Article 6527 of alt.revisionism: Xref: kzoo misc.test:69047 alt.revisionism:6527 Newsgroups: misc.test,alt.revisionism Path: kzoo!k044477 From: email@example.com (Jamie R. McCarthy) Subject: Letter from David Cole to me, 20 June 1995 Message-ID: <1995Jul1.firstname.lastname@example.org> Followup-To: alt.revisionism Organization: Kalamazoo College, Kalamazoo MI 49006 Date: Sat, 1 Jul 1995 01:51:34 GMT The following is a letter which David Cole sent me by U.S. Priority Mail on June 20th, 1995. After this article, I'll post a reply from Michael Shermer (since Cole and I discuss him), and then a reply from me, which I will fax to Mr. Cole shortly. As Mr. Cole notes, I now have permission to post his earlier cover letters to me. I'll get to those either this weekend or next week. Mr. Cole's letter follows: [p. 1] Dear Mr. McCarthy, I just wanted to drop you a line to let you know that I received your letter (please don't apologize for the length; the longer the better, I always say), and it will take me a little while to find the time to write you the kind of lengthy response your letter deserves. In the meantime, I'll get a few minor things out of the way: I certainly give you the okay to post anything I've sent you. Of course you can tape record any phone conversation we might have (I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear in my first letter). For the record, it was Ross Vicksell who encouraged me to write my Majdanek posting, NOT Greg Raven. My immediate response was a huge yawn (this has usually been my response to anything Internet-related; talk about SMUG! I think I'm coming around a little). I only relented and wrote the Majdanek thing when Greg threatened to do something himself if I didn't. My concern, from knowing Greg's work as I do, was that he'd screw everything up and only add to the confusion about Majdanek. So I think you have this "pawn" thing backwards; Greg was apparently ready to post something, although it would probably have been my research anyway, as Greg has never done any original work on Majdanek. I suppose, if you wanted to keep going with your "pawn" theory, you could suggest that Greg only threatened to post something himself because he KNEW that this would goad me into doing the work myself, but they you'd start to get into wacky conspiracy theory territory, and I thought that only the "bad" guys went around seeing conspiracies everywhere, eh? You're a little unfair regarding my attitude toward Faurisson. You accuse me of not making my criticisms of Faurisson public, yet how exactly do you know WHAT I've told reporters over the years? Are you of the mind that the press always prints everything I say? In your mind, is the press so objective and fair that they don't selectively choose the things they print in order to force a certain angle? I can assure you that, in EVERY in-depth print interview I've done in the last three years (at least), I've voiced such objections about Faurisson. In fact, I've always been honest about my opinions about ALL revisionists. Surely you've seen the "Skeptic" article; Michael Shermer didn't skimp on printing my criticisms of Weber and Zundel (in fact, Shermer seemed to prefer dwelling on those things, as opposed to my work on the gas chambers). Other editors and reporters have simply not published any of my criticisms of other revisionists (and I guess you'll think of some way to make this my fault). When one compares the video of my press conferences in Japan to the articles written about them, one can see that the Japanese press simply didn't want to report any of the things I said about Faurisson, Weber, Zundel, and Leuchter. In most of my interviews, there's a vast discrepancy between what is printer and what isn't. My phone records show that I was on the phone with the "New Yorker" reporter for over an hour. Yet in his article (November '93) he didn't include ANY material from our interview. Similarly, I was on the phone with a "Dallas Morning News" reporter for over THREE [p. 2] hours, yet her article contained ONE SENTENCE of mine. Do you think I wasted three hours with her talking about my cats, or ice cream, or the stock market? I talked about a variety of things, _including_ my criticisms of other revisionists. It's the same story with every print interview I've done. In my few TV appearances, I've tried to limit the few uninterrupted minutes I get on these shows to a discussion and defense of my views on the genocide/gas chamber issue. I try in those cases to stay away from entering into discussions about individual figures on EITHER side of this debate, as most of these names would be unfamiliar to a general audience, and the amount of digression needed to set the stage for such a discussion would waste all the time I'd have. In