A Jewish revisionist’s visit to Auschwitz
By David Cole (October, 1992)
When I decided last September to take a well-deserved vacation, I thought, what better destination than Europe. After all, as a Revisionist I’d always felt it my duty to see the concentration camps in person. My girl-friend, though, said that she’d like to go to Europe to visit Euro-Disney, the new Disneyland theme park in France.
So I thought for a while about where to go: Auschwitz or Euro-Disney. And as I looked around, and saw the miserable state of the world and this country, the political and social malaise and depression, I realized that if I did take a vacation, I wanted to go to a place as far away from reality as possible: a fantasy land of wondrous fairy tales.
So, of course, I chose Auschwitz.
Now that I’ve gone through the Auschwitz main camp, Auschwitz-Birkenau, Majdanek, Mauthausen, and Dachau, I feel more secure in my position as a Revisionist that there exists no convincing evidence that Jews or anyone else were taken en masse into gas chambers and killed by the Nazis at these camps. In fact, the remains that I inspected at the camp sites seem, in many different ways, to directly contradict these claims.
I returned to the United States with more than 25 hours of video footage from the camps. At Majdanek I uncovered obvious tampering with the buildings exhibited as gas chambers. This evidence was discovered when my attractive camerawoman busted a lock and got into a room that is not open to tourists. There we were able to view several items in their original state, most notably the doors, which were clearly constructed to latch from both the outside and the inside.
The high point of my visit, though, was my interview with Dr. Franciszek Piper, Senior Curator of the Polish government’s Auschwitz State Museum. He has worked there for more than 26 years. On tape, he admits that the so-called gas chamber in Crematory Building (Krema) I, which is shown to half a million visitors a year as a genuine homicidal gas chamber, is in fact a reconstruction– even down to the holes cut into the ceiling. Piper also admits that walls were knocked down and bathroom facilities removed. He went on to tell us that the remains of the “white cottage,” supposed site of the first preliminary gassings at Birkenau, are also reconstructed. This was hardly news to me. Even a quick examination of the remains of the “white cottage” shows that the bricks are not connected in any way, but are simply laid on top of each other like children’s building blocks.
Piper has no problems with the Leuchter Report. He told me that he agrees with Leuchter’s findings regarding traces of ferro-ferric-cyanide in the walls of Crematory Buildings (Kremas) I, II and III. So what is his explanation for this lack of traces in the supposed homicidal gas chambers when, by contrast, there are significant traces in the non-homicidal delousing gas chambers? He told me that the amount of hydrogen cyanide (from Zyklon) supposedly used by the Germans to kill people — unlike the amount needed to kill lice in delousing chambers — was not enough to leave blue (ferro-ferric-cyanide) staining, or appreciable traces.
This argument has problems, though. For one thing, the supposed homicidal gas chambers at Majdanek (which in reality were non-homicidal delousing chambers) have abundant blue staining. So according to Piper’s “Holocaust logic” gassing people in Auschwitz did not leave blue stains, but gassing people at Majdanek did. Talk about a Magic Kingdom! As we spoke, I half expected to see Piper’s nose grow as long as Pinocchio’s!
The importance of Piper’s revelations is obvious. The burden of proof has now shifted decisively to the Exterminationist side. For example, Piper’s admission that the four holes in the ceiling of Crematory Building (Krema) I were put in after the war makes ludicrous the oft-repeated claim of Auschwitz tourists that “Now I’ve seen the gas chambers with my own two eyes.” Now that the often-made claims are no longer valid, can the Exterminationists produce any evidence — a photograph, document, plan, or order — showing that the supposed gas chamber there was ever used to kill people as alleged? Most likely not, but what else is new? We’ve never been asked to accept the Holocaust story on anything but faith, and for me, that’s not good enough.
On the issue of the Holocaust — and perhaps uniquely on this issue — we are told: “Close the books, there will be no more learning, no more discussion, no more questions. Not only will no questions be tolerated, but anyone who dares to ask such questions will be slandered and viciously attacked.”
