their backs completely on the whole mess — i.e., “not my business”.
Now, ‘Something’ had to happen to arouse the ire and/or the complete disinterest of the German people in their plight, despite the fact that the country was obviously heading to war,
What exactly had the Jews done or not done to give rise to this obvious disregard of their special plight — being placed on trains and moved ‘out of town’ at the least? Surely there were enough relatives of ordinary Germans who were engaged in the building and furnishing of the prison camps, and the rounding up and transporting of 6 million people from here to there, in plain sight. Enough German people had to be aware. So, why did they not raise alarms?
What exactly happened in this prelude to War, from the years 1917 — the end of WI — to the late ‘thirties — to make the German people engage in “Crystal Night” in 1939, and such oblivious actions until 1945?
I do not expect any specific readers of this post to answer this question — and I am sure there are many well-read and scholarly persons within our readers to indeed answer this question — but I do not want you to place your name (or other identity) on paper because of the nasty things that have ensued to those who write on this subject.
But, please, can you anonymously list some books on the subject? I have a history of the Weimar Republic, but it says nothing of Jewish involvement in the running of that government.
My biggest hint as to the cause of the Holocaust — “the cause that cannot be named” — has to do with banking. Am I onto the right backroom follies?
Things like this do not happen without a cause. I cannot believe that all the German people just awoke one morning and said: “Gee, let’s just kill all the Jews”.
So, are there some books that point to the answer? Thank you.
This goes into some of the problems that came up during that time:
If one is interested in the Holocaust question, a must-read is:
Thomas Dalton, Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides (Castle Hill: 2020).
My take is that, basically, Jews were not considered Germans by Hitler and the Nazis, given their disloyalty during the First World War. They were or were considered Communists and rootless cosmopolitans who eschewed nationalism, except their own.
In Mein Kampf, Hitler explains this quite well and sizes up Zionism dead center by remarking that Jews for the most part had no interest in living in Israel ─ but the Diaspora would use a sovereign ethnostate as a home base for Global mischief and subversion, a place to run to like gangster Meyer Lansky whenever caught swiping from the Gentile cookie jar.
Even the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill in his famous February 8, 1920 article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald on the subject noted that Jews were torn between Zionism and Bolshevism, which was “a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people” in his words. Churchill suggested that they be Zionists instead of Bolshevists, and he sold his own soul to serve those Zionists at the expense of his own race and nation.
When the Nazis came to power in 1933 after long having a plurality in the Reichstag, the first thing that they did was dismiss Jews from civil service positions and professions that they had monopolized like the Law and the Press.
The 1935 Nuremberg Laws went farther and took German citizenship away from Jews, and the official policy was to have them eventually self-deport from Germany, until the outbreak of war put everything on hold. Jews were legally defined as someone having 3/4 Jewish blood or 1/2 if also practicing the Jewish religion or having a Communist pedigree. The late Harvard-educated diplomatic historian Prof. David L. Hoggan has covered this in various works.
During the war Jews were considered enemy aliens and a potential Fifth Column. Many of them were conscripted for forced-labor as Germany had a severe and almost insurmountable labor shortage. And, as in the previous war, Germany was under a total continental Allied hunger blockade ─ enforcement of which also applied to neutral countries, which is how German troops ended up in Denmark and Norway.
Impressing the Jews for forced-labor, of course, was a cruel fate ─ but nothing compared to what was normal for the Soviet system in peacetime. The Soviets had been ruthlessly executing a full-blown arms buildup aimed against the Continent since 1928, what Stalin called “Socialism in one country.”
In the United States, enemy aliens were likewise interned after the Pearl Harbor attack, including naturalized Japanese living on the West Coast ─ but they were not subjected to forced-labor nor necessarily had their families broken up in the process. So Jews do have an axe to grind, and European Jews paid a heavy price for the “cosmopolitan” Jews who wanted war with Germany by any means and at any cost.
In 1941, aviator Charles Lindbergh of the America First Committee argued that the three interests pining hard for American entry into the war were 1) British agents, 2) the Roosevelt regime, and 3) the Jews. Prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, the American people were overwhelmingly against entering the war ─ and FDR publicly lied with profuse promises to keep them out of it.
Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler originally wanted to kill two birds with one stone by dealing with Germany’s legitimate security threats and also finding a pool of labor to exploit for the war-effort. However, many of those impressed were not too fit for heavy work. Keeping mortality down under these circumstances became an administrative nightmare ─ but Himmler made it a priority and Armaments Minister Albert Speer, who carefully husbanded all German-controlled resources, confirms this.