any case, I would probably be accused of avoiding the issue if I talked about individual personalities instead of my own work and views. Just because YOU may not have heard of read certain things doesn't mean that I've never said them. I DO in fact live a life outside of and independent from your awareness of my existence. To be sure, my opinion of Faurisson has certainly changed over the years, mainly owing to the fact that I pursued the same avenue with Faurisson's research as I took with the research of mainstream historians; I insisted on seeing the original sources for their claims. Unlike some folks, I don't believe in reading just one or two books and then acting like I know it all. I always try to go back to original sources. This, of course, takes time. And it is generally seen as a waste of time by those among us who believe that one should just simply choose a point of view ("there were gas chambers" or "there weren't gas chambers") and stick with it regardless of the facts or unanswered questions. Unlike these people, I believe that theories are MADE to be amended over time as new evidence dictates. So, yes - I HAVE changed my opinion of Faurisson over time. Similarly, I used to think Raul Hilberg was an excellent historian, until I read his testimony at the Zundel trial, and until I was able to ask him some direct questions (through an intermediary). Once I saw the discrepancy between what he KNOWS and what he PUBLISHES, my opinion of him changed. Conversely, when I read Chris Browning's testimony at the Zundel trial, I didn't think very much of him as a historian. Yet after reading his "Fateful Months" and "Path to Genocide," two of the best books in the genre, I developed a new respect for him. There's no shame in changing an opinion. Okay, granted - it's not the best strategy if you feel you're in a "war" against real or imagined "enemies," where the ends justify the means in the great battle to smash the evil ones. Frankly, I think this describes the mindset of BOTH the neo-Nazis who see themselves fighting the "Jewish conspiracy," AND the many anti-revisionists who see themselves as "saving the world" from the "great Nazi conspiracy." As far as Majdanek goes, I think you might have missed my point. I was trying to draw your attention to your seeming lack of desire to investigate an actual, genuine example of a homicidal gas chamber. You seem to use the revisionists' "impossibly high" standard of proof as a way out from trying to prove these chambers. It's like you're saying "why bother; the revisionists will only doubt it anyway." Well SCREW the revisionists; who CARES about their standard of proof! You should only be concerned with the integrity of your own work and views. Now, I've published a series of points which I believe call into question the idea that these Majdanek rooms were [p. 3] "homicidal" gas chambers. And time and again, when I've shown these questions to gas chamber theorists, I've encountered the same attitude; "I'm not interested in those chambers." To which I always respond "How can you not be interested in "genuine" homicidal gas chambers?" I agree that a case could conceivably be made for homicidal gassings WITHOUT physical evidence, but I thought you would already understand this from reading my article about Struthof. I make he [sic] case for the Struthof gas chamber without any mention of the physical state of the building. I use documents and other types of evidence, like bodies. So, my question to YOU is: CAN you make ANY KIND of a case for homicidal gassings at Majdanek? Can you make a case with ANYTHING?! Physical evidence? Documents? It would be one thing for me to critique the Majdanek chambers if there were loads of OTHER pieces of evidence for gassings. But WHAT exists that determines your belief in gassings at Majdanek? Don't reply "because the Soviet Army said so," or "because the 'New York Times' told me," because this is irrelevant. What matters is, what were THEIR sources for THEIR assertions of homicidal gassings? What are YOUR sources for YOUR belief in Majdanek homicidal gas chambers? How would you prove homicidal gassings at Majdanek? I'll be curious to read your response. Your dismissal of physical evidence is not very convincing. Krema 2 might be a "big, dynamited, rubble-filled hole in the ground" to YOU. To ME, a drop of blood is just red liquid. But we all know that a drop of blood can speak volumes. Drops of blood might make all the difference in the O.J. trial, right? And don't think the prosecution is necessarily happy having to present some of the evidence they've presented thus far. They'd KILL (pardon the expression) for a MURDER WEAPON, or bloody clothes, or other physical evidence. Usually, the less hard evidence there is, the more a