Now as someone who believes that part of being human is to learn something new everyday, I respond: “How dare you tell me there will be no more learning?” The establishment that maintains the Holocaust story on life support admits that there is no direct proof of homicidal gassings. No order, no document, no pictures, only “eyewitnesses.”
And what of these eyewitnesses? The Holocaust lobby insists that this is convincing evidence. But what kind of evidence is this? In some European countries, a person who denies the gas chambers can be jailed, fined, or physically attacked. He might lose his job, his standing in the community, maybe even his life. Something similar has happened in Canada. In the United States, he might be attacked and vilified. And if he says that he comes by his knowledge from first-hand experience — in other words from helping to run the camps during the war years — then he might easily find himself deported to Israel or eastern Europe, where he might be sentenced to death or at least stripped of his US citizenship and denied due process.
In other words, we only hear of eyewitnesses from one side because witnesses from the other side have been strong-armed into silence. This is governmental coercion of the worst kind, and on a worldwide scale no less. One kind of eyewitness is encouraged, the other is warned that his words might lead to deportation, imprisonment, loss of livelihood, property, and even life. Some great victory for the Holocaust lobby: The game has been fixed!
Let people speak! If only no one else, I demand this for my own sake. I want to know what happened during World War Two, and yet how can I if those who might have firsthand knowledge are told : “Speak only the official line, or suffer the consequences.” I insist on my human right to learn.
There are those who say, “Okay, so maybe the Holocaust is a bit exaggerated, but do we really want to destabilize society by openly talking about all this, possibly encouraging hostility against Jews?” This raises an important philosophical question: Do you believe mankind to be so inherently cruel and stupid that people must be lied to in order to make them behave? If so, then the lies you tell them are only a small bandage to cover up a much greater evil: Lack of confidence in mankind’s ability to handle the truth. And if you truly believe that people cannot handle the truth, but instead need a “Big Brother” to handle it for them, then surely democracy is the most dangerous thing on earth.
Of course, I understand that people can be cruel and stupid, but I also believe in the human ability to learn, and to grow with each new piece of knowledge. Rather than censor information that we subjectively perceive to be “dangerous,” we should teach our children to think critically, to remain open-minded, and to look for truth rather than cling to emotionally appealing falsehoods.
And that is just about all we can do: teach our children and hope for the best, realizing that people cannot be programmed like robots. Eighty years of failed Communism should have taught us that. To use the power of the state to force men to be what the state defines as “good” creates a world far more hellish than the one that is supposedly being prevented. I would rather live in a world where people are free to be cruel and stupid than one in which “goodness” is enforced at gun point.
Keep in mind also that truth, objective truth, does not need threats and intimidation to prevail. We Holocaust Revisionists are often likened to those who said that the earth was flat. But just the reverse is true: It is the other side that acts like a Holy Inquisition, institutionalizing one viewpoint and punishing heretics. Remember: We only accepted that the earth is round after the debate was opened. And since then, the round-earth adherents have not needed false news law s, hate crimes laws, and libel or slander laws to protect the truthfulness of their view. Likewise, all we ask is that the Holocaust story either stand or fall according to the evidence — or lack of it.
While we Holocaust Revisionists sit on a wealth of wonderfully heretical information, can we get it out to the general public? Can we “mainstream” Holocaust Revisionism before it’s too late, that is to say, before all those who have firsthand information of what really happened die off entirely?
As a Jew, it would be wrong for me not to mention the issue of Jewish influence. Influence is a very strange thing. People spend so much time and energy to acquire it and then an equal amount of time and energy denying they have it. Jewish influence does exist. If it didn’t, why would billions of dollars be spent annually by Jewish lobbying groups? That money isn’t to pay for dance lessons for Senators and Congressmen, of course, it’s for influence. Jews must come to terms with the fact that they are not only a powerful and influential group, but have responsibilities that come with that — particularly the responsibility not to abuse power, or, more specifically, to avoid abusing people with that power.