At the 1946 Nuremberg Trials, Speer was sentenced to twenty years. He was in deep with respect to forced-labor but denied having any knowledge at the time of the extermination of the Jews. Since he did not deny its reality postwar, he became a star Allied prosecution collaborator and therefore did not hang.
There was never any intention to exterminate the Jews, and Speer knew it, of course.
Nazi Gassings Never Happened!
Similarly, Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring knew that there had been no extermination order or policy ─ but he did not know everything that Himmler might have been up to in the concentration camps and what actually caused the breakdown conditions that were found in them at the end of the war.
Of course, Hitler never gave any such extermination order, as WWII expert and Hitler historian David Irving noted in his monumental Hitler’s War (1977). This purported to be every wartime meeting and memo that hit Hitler’s desk from the time that the war began until the last shot went through his brain.
I have quizzed David Irving about the newer Reinhardt Camps thesis, and I do not believe that he believes it. He just won’t touch it directly because he got his fingers burned going after Deborah Lipstadt, whom he unsuccessfully sued for libel after she declared him a Holocaust Denier (her coinage) in her 1994 book, which triggered a Jewish publishing boycott. It was all-hands-on-deck because “Battleship” Auschwitz had taken a dangerous torpedo to its sacred bow. In 1988, Irving actually appeared as a witness for the defense in the second Ernst Zündel heresy trial in Canada. That is what made him anathema as a popular historian.
When asked, Irving would not go any farther elaborating on what Israeli spook Yitzhak Arad (1987) calls the Reinhard(t) “pure extermination camps” thesis, other than to show a copy of the silly Höfle telegram. We’ve had quite a few discussions about this sketchy evidence over at the RODOH forum.
I have not yet read Irving’s recent biography of Himmler, but I’ve read nearly all of his other stuff and attended many of his lectures. I have read most of the memoirs of Hitler’s generals. David Irving is not and has never claimed to be a Holocaust historian. The only reason that Irving is today labeled a Holocaust Denier is because he brazenly republished and disseminated the pathbreaking 1988 forensic report on Auschwitz by Fred A. Leuchter, which was commissioned and largely written by the late Prof. Robert Faurisson. After the Zündel trial, to his personal misfortune, Mr. Irving thought the difficult gassing subject was worthy of a debate.
The Leuchter Reports “Critical Edition,” edited with notes by chemist Germar Rudolf is highly recommended.
I don’t know exactly what Mark Weber thinks about the Big-H nowadays either. His interview with podcaster Jim Rizoli tried to establish this ─ and it was quite instructive for not saying anything. Weber cancelled the Journal of Historical Review, which wasn’t making any money, and sold the IHR mailing list, and the Institute for Historical Review dropped Holocaust Revisionism entirely. They still have the great journal and some good historical articles archived at their website, and a decent Rightwing news aggregator.
Of the trinity of Revisionist Lite ─ Irving, Weber, and Cole, the latter has been much more upfront than the others ─ writing a lively autobiographical book that covered his changing views and “answering your damn questions” on humorous YouTube videos from time to time, the most recent just a few days ago.
Nobody really knows how many Jews died during the so-called Holocaust.
As Prof. Arthur R. Butz, who laid out a summary case against the Exterminationist thesis, noted almost five decades ago, (quoting him roughly) “census figures are not always accurate and Jews don’t like to be counted.”
Jews don’t even like it when non-Jews such as the LDS Church (the Mormons) collect genealogical data that could be used by honest researchers to establish ballpark figures and information on actual WWII Jews who went missing.
In 2003, Israeli demographers were saying that there were still a million living Holocaust survivors worldwide, which begs the question as to who did Hitler actually kill. Especially in wartime, there are many ways to end up dead or missing.
Revisionists don’t say that all missing Jews died of typhus either, but certainly many did.
As the eminent bacteriologist Dr. Hans Zinsser noted in his 1935 classic, Rats, Lice and History, Jewish immigrants living in interwar New York City still carried the recrudescent typhus pathogen in their bloodstreams (Brill-Zinsser disease) even though they were not currently infested with the disease “vector” (body/clothing lice) from the old country.
We know that many millions died from exanthematic typhus in the Balkans, Poland, and Russia during and between both World Wars. These are rough estimates.
Medical History – 37 (1993), pp. 361-381.
The official worldwide death toll for the 1918 Spanish Influenza was long thought to be about 22 million ─ but near the turn of the 21st century, the “official” number was revised upwards to be between 50 million and 100 million.