prosecutor will HAVE to rely on "peripheral" evidence, like a friend claiming that O.J. "dreamed" he killed his wife. And all that the "domestic abuse" testimony does is make it clear that it was a POSSIBILITY that MAYBE O.J. killed his wife. In fact, however, such evidence tells us nothing about O.J.'s guilt or innocence of these SPECIFIC murder charges. Likewise, all the angry, vile anti-Semitic words and actions by the Nazis makes [sic] it a clear POSSIBILITY that the Nazis would murder Jews. But such evidence tells us nothing about the Nazis' guilt or innocence or SPECIFIC CHARGES like gassing humans at Majdanek. More evidence is needed if we are to make and support such specific charges. And as I think I wrote in my last letter, you can always call me collect if you desire. I understand that you're a "visually oriented" person, and I welcome any future letters from you (and I will try to respond with letters that are as long as time permits). But for right now, I just don't have the time to write 20-page letters to everyone who writes to me. Sincerely, [signed] DC [p. 4] P.S. As I was readying this for the mail, your 9 page fax came in. I'll try to take the time in the near future to tackle in depth the many things you bring up. For right now, I'll breeze through a few things: 1) Once again, please feel free to post anything I send you. 2) About Shermer the "libel artist": I'm pleased that you see that Shermer "seems to reverse himself" in his Skeptic article. You throw away the importance of the "one liner" on page 39. I've gotten my ass kicked too many times over such "one liners." There is NO EXCUSE for lying about a person. None at all. What if I published an article lauding Shermer's skapticism of "repressed memories" of sexual abuse...and then included a "one liner" calling Shermer a child molester, or a fan of child molesters? People sue over such "one liners"...and people get beat up over such "one liners." Shermer knew full well of the danger to me posed by such libel. Check out this memo Shermer wrote to himself at the top of the transcript he made of his lengthy on-the-record interview with me (from April 26, 1994): "After the interview, Cole asked me, practically pleaded with me in fact, to be as fair as I possibly could be in selecting quotes to use for shorter articles I might write on revisionist" (here he's referring to the "Skeptic" article), "because of his concern for his physical safety. He has received death threats and been physically assaulted and is genuinely concerned with his safety, especially here in Southern California, where the Skeptics are based." In his memo, he makes it clear that he understood the dangers posed by such "one liners." Too bad, then, about his little "oversight." But if it was nothing more than a little "oversight," then WHY has Shermer REFUSED to print a correction in any of the subsequent "Skeptics"? Even as he is telling a fellow skeptic that the claim on page 39 is "the most misleading" thing in his entire article, he still REFUSES to print a correction. Now, be fair Jamie; is that right? Shermer printed corrections about OTHER things, but not "the most misleading" thing. Oh, but there's more! You think Shermer reversed himself on page 39? Check out what he writes on pages 36-37 (in fact, in your fax you quote the specific sentences I'm talking about, and you follow them up by writing "Wow, pretty deep stuff. Note that Shermer explicitly denies, there, that you are a 'political and/or racial ideologue'"). NOW Shermer has submitted a letter-to-the-editor to the IHR Journal, in which he writes: "David Cole, for example, is an IDEOLOGUE (emphasis mine) who likes to stir things up any way he can, as I explained in my analysis of him in 'Skeptic.'" Whoa! Is that wild or what?! Shermer is engaging in a bit of "revisionism" of his own. In his "Skeptic" article he specifically explained that I am NOT an ideologue, and now he tells us that he explained that I AM an ideologue! Shermer, like Faurisson with his "explanation" of the Goebbels Diary passage, is TELLING us we read something that we did notead; in fact, he wrote the OPPOSITE of what he now tells us he wrote about me. My "libel artist" claim stands. Shermer will say ANYTHING. The truth of what he's saying seems irrelevant. And he probably depends on the fact that no one will criticize him because he's one of the "good guys," just as people won't raise any objections about any lies targeting ME, because I'm one of the "bad guys." It's safe to lie about me, because no one will come to my defense. [p. 5] As for his "Open Letter to Holocaust Revisionists," Shermer misrepresents my lecture. After I told the story of what transpired behind-the-scenes at the "Donahue" show (Shermer himself gave a lecture on the same