It is a testament to the strength of Revisionist research and scholarship, and to Revisionist tenacity, that all the Jewish influence in the world has not erased this movement. Despite the best efforts of our most clever and determined adversaries, Revisionist books are still read, and the Institute for Historical Review continues to function.
But how much progress are we really making in getting our message to the public? Unfortunately, we’ve been making only tiny *censored*cat steps. I am not a patient man. Every day I fool myself into thinking that I can be patient — I can’t. I don’t want to be a guerilla fighter of the political underground for the rest of my life. The time has come, indeed has never been better, to take Revisionist scholarship to the rest of the world, and if the powers that be try to stop us, we either go around them or if necessary , we go right through them.
Two more years! That’s my new motto. In two years’ time, Holocaust Revisionism should be in the mainstream, squarely in the public eye.
I am sure that we will eventually succeed in getting out our message. Information can be suppressed for just so long. But that’s not enough for me. It’s not enough that fellow Revisionists recognize Professor Faurisson’s scholarship for the brilliant work it is. I want it to be widely recognized as such, and in his lifetime!
So let’s make a concerted effort. Mindful of the recent Jewish New Year, I hereby make a Jewish New Year’s resolution: Two more years! No more sitting in the back of the ideological bus. We’re loud, we’re proud, and best of all, we’re right!
David Cole was raised and educated in Los Angeles, where he lives and works. Because of his support for Holocaust Revisionism, he was assaulted during a meeting at the University of California at Los Angeles on January 22, 1992 by thugs of the Jewish Defense League (JDL), who hit him in the face and bloodied his nose. JDL leader Irv Rubin also tried to push him down a flight of stairs. Later the JDL would make death threats against David and his family causing him to issue a letter of “recantation.”
The above article can be found here: A Jewish Revisionist’s Visit to Auschwitz
The David Cole/JDL affair
On January 2, 1998, David Cole renounced Holocaust revisionism and all of the work that he had done for the cause of historical truth. Many people are wondering what happened. What brought on this change of heart? From all appearances it was a result of threats made against him by the Jewish Defense League (JDL).
In response to his public comments that there are serious flaws in the popularly accepted quasi-historical accounts of the Holocaust, they launched a campaign of hate against him that produced an old-fashioned signed statement of recantation. This campaign included a vicious and threatening diatribe, “Monstrous Traitor,” that offered a reward for his home address and was posted on the JDL website for some weeks or months. When Cole offered them a statement of reversal of the offending opinions, they took down the page aimed at inciting violence toward him and replaced it with the statement of acceptable thought. The JDL used terror tactics openly, and it worked.
Intolerance, threats and force are not typically a good atmosphere in which to find truth. Irrespective of this encounter with intellectual muggers, his work will stand or fall on its own merits in the long term. The film “David Cole interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper” is every bit as valid now as it was prior to the strong-arm intimidation of the man who made it.
The conclusions of David Cole’s film have been confirmed recently in Robert Jan Van Pelt and Deborah Dwork’s, “Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present.” According to Van Pelt and Dwork: “Visitors [to Auschwitz] are not told that the crematorium they see is largely a postwar reconstruction.” (p.363)
CODOH awaits Van Pelt and Dwork’s retraction, but will not be holding its breath in the meantime.
- Monstrous Traitor
by Robert Newman for the Jewish Defense League (JDL)
- Silence Too Is An Answer
by Martin Henry
- The Statement of David Cole
- The Most Powerful Proof of the Holocaust
by Martin Henry
- David Cole Interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper
- 46 Important Unanswered Questions Regarding the Nazi Gas Chambers
by David Cole
“In regard to anything relating to the Middle East or Jewish subjects, the USA has many of the characteristics of a totalitarian country and many of the groups who call themselves ‘liberal’ or ‘peace camp’ or ‘radical’ are on that subject the most intolerant, the most totalitarian, the most dishonest and racist. . . . A totalitarian society not only does not tolerate a freedom of opinion, but it cultivates by all means in its power a ‘received opinion,’ which all have to parrot, not only without checking it, but often without any understanding of what it means.