Where were they hiding before we knew statistically that they were dead?
The late Holocaust doyen, Prof. Raul Hilberg of the so-called “Functionalist” or improvisational school of Nazi Genocide, said (1961) that only 5.1 million Jews were killed. Hilberg placed the number of dead at Auschwitz at about one million ─ the Communists at that time had it pegged at 3-4 million for Auschwitz, and originally 3 million for Treblinka, plus 1.5 million at Majdanek, and so on.
But Hilberg had rejected the “Intentionalist” thesis. In 1985, Hilberg was called as an expert Holocaust witness, and he was asked some very uncomfortable questions by Ernst Zündel’s defense team during his first heresy trial in Canada.
Any figure less than Hilberg’s 5.1 million Holocaust death total will likely get a plausible expert or credible historian tossed into jail as a Denier in most advanced countries today ─ unless you have very good Leftist credentials or otherwise strongly profess your Faith in the Nazi Genocide.
For example, journalist Fritjof Meyer claimed in a May, 2002 article published in the academic journal Osteuropa that only about a half-million died at Auschwitz, including about 350 thousand by lethal gas.
Meyer was an editor of the popular Der Spiegel in Germany, which refused to publish his work ─ but unlike David Irving or Germar Rudolf, who doubted the Holocaust canon and the homicidal gassings themselves, Meyer was not jailed. You see, Leftists can’t be Haters.
I don’t know what David Cole truly believes on the Big-H, but based on statements from his YouTube videos, he seems to think that the Nazis destroyed all evidence of mass-murder at the Reinhardt Camps somehow, and without a trace. Not even a chipped tooth to be found at Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka ─ nothing. Gone is the skepticism that Mr. Cole had at the end of the Cold War during the heady Auschwitz investigation days.
All we see at the Treblinka site today is a kitschy postwar memorial and the large pit where gravel at the small wartime labor camp was quarried.
After the war it was proclaimed that every camp that had cans of commercial Zyklon-B pesticide kicking around was proof that the Nazis gassed Jews “on their way to the showers.”
In 1946, Dr. Bruno Tesch, one of the inventors of Zyklon-B, along with his business partner, Herr Karl Weinbacher, who sold Zyklon-B pesticide to the German government, were hanged by the British for mass-murder. The irony is that the invention of the Zyklon-B pesticide itself probably saved millions of lives ─ and to that end, the Germans probably could have used lots more of it.
The narrative that Zyklon-B alone proved Nazi mass-murder fell apart soon enough, but the six-million figure remains carved in stone. Before long all of the “Death Camps,” in contrast to penal and other labor camps, were conveniently under postwar control in Communist Poland and could not be investigated. In the day, investigator Fred Leuchter was taking a considerable risk.
In a very revealing 1989 tome where he tries to argue that nearly a million were gassed at Auschwitz because homicidal gassings were (contra Faurisson) not technically impossible, the French pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac had to admit, while genuflecting furiously in all the right directions, that most of the Zyklon-B sent to Nazi camps was never used for homicide. In other words, according to Pressac, nearly all of the available Zyklon-B fumigant gas was used by the Germans in the camps for actual fumigations and not homicide.
We do not know how many Jews died during the war, not from disease nor from any other exact cause. But according to the late Fritz Berg, “Nobody Was Gassed!” And unlike Fred Leuchter, Friedrich Paul Berg had real engineering credentials.
Mr. Berg was physically attacked for his views. Mordechai “Mark” Levy, a nutter who founded the JDO (Jewish Defense Organization) attempted to stab Berg at an anti-Communist demonstration in New York in 1979 ─ and just a decade or so ago, an elderly (((neighbor))) in Phoenix tried to run Berg over while he was walking his dog. The motorist ended up crashing his car into his own garage and arrested.
Berg was not seriously hurt in either attack, but the criminal justice system was far more lenient to those resorting to physical violence against Revisionists than most modern countries would be today ─ ostensibly fighting the so-called Hate Speech of “Deniers.” After the ordeals suffered by scientist Germar Rudolf and German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel, Fritz Berg knew better than to travel to Thoughtcrime-enforcement countries like his beloved Germany.
Recently, a lot of White Nationalists and the Dissident Right have expressed uninterest in the vile knife attack last August on Salman Rushdie (who long ago published something that Muslims didn’t like). Irrespective of the merit (or lack thereof) of Rushdie’s creative work, physical assaults are not an argument and cannot be tolerated by a civil society. Freedom of Speech exists for this very reason, i.e., that some ideas, and even the truth, might not be too popular.