topic at his last Skeptics conference), I told of how SHERMER HIMSELF didn't believe many of the points he make in his article. In other words, I used Shermer's words to disprove Shermer's theories. I made the serious charge that Shermer had lied, distorted, oversimplified, and completely fabricated things in order to "prove" that revisionists are wrong - AND THAT SHERMER TOLD ME HE DID THIS, in a conversation I recorded. That was the point of my speech; I was telling the story of a man who pledged to his readers that he would do a thorough and objective job of researching the revisionists' claims, and yet, 6 months later, is forced to admit that in order to make his case he was forced to lie, distort, omit, and fabricate. I thought, and still think, that this is a good example of how researchers "go bad" when they are confronted with data they don't like. And we rarely get the opportunity to HEAR the words of these researchers when they ADMIT that they've falsified or omitted things. As for Shermer's charge that I spent my speech attacking his motives, I will direct you to this passage FROM my speech. The ONE TIME that I DID go into the issue of motive, I gave this lengthy preface, a WARNING about motive speculation, before going any further (I've transcribed this straight from the videotape of my speech; these are exactly the words I spoke): "I'm gonna digress for one brief moment into possible motive. Now, let me say, we (revisionists) are always accused of bad motives. We're always accused of having evil, malicious motives. I don't like speculating about motive - because you NEVER REALLY KNOW. There is always an unknown quantity. Well, when you're dealing with another man's motives you never really know unless you're in that man's head or that woman's head. So when I talk about Michael Shermer's possible motives PLEASE UNDERSTAND this is a hypothesis. Even if Michael Shermer was to tell me his motives I wouldn't know if he's being truthful. You have to be in a person's head to really know." And even THIS wasn't enough for me. After discussing Shermer's possible motives, I once again repeated my admonition, stressing "Once again, this is ONLY SPECULATION." I think that says it all. I gave a caveat about "motive" that Shermer NEVER afforded any of the REVISIONISTS he attacked (and continues to attack). Shermer believes he "proves" someone's motive simply by putting words down on paper. He never feels the urge to PROVE any "motive" with specific examples or with that person's own words. And I certainly spent a lot of time in my interview with Shermer discussion my "motives." In fact, Shermer (who seems to have so little respect for his readers that he doesn't mind attributing contradictory "motives" to me, assuming that his readers will either not notice or not CARE, since, after all, I'm a "bad guy") has ascribed to me just about every motive there IS: Depending on which description of me one is reading, I'm either a "racist with a political agenda," a NON racist with NO agenda, an "ideologue," a NON ideologue, a "true revisionist" (from a personal letter to me, where he also writes that my work comes from "a very honest intellectual curiosity on your part"), etc. etc. [p. 6] MY assertion that MAYBE Shermer was just using revisionist to boost sales of his publication is based on (among other things) Shermer's own words - this letter to me from Shermer dated December 29, 1993): "We are, by the way, planning a print run ten-times are (sic) normal size for this (revisionism) issue (from 6,000 to 60,000) because I believe the subject is timely enough (Schindler's List and all that) to justify a broader marketing of 'Skeptic.' That what we are doing takes on even more significance." Fairly straightforward, eh? Yet STILL I felt the need to include my caveat about "motive" during my conference speech. I've met a lot of folks through my Holocaust research, and Shermer ranks as the most untrustworthy. About my "Piper" tape, I thought it was self-explanatory that my point about the pool, theater, and delousing complex was that the official Auschwitz tour is selective - the people who plan the tour are more interested in creating a mood than they are in giving an actual picture of the camp (an actual TOUR). There is nothing to be gained by lying about OR HIDING "inconvenient" information. And, by the way, I _don't_ think that the delousing block is completely irrelevant to the Auschwitz "extermination" camp story. The pool, yes. The theater as well. But there ARE many non-irrelevant things that revisionists talk about. The fact that the swimming pool, which is on screen for only a brief while near the beginning of the "Piper" tape, has become such a major issue is because most viewers are simply SURPRISED AS HELL to SEE