“Perhaps some Americans will think that I exaggerate. But the danger of a totalitarian regime was always thought to be exaggerated before it arrived. Only afterwards, when it was too late, was it found that the society was already totalitarian in some aspects which were merely enlarged.
“There is only one sure antidote to the totalitarian danger: To fight all aspects of totalitarianism in all the parts of one’s society and to follow always the dictum of Socrates that the unexamined life is not worth living, and therefore with the utmost freedom and without fear of any blackmail to examine everything in the light of a universal concept of justice, applicable equally to all human beings.”
— Israeli historian and researcher Israel Shahak
“In forging their own brand of totalitarianism in the US, the Zionists continue to manipulate the victims of the Nazi holocaust as their chief weapon.”
— Alfred Lilienthal, Commentary
While this page is ostensibly about David Cole, his case really only serves as an illustration of a problem seldom discussed in public, and therefore not known to most of the public. Cole’s experience demonstrates graphically a fairly benign instance of the methods used around the world, day in and day out, to relentlessly and ruthlessly quash attempts by honest people to examine in detail a historical event of legitimate interest to a great many, if not all people in the West and Middle East. The concern about this is not mollified by the fact that many of those who engage in this program of intimidation through slander, mass propaganda and physical threats do so in sincerity, with a firm conviction that what they do has a greater good which more than justifies its wrongs. We ignore these wrongs at the risk of our legitimate rule of law and our own freedoms. The seeming dichotomy of great wars fought by opposing religions who both seek to convey the love of their God to all people, and who will slaughter millions of them to do that, is no mystery if you look at it from the zealot’s or fanatic’s perspective. The fact that others do not see the greater good at work is due to their own spiritual shortcomings he tells himself, and in the land of the heathen you do what you must to survive and keep the faith. Whatever you must.
Our position on this affliction of the fanatic is a simple one. The one universal good that outweighs all others must be a person’s right to follow any life path they choose so long as they offer no infringement on the rights of others. Our Declaration of Independence speaks of the inalienable rights we all have to our lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness, which is to say the sanctity of our own bodies, freedom of movement and association, and freedom of thought. Those who seek to deprive others of any of these outside the unfortunate but necessary repressions of the State we call justice earn for themselves what they gave. The principle is that of equity at its most basic level. As you deprive others of their liberty, so shall society see that you are deprived in equal measure, because there is no justification for any individual to take away any other individual’s freedoms, even to the smallest part. That power is and must be confined to our mechanisms of government.
The right to harbor unpopular, even intolerant beliefs, and the right to express them are protected by the Constitution, which spells out the unqualified right of all Americans to unfettered freedom of speech. But intimidation aimed at silencing speech, and thus infringing on that right, be it through slander, threats or force, is not so protected. In fact, people who used those exact methods of intimidation to keep blacks from voting found themselves jailed for conspiring to deprive others of their lawful civil rights.
The basis for this was a post-Civil War law passed to address widespread abuses of that kind. That law has expanded quite liberally to include now a variegated collection of non-enumerated rights, such as going to school or working at a job, free of harassment aimed at depriving you of those opportunities. It is not necessary to argue about whether everything falling under this aegis is a legitimate “right” in order to see the illegitimacy of how it is applied, because we will look in a direction that should be a given, toward the inarguable central rights, to see how they fare in the protection game.
It is fashionable now to approve the increasing scope of civil rights law, yet some attempt to make the case that applying it to portions of the Bill of Rights is not proper or not needed. A common rationale is that differences of opinion are private matters that government should not, cannot be involved in. A valid point when only differences of opinion are present, invalid when coercion is applied to limit or deny freedom of speech or deprive someone of their livelihood (such as black-balling dissident authors in the publishing industry). Once coercion enters, the argument is without logic, for if government oversight is valid for protecting any one right then it is valid for all. Politically selected application of justice is a repugnant practice that coarsens and weakens all involved.
Yet that is exactly what is taking place in this country today. Holding generally unpopular views on a number of topical subjects can put you in a class where Justice is truly blindfolded. No one seems to see the blatant abuses committed by those who oppose those views, including vicious beatings on the steps of courthouses, arson, letter-bombs, terrorizing with threats of harm. If you happen to be pushing a topic deemed by popular opinion to be so lacking in merit that it somehow poses a danger to the citizenry, you will find little interest on the part of authorities to address these crimes or lessen their occurrence. This is nothing less than state and public sanctioned vigilantism, or terrorism, and it has no place in societies that would call themselves civilized
One of the hottest areas for this is Holocaust historical revisionism, which to a newcomer seems an oddity. (Emotions run high over history ?? That’s the class you sleep in.) Attempts to point out glaring inconsistencies in the popular and now institutionalized account bring howls of rage from those who disagree. If the initial rage isn’t enough to make someone cease and desist (which it often is), then the ante is raised and will keep on being raised to whatever level is needed to silence the target. It may start with simple slander, automatic and unfounded labels of “anti-Semite”, “denier”, “hater”, “Nazi” and more are pasted on with the often expressed intent of destroying resolve and/or career, legitimate aims because the target is deemed “unfit” to be a member of any decent society. Those who don’t give up are then marginalized by campaigns to convince the public of their evil and 100% erroneous views, their universally undesirable nature. When these aren’t effective enough, then threats of injury or death are employed, such as with David Cole. At the extreme end, people are killed, like American-Arab peace activist Sami Odeh, murdered by a letter-bomb of suspected Zionist origin.
The open existence of and tolerance shown for this despicable practice fouls our national social fabric immensely. This is a major thing we’d like to see the public become aware of and hopefully say, “You know, this seems pretty un-American to me. And even if I’m wrong about that, it sucks to allow people to hurt others because they don’t like their opinions. And I believe government should give some attention to what’s going on.” The rest of our job would then be very easy, as frightened people with much knowledge of the truth of the matter could at last speak openly. We might turn out to be right, and we might be wrong. But it would be settled quickly and we could quit hassling about it. Those who claim their feelings are so tender that this can’t be allowed would be over it before you know it, and life would go on a little more peacefully.
If getting rid of a death-threat by giving in to coercion was what it took for Cole to regain peace of mind, we understand and neither resent nor condemn, only empathize. No one should be faced with an ultimatum to choose between their beliefs and their personal safety in the United States of America. That is a despicable, and in our minds, criminal affair.
We are all forced to recite a government mandated litany affirming a nonsensical collective belief in non-existent Arab terrorists every time we board an airplane. While we docilely play these sheep-like roles in the instilment of our own “good think,” the real terrorists operate publicly and unhindered because they belong to any of a number of designated groups whose excesses one is forbidden to criticize, however legitimately or temperately.
It is disturbing to realize how very far this nation, and much of the Western world, has fallen from the fiery spirit which threw off the yokes of ancient tyrannies in the 18th and 19th centuries, ushering in the Age of Enlightenment. That light now dims because we are all too willing to take “Give me liberty or give me death!” and Newspeak convert it to, “Give me liberty at any cost except personal discomfort or civic involvement.” This is how it comes to be that good men stand and say nothing, how in fact we came to be where we are now.
But let us return to the matter at hand, David Cole’s run-in with the dark side of the strident opposition to open examination of a historical issue. Addressing the possibility that this complete reversal of belief was sincere, then we hope David Cole is successful in his new endeavors whatever they may be. Perhaps we’ll meet on opposite sides in some future debate forum. That would be a treat, because David was always a worthy opponent; quick, well informed, and with a gift for public speaking. He’ll do well in any situation, because he has enough intelligence to sort truth from pretense all by himself.
As long as the moral vigilantes and intellectual terrorists among us allow him to, that is.
— David Thomas 1/18/98
The above article can be found here: The David Cole / JDL Affair
‘David Cole forced to recant his revisionist views‘
What they do to revisionists – A page which recounts case after case of revisionists being attacked for their views.
If you question any part of the Holocaust story, they will call you a “Holocaust denier,” implying that you deny that anything happened, and thus implying that you are either dishonest or insane, or both. They will say that your revisionist arguments are “hate speech,” even though it’s all too obvious where the hate is really coming from.
And they don’t just talk. They beat revisionists up, blow up their cars, burn their homes, put them in jail, and ruin their careers. There have been numerous assassination attempts, one of which was successful: Francois Duprat was killed by a car bomb.
The Töben case — Dr. Fredrick Töben, founder of the Adelaide Institute, was found guilty of “denying the Holocaust.” However, the decision set an important precedent: The judge declared that German law has no jurisdiction over Töben’s on-line writings or publications. The verdict of “guilty” was based only on material he had physically distributed in Germany. This means, for example, that I could not be prosecuted for this web site. So far, so good. That’s a step in the right direction.
Nevertheless, the principle that “the truth of the statement is not a defense” still stands. In Germany, it is illegal to say that there was no gas chamber at Auschwitz, and someone who is charged with this “crime” cannot defend himself, since doing so would require asserting, in court, that there was no gas chamber, and the defendant could be charged again. Not only that, his lawyer could be prosecuted for making illegal statements in his defense.
As George Orwell said, the right to say that 2 + 2 = 4 is fundamental. Given that, everything else follows. We still don’t have that right.
Here is the story of David Cole, as told in nine installments of Ingrid Rimland’s column on the Zündel site: — As of 6/14/2010, the whole series can be found here. There is no guarantee that that link will remain valid.
Part 1 — Ernst Zündel writes,
I have some sad news to report. There has been another defection out of the Revisionist community. David Cole, a young Jew who in the past has done some remarkable Revisionist video recording and on-the-ground work, has crossed over and written a retraction…
David and I video-toured Auschwitz and Birkenau together, and it was an eery feeling for me at the time to have a young American Jew, half my age, explain on camera to me, the German, what he found was wrong with Auschwitz and the Holocaust mass gassing claims in that horror theme park.
David also appeared in Germany on the same platform with me and spoke with courage and conviction about the many inconsistencies of Auschwitz, while German police were present in the hall. He did not flinch or shirk the issues. Truth was Truth to him, and he defended it, regardless of the costs. (…)
I was, by then, a battle-scarred Revisionist veteran, possibly showing the first signs of battle fatigue after going flat out for years in Holocaust trial after Holocaust trial. I remember feeling possibly a little shamed but in any case re-invigorated by the dynamism of this young man.
Part 2 — Some background material: Bradley Smith promotes David Cole’s video, and draws the wrath of ADL. David appears at a revisionist conference.
Part 3 — Excerpts from a letter posted on the JDL site:
What is a David Cole? Is it a sickness? Is it a mental disease? Is Cole merely a human parasite who clings to his ardent Nazi supporters and friends who back his ideas whole-heartedly? After all, this Cole mania that the media have played on, don’t you think it’s time that we flush this rotten, sick individual down the toilet, where the rest of the waste lies? One less David Cole in the world will certainly not end Jew-hatred, but it will have removed a dangerous parasitic, disease-ridden bacteria from infecting society.
Just as we must get rid of this monster, Cole, we must also get rid of the word “revisionism” from our vocabulary. This awful word and Cole, too, must be eliminated altogether. There is no argument. There needs to be no more debates, only the elimination of the Holocaust deniers…
JDL wants to know the location of Holocaust denier David Cole, pictured above. Anyone giving us his correct address will receive a monetary reward. Contact us through e-mail immediately if you have information leading to the current location of David Cole.
Part 4 — This page is about how Jewish organizations failed to come to David Cole’s defense. To me, the most interesting thing here is the quotation at the end: Edmund Burke wrote
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Part 5 — Excerpts from David Cole’s retraction:
I would like to state for the record that there is no question in my mind that during the Holocaust of Europe’s Jews during World War II, the Nazis employed gas chambers in an attempt to commit genocide against the Jews. At camps in both Eastern and Western Europe, Jews were murdered in gas chambers which employed such poison gases as Zyklon B and carbon monoxide (in the Auschwitz camp, for example, the gas chambers used Zyklon B). The evidence for this is overwhelming and unmistakable…
I now understand that I owe it to the people I wronged to make a forceful repudication [sic] of my earlier views. I also owe a very large apology, not only to the many people I enraged, and to the family and friends I hurt, but especially to the survivors of the Holocaust, who deserve only our respect and compassion, not re-victimization.
Therefore, to all of the above people, let me offer my most humble and very, very sincere apology. I am sorry for what (I) did, and I am sorry for the hurt I caused…
Part 6 — Ernst Zündel comments,
David has not been well lately, and his mother is apparently gravely ill, which might have been contributing factors in his abject rejection [sic] and apology to the leader of the JDL, Irv Rubin. David acts and talks like one of the accused at one of Stalin’s famous “Purge Trials” in the late 1930s – self-accusatory, groveling, profusely apologizing etc. A hallmark of Stalin’s victims!
Part 7 — From the comments on the CODOH site:
The funny thing about Cole’s retraction is that
in a cosmic way it simply confirms what
revisionists have been saying all along. For over
twenty years, revisionists have said that the
German confessions, wildly inaccurate and
contradictory, were given not so much in response
to direct physical torture as from the desire to
protect themselves and above all their families
from retaliation and hardship. For Cole’s
retraction, the JDL boasts that it was the result
of their previous page, and that Cole “was afraid
for his life and the relatives he supposedly is
taking care of.” So for those who didn’t believe it
possible that the Germans involved in the
concentration camps could have been intimidated
into making abject confessions, the idea is
strikingly confirmed by Cole’s retraction, and
furthermore the JDL is waving the proof right under
Part 8 — Excerpts from another message by Ernst Zündel:
I am not a shrink. I have only seen it happen. I am not going to guess what went on in David’s mind and soul as he groped his way towards that fateful day when he must have picked up the phone or faxed to Irv Rubin, who had tormented and stalked him, until David broke down and notarized that statement to Rubin. I do not know what transpired in the months, weeks or days before. Therefore, I cannot judge. The two documents (the JDL death threat followed by David’s recanting) speak for themselves. Any normal, streetwise, or historically knowledgeable person can, and I am sure will, draw his own conclusions.
One observation and warning I must give to people, and it is simply this: The terror unleashed against a target will not stop by the act of recantation or retraction by the victim. That is only the beginning of the process, it is definitely not the end. After the confession or retraction has been extracted or leveraged out of the victim by the tormentors, there will come at first gentle and then ever more brazen and forcefully delivered requests and demands for other information – names of friends, collaborators, mailing lists, financial information, health status of former collaborators, sexual habits, drug or alcohol habits.
By then, the “recantee” is totally isolated, totally vulnerable, totally in the hands of the people he has recanted to – he has not a real friend left in the world, for his whole former network of colleagues, friends, co-workers and emotional support and infrastructure have disappeared, severed by his own action. Recanting might be considered by the individual a “brave act” at first, but it is nothing compared to what follows like a comet’s tail after that first fateful step. (…)
I still feel empathy for David Cole and wish him well… Many letters from Revisionists around the world in response to this development have shown me that they, too, treasure the memory of a brave young Jew who stood up to his own establishment – for as long as he had the strength to do it.
Part 9 — Some final comments by Ingrid Rimland:
A major strike was needed to stop Revisionism from gaining an intellectual foothold on college campuses, even if it meant a brazen threat of “eliminating” a gifted Revisionist speaker and writer who just happened to be a Jew…
One thing is clear: The enemy has bared its teeth. The doleful Elie Wiesel smile has all but disappeared.
The above article can be found here: David Cole forced to recant his revisionist views
Also see ‘David Cole: The truth behind the gates of Auschwitz’ here: http://800poundgorilla.100webspace.net/geeklog//staticpages/index.php?page=20090401185124248