Prof. Robert Faurisson, David Cole, and Fritz Berg were all physically attacked for voicing “offensive” views on the Big-H. They were skeptics who expressed forbidden doubts and sought the unwashed truth. Evidently neither side thinks such matters are a waste of time.
Excellent comment! Very informative.
The issue with the Holocaust is not objective truth. It is control of the narrative. We have learned a lot about the importance of narrative in the last few years. Those early revisionists were ahead of their time, and they are unsung heroes.
Although the Truth is always the right answer ─ and it must absolutely govern how history is revised, as would be the case with any scientific discipline ─ we should not forget that who controls the Narrative, how and why, is very much the key.
A Marketplace of Ideas implies an actual marketplace for ideas, not just for the “safe” ones.
The early Revisionists tended to view the Big-H as a house of cards that required only the “crucial” argument, or unveiling that one jumbo fact, to completely hit critical mass and finally topple the Big Lie.
But at this point, with over fifty years of serious Revisionist scholarship, the lack of necessary information is not really the stumbling block. Even in Draconian Thoughtcrimes countries like Germany, it is not that hard to find out at least some important Revisionist arguments on the Big-H.
That is why they fear these ideas so hysterically; a little goes a long way against the absolute legitimacy of the Good War in general, and the credibility of these postwar regimes themselves.
I have had many discussions with Mr. Berg on this problem. To the day that he died he was of the opinion that the masses were just too stupid and would never be able to understand any basic engineering or scientific arguments, especially when applied to this particular historical problem.
Therefore, he was always looking for some kind of secret sauce where the concepts were made available to the ordinary Joe and Jane ─ maybe using some kind of slick, sexy marketing package for Revisionism or something like that.
The problem is that when you dumb-down scientific concepts far enough, all you have left is meaningless babble. So you have, for example, Leftists touting that “Science is Real” without having any clue as to what the definition of Science itself is.
And you have defaults like the news media and politicians seriously trying to argue, for example, that Greta Thunberg taking a sailboat instead of a fossil-fuel powered jet airplane is going to stop every severe weather event. If only we all recycled our plastic grocery bags like they do in California. Oh no, you’re ruining my future!
During the Covid lockdowns when nobody was driving their cars, the smog in Phoenix actually cleared up. The brown cloud was gone and the blue Southwestern skies looked like they did fifty or sixty years ago. The actual “carbon footprint” might not have been changed very much by Covid, because people were still using electricity and air conditioning, etc., but the Globalist narrative that the latest flood or hurricane was “caused” by Tesla electric cars not being adopted more universally on the roads in First World countries, is not even a real argument compared to something tangible like photochemical smog or mercury pollution, or the CO2 acidification of the sea water.
So the mass-media Narrative is THE crucial factor for the Big-H, and Revisionists are slowly but methodically doing the scholarship and publishing the work.
I also don’t think that it is going to be possible to ignore this subject either, because at some point WN will always run directly into the JQ. Any time a Jew loses a fingernail it is a 6M scale pogrom. For a Gentile just to question them is “another Shoah.”
Why should the corporate mass-media, and higher education, and all manners of the global machinery itself, be owned and controlled by a minority of any kind? If we White Nationalists can’t talk about the Joos without skirting the limits of Hate Speech, just imagine what it would be like if we could never dare question the Mormons or the Moonies. That would be laughable.
For one thing, did they forget which side the US, Britain, and France fought on during the Second World War?
Did you forget who pushed all the buttons to turn about America from a state of electing the candidate who promised neutrality into all in? Did you forget who helped Churchill out of his drunken gambling loser state into the mighty Liberty Champion?
How should I sugarcoat this a bit. Do not for a a second believe that they think they owe you anything for your efforts. You labor, fight and die for what you are told, when you are told, slave.
Exactly! Not to know the enemy’s mindset leads to gross miscalculation and frustrated expectations. They consider us chattle and no amount of sycophancy will change that.
Thank you Beau for the excellent review. I was going to review the book myself, David Cole is an interesting personality. I have read some of his articles and I enjoy these articles. Just like I enjoy reading Jim Goad’s articles. Both of authors are published by Feral House. Will you be reviewing other books from Feral House? I have several of their books.
I wasn’t planning on any reviews from them in a near time frame. You might also put in your take on Republican Party Animal, as it’s a good book and there’s a lot I didn’t describe.
Phenomenal article. Too much packed jn here to comment on it all but the part about why white countries can not exist because of this hoax is the most salient
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.
Edit your comment