it! This is due entirely to the fact that for decades mainstream historians have tried to cover it up. In fact, can you think of any place OTHER than the "Piper" tape to get a good look at the pool? (Pressac shows it during Winter...it's all covered with snow) The fact that the pool is seen as such a historian oddity is because if has been MADE into one by historians who prefer to sweep things under the rug rather than explain them. Now, your point about me claiming that I "uncovered" the "revelation" that Krema 1 is not in its original state is just silly. I'm sorry, but this makes me think you're just interested in slamming me, regardless of the facts. You know damn well from WATCHING the "Piper" tape that IN THE TAPE ITSELF I mention how David Irving was fined by a German court for saying that Piper told HIM the same thing about Krema 1 that he told me. And you know from reading my 16 page Faurisson response that Faurisson was making these claims a decade ago. And I'll also add that the texts from the various "Piper" tape promos have been posted, attacked, ridiculed, lampooned, and dissected over and over again on the Internet. Perhaps you folks have all been so busy having childish fun that you've failed to actually ABSORB what you've read. In fact, time and again these promos stress that the "Piper" tape is a vindication of a LONG HELD revisionist position. Plus, in my interview with Mr. Van Handle, I CLEARLY STATED that the "Piper" tape "was important only in that it has yielded results." You're completely out of bounds to charge that I EVER claimed that the Krema I "revelations" were mine alone. That you would even make such a baseless charge makes me think that, as I said earlier, you are only interested in attacking me, regardless of the facts. [p. 7] The "Piper" tape yielded results because it was specifically PIPER, _not_ David Cole, who was talking about Krema 1. This is the reason people listened; this is the reason "vells of truth" like the "New Yorker" and "L'Express" gave the general public the go-ahead to believe in the Krema 1 remodeling job; this is the reason that the Auschwitz State Museum FINALLY changed its official spiel. This has nothing to do with me; only Piper. If I CAN lay claim to doing something differently than the other revisionists regarding Krema 1, I can perhaps say that I wasn't as arrogant as Faurisson to assume that the world would believe a revisionist or take a revisionist's word about Krema 1. I understood that showing plans or other documentary evidence was not enough. This wouldn't surmount the standard first rule of the anti-revisionists; "ACCUSE REVISIONISTS OF LYING, NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY, AND REGARDLESS OF PROOF TO THE CONTRARY." And that's a good rule, strategically if not ethically. I realized that whatever I may say about something as OBVIOUS as the Krema 1 remodeling job was irrelevant. So I did something very simple; I actually TALKED to ASM personnel, and I ended up with the Piper interview. Anyone before me probably could have done the same thing, but they didn't. The other American revisionists who had made the long trip to Auschwitz (McCalden, Leuchter, etc.) could have asked for an interview. But they didn't, preferring instead to sneak around like spies, melodramatically emphasizing how "dangerous" is their work, and how "careful" they must be in not making their presence known. This might have been a good technique for fund-raising, making a visit to Auschwitz seem like an Indiana Jones adventure. But in reality these revisionists could have easily asked for an interview, and they probably would have been granted one. And the "Piper" take could have come out six years earlier. So, as I said, none of this had anything to do with any "revelations" on my part. I never, EVER said or wrote ANYTHING claiming that this was my theory exclusively; in fact, I've constantly called attention to the OTHERS who have written about the Krema 1 remodeling job. The "Piper" tape was important only because of Piper. But why do I believe this won't deter you; you'll probably next make the charge that I claim to be the first revisionist to set foot in Majdanek, or something like that. My question is; if the truth of your assertions is not a concern to you, then why not go for something bigger, more damaging? Claim I'm a secret Nazi, or a murderer, or gay and dying of AIDS, or the bastard son of Chuck Manson. Or Mengele. Was I stalking Nicole Brown Simpson? Or worse, did I frame O.J. with my "racist" buddies? Shoort for the stars, Jamie; the only limit is your imagination! -- Jamie McCarthy email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.kzoo.edu/~k044477/ I speak only for myself.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor