David Cole Youtube videos of July and August 2020 and responses

[Sannhet]

David Cole also mentions a document relating Himmler to the 2.4 million figure from around 1943 in his latest video Q&A this week.

Where is this? Please link, Thanks

[Lamprecht]

David Cole also mentions a document relating Himmler to the 2.4 million figure from around 1943 in his latest video Q&A this week.

Where is this? Please link, Thanks

Might be this, which was recently posted in the Jewish Revisionists sticky

https://youtu.be/x2v60sisDNI

I haven't watched it but if you find when he mentions it, let us know the time

[Otium]

David Cole also mentions a document relating Himmler to the 2.4 million figure from around 1943 in his latest video Q&A this week.

Where is this? Please link, Thanks

Might be this, which was recently posted in the Jewish Revisionists sticky

https://youtu.be/x2v60sisDNI

I haven't watched it but if you find when he mentions it, let us know the time

I'm watching it now. It's kind of funny, i'm only at 4:30 and he's just had a spaz attack on the first guy who asked him a question. He might've been "playing it up", trying to be funny or something, but it didn't come across that way at all! He characterizes "groypers" or "AltRight" "types" as people whom he thinks are afraid of "Jews reading their thoughts, invading minds". That those "types" are "afraid" to use search engines. It was said in such a way as to deride their ability to find out current information about himself. Cole comes off as hysterical.

He nonchalantly uses the term "Holocaust Denier" or "deniers". At 9:57 he calls the questioner a "moron".

He states at 11:56 that the "biggest fallacy of the deniers" is that:

"the Holocaust is not the Hindenburg [...] the Holocaust is something that happened over the course of 4 years in different countries, to multiple populations of people. [...] When you're dealing with an event that went on for 4 years across a dozen countries you have to look at things with a lot more detail than that"

Cole Claims

13:24 - 13:47 : Hoess Killed Inmates in 1942...

Something began to happen around 1994 and 1995. As David Irving and I began to have a much more nuanced view of things, some of the hard core deniers, predominantly Robert Faurisson, a complete crank, from France who really did not contribute terribly to revisionism. He did a few things, but he was limited by being kind of dumb. [...] Faurisson began to see that the smart ones in the circle, me and Irving and eventually Weber, the three smartest guys in the circle were moving in a different direction; and Faurisson was like (Cole doing a French accent, mocking Faurisson) "no, Faurisson will be lost to history, my legacy will be lost". And he began putting pressure on people like Bradley Smith and some of the other, less well healed revisionists, the ones who needed donations and money. Faurisson began putting pressure on them to just stop publishing new stuff (mocking again), "the debate ends with Faurisson, no holes no Holocaust". And that was Faurisson's big thing, "no holes no Holocaust", it's a stupid thing, doesn't even have anything to do with Porn. It's about the roofs of Auschwitz, holes in the roofs, and it's dumb. The "no holes no Holocaust" thing, Faurisson thought that "okay that ends the debate now", and there "should be no debate now" after Faurisson, nothing more.

By 95' I found it hard to get published anywhere in revisionist circles. David Irving was finding it hard for different reasons, his publishers, his mainstream publishers were dropping him for being "too revisionist" and I was starting to get dropped by revisionists for not being revisionist enough, or at least not denier enough, i've always been a revisionist; but they're like "no we want a denier not a revisionist". Now remember this is 95' because some of you younger guys are probably hearing me say that I was having trouble being published, and you're like (in a shitty mocking southern accent) "well why didn't you just put it in your blog? Why didn't you just put it in your blog?". It was 1995 you dumb shits, there was no social media, no blogs, there was no youtube. You still had to rely on people to carry your words to the public.

14:53 - 18:00

Nevermind that the IHR, and Weber are responsible for destroying, lost forever, the works Leon Degrelle did on his voluminous Hitler biography. Never mind the stolen material and credit David Irving stole from Joe Bellinger regarding the death of Himmler.

he says further:

I fell out of favour the same way that David Irving fell out of favour with mainstream publishers. But that's because we're true revisionists, and true revisionists just go where the facts are, as Mark Weber would end up doing the same exact thing.

18:24 - 18:41

If only that were true Cole.

Faurisson was able to put pressure on the weak minded ones like Bradley Smith, and so Faurisson birthed a new clique of deniers, I call them the "meme people", all they do is just pass around memes, they don't do research, they don't read books, they don't know a single thing about Holocaust history. They just pass around memes, "no holes no Holocaust" "Red Cross Report" "Mwahaha bwahaha Jew". That's all they do. Jim Rizoli is one of these meme guys. People say "why aren't you nice to Jim Rizoli? why don't you work with Jim Rizoli?" well why? He's got nothing; to put it in business terms, he's got nothing to buy or sell, in other words he has no information to provide me, but he doesn't want to hear information from me because he's not looking for information, Jim Rizoli is just a meme guy, he's just a Faurisson meme guy who doesn't want to talk about documents, doesn't believe in documents. He's one of these guys, he wants to see film of 6 million Jews being gassed. And that's another thing, deniers like Rizoli have standards they don't apply evenly, in other words when it comes to the Holocaust they'll say "show me film of it happening, show me 6 million autopsied Jews" - well, the real figure of course is not 6 million, but my point being we don't have that kind of evidence for anything. Stalin, we don't have film of Stalin killing 20 million people and we don't have 20 million autopsied Russians, same with Mao, same with any of these guys who racked up huge body counts.

What we know for certain, Himmler commissioned the census and it was completed in early 1943, and we know that as of April 1943 2.4 million Jews had been murdered. So we know the figure at that point is exact. And we don't actually have anything that is that exact from Stalin or Mao or anything, we actually have one of the best piece of evidence ever, from any similar catastrophe. So we know 2.4 million by April of 43' and then the next two years there's a lot of guesswork. I put the figure of final dead at around 3 million to 3.5 million, can't go any higher than 3.5 and cannot be any lower than 3.

And that's why I say to people like Rizzoli, I say stop wasting everyone's time with your fucking memes, stop polluting the internet with ahistorical bullshit. Take the one victory you have, the one victory deniers have is the 6 million figure is totally wrong, totally wrong. That's your victory, if you're in this for a victory, and you shouldn't be, you should be in it to learn, but if you're in it for victory there's your victory, the 6 million figure is not tenable, cannot be supported by facts. Go out and drink a beer, toast in your bar (singing) "the 6 million is defeated, ahaha" and stop wasting my time. That's what I tell deniers these days, go celebrate the 6 million figure is dead, go celebrate and don't bother me anymore. I think I covered all that pretty well.

18:42 - 22:07

So here is where he mentions it. No source or anything, just something about a census which probably lacks 2.4 million Jews so Cole has just filled in the gaps with "Holocaust" genocided Jews.

[Sannhet]

[David Cole says:]

What we know for certain, Himmler commissioned the census and it was completed in early 1943, and we know that as of April 1943 2.4 million Jews had been murdered. So we know the figure at that point is exact. And we don't actually have anything that is that exact from Stalin or Mao or anything, we actually have one of the best piece of evidence ever, from any similar catastrophe. So we know 2.4 million by April of 43' and then the next two years there's a lot of guesswork. I put the figure of final dead at around 3 million to 3.5 million, can't go any higher than 3.5 and cannot be any lower than 3.

"Himmler commissioned a census proving 2.4 million Jews were killed by April 1943."

Why hasn't anyone else ever heard of this census?

He must mean this:

https://codoh.com/library/document/rich ... eports/en/

Stephen Challen wrote Richard Korherr and His Reports in 1993.

In 1979 I obtained from the U.S. National Archives in Washington copies of the Korherr reports. These reports were German statistical surveys made in 1943 of Jewish population movements: I translated these reports into English in 1983 and I took out a copyright to my English translation in May 1991.

I have over the years exhaustively analyzed the Korherr reports. I have come to the strongly held opinion that these reports prove that the National Socialists in fact did not have a policy to kill off the Jews of Europe. [....]

Challen concludes that the total Jewish death toll in Europe, 1941-45, of all causes was 1,200,000 (750,000 in German sphere, 450,000 in ("Unconquered European Russia") . This is man who found, translated, and literally wrote the book on this "census" David Cole mentions. He disagrees with Cole in a big way. Cole claims 3-3.5 million Jews "murdered" by the Germans; Challen estimates 750,000 died of all causes under German control with no systematic murder.

Cole's "as of April 1943 2.4 million Jews had been murdered" is very loose, sloppy language, and the Korherr Report is his proof?

[borjastick]

The argument that 'it happened here there and everywhere over a period of four years, so it happened' is spurious at the very least. What is 'IT', what does he mean by 'IT'???

I know exactly what he means. He means to obscure and obstruct. He groups everything that ever happened to the jews and that which they would not have wanted as 'the holocaust' therefore 'IT' happened.

Complete bollocks. We all know and do not deny that jews were persecuted and dispossessed. We all know they were under tight restrictions and that the German state wanted them to leave. No one is arguing that David. What we claim is quite simple old chap. That there is zero evidence of mass industrialised murder in shootings or in gas chambers. Nothing has been found to prove it. Simples Sergei.

[Webmaster]

This thread was split apart from another thread: Subject: David Irving incapacitated, recovers

Webmaster

[Archie]

Something began to happen around 1994 and 1995. As David Irving and I began to have a much more nuanced view of things, some of the hard core deniers, predominantly Robert Faurisson, a complete crank, from France who really did not contribute terribly to revisionism. He did a few things, but he was limited by being kind of dumb. [...] Faurisson began to see that the smart ones in the circle, me and Irving and eventually Weber, the three smartest guys in the circle were moving in a different direction; and Faurisson was like (Cole doing a French accent, mocking Faurisson) "no, Faurisson will be lost to history, my legacy will be lost". And he began putting pressure on people like Bradley Smith and some of the other, less well healed revisionists, the ones who needed donations and money. Faurisson began putting pressure on them to just stop publishing new stuff (mocking again), "the debate ends with Faurisson, no holes no Holocaust". And that was Faurisson's big thing, "no holes no Holocaust", it's a stupid thing, doesn't even have anything to do with Porn. It's about the roofs of Auschwitz, holes in the roofs, and it's dumb. The "no holes no Holocaust" thing, Faurisson thought that "okay that ends the debate now", and there "should be no debate now" after Faurisson, nothing more.

By 95' I found it hard to get published anywhere in revisionist circles. David Irving was finding it hard for different reasons, his publishers, his mainstream publishers were dropping him for being "too revisionist" and I was starting to get dropped by revisionists for not being revisionist enough, or at least not denier enough, i've always been a revisionist; but they're like "no we want a denier not a revisionist". Now remember this is 95' because some of you younger guys are probably hearing me say that I was having trouble being published, and you're like (in a shitty mocking southern accent) "well why didn't you just put it in your blog? Why didn't you just put it in your blog?". It was 1995 you dumb shits, there was no social media, no blogs, there was no youtube. You still had to rely on people to carry your words to the public.

14:53 - 18:00

I already commented in the Jewish revisionists thread, but just to add a bit. Contrary to what he says here, Faurisson was absolutely a major contributor to revisionism. Moreover, the on-site forensic investigations Cole became known for owe a tremendous debt to Faurisson as he was the one who really pioneered that approach. Faurisson was visiting the camps in the 70s, asking what was original and what was reconstructed, asking for blueprints, etc. Faurisson also came to America to tour American prisons with gas chambers. Faurisson was also the mastermind behind the Zundel trials, which are probably the high-water mark for revisionism. In the first trial, it was Faurisson who devised many of the devastating cross-examination questions that Doug Christie used to roast Raul Hilberg and the survivors. In the second trial, it was Faurisson who had the idea of using expert witnesses in gas chamber execution technology and he was the one who found Leuchter and convinced him to go to Poland.

He also says Faurisson wanted to be the last word on revisionism, but that is not true at all. Those comments could be more accurately applied to MARK WEBER, the guy who effectively killed the IHR.

[stinky]

Cole "borrowed" heavily from David McCalden's videos of the mid-late 80's.
Cole did his videos in the early 90's. He gives no attribution to McCalden.

Cole initially infiltrated revisionism, somehow befriending McCalden.
This particular intrigue requires much closer investigation

Cole has a habit of downplaying, not acknowledging, misrepresenting those who came before him.
He did this (and still does) in order to pump himself up.

He was an operative from day 1.

Cole's good mate Weber also needs much closer scrutiny.

[Lamprecht]

As I pointed out in my post in the "Jewish Revisionists" sticky: viewtopic.php?p=97525#p97525

Weber may just be in it for the money. I think Cole's efforts back when he was younger did more good than bad. His flip-flopping or "Holocaust-lite" strategy doesn't really fool anyone that isn't desperate for an excuse to be fooled. A young Jew making a documentary (imperfect as it was) showing issues with alleged homicidal gas chamber doors and whatever else was quite helpful to revisionism, in my opinion. The old saying "any press is good press" certainly applies here, I'd say. He very promptly exposed the Dachau propaganda film on the Donahue show if I recall correctly as well. Most people have no idea what "Holocaust denial" actually is, assuming it's just some silly "Conspiracy theory" where a bunch of "neo nazis" beleive that Auschwitz never existed and that Hitler didn't put Jews in camps, or that Jews weren't targeted in WWII or whatever. This strategy to deliberately confuse the public is something I have remarked on before.



When a Jewish individual comes out and questions aspects of the "Holocaust" narrative, that really delivers a powerful blow to the "Holocaust denial is just anti-semitism / Jew hatred by neo-nazi white supremacists" schtick. It should not come as a surprise that the JTA decided to publicly post threats / requests for Cole's address in response to his amateur but groundbreaking work; it's very difficult to make the argument that David Cole wanted to convince the world to shove him into a homicidal gas chamber. The truth is that people of all races, ethnicities, religions, and creeds have come out and stated that the "6m + gas chambers" accusations simply do not stand up to rational scrutiny. I recommend: viewtopic.php?t=12194

The same concept applies to other instances of individual Jews criticizing their own group's larger activities. For a lot of people, the arguments and facts do not matter as much as the voice itself.

Cole "borrowed" heavily from David McCalden's videos of the mid-late 80's.
Cole did his videos in the early 90's. He gives no attribution to McCalden.

Cole initially infiltrated revisionism, somehow befriending McCalden.
This particular intrigue requires much closer investigation

Cole has a habit of downplaying, not acknowledging, misrepresenting those who came before him.
He did this (and still does) in order to pump himself up.

He was an operative from day 1.

Cole's good mate Weber also needs much closer scrutiny.

More on Weber & the IHR:

IHR: From Flagship to Millstone - How the IHR Became a "Black Hole" for Revisionist Dollars
Article: https://codoh.com/library/document/ihr- ... lstone/en/
Discussion thread: viewtopic.php?t=12447

[stinky]

Weber may just be in it for the money.

I'm far more cynical of both Weber & Cole.
I've made a brief post here so as not to take this thread off topic;
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12447&p=97596#p97596

[david2923]

In his second video after this one, he addressed my suggestion he tried smoking pot, but he would not address my question about Dean Irrebod's leg of lamb cremation demonstration at 28:43. I feel he was quite unfair to Dean's demonstration. The following is my reply to this video.....

David , Glad to see you are back and looking healthier. Have you ever considered Pot?
This is in regards to the cremation demonstration of the leg of lamb demonstration comment you made.
Are your comments directed towards a demonstration conducted by Dean Irrebod’s demonstration disputing the contents of Yitzhak Arad’s book ‘Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka’ in regards to cremation in open air?
If so, I feel you should re-watch his demonstration. I will include the video link and time spot below.
In Irrebod’s video:
1) He burned the leg of lamb to a crisp and crushed the bones. There was a bit of meat leftover.
2) He did not use a lighter to conduct his demonstration. He had to use 135lbs of wood to cremate a 12.5lbs leg of lamb on a grill and had to keep adding wood to the fire. His demonstration was to show how untrue Arad’s book was, not see if flesh would burn or not. He points out the inefficiency of open air burning and heat loss.
3) David Irving has pointed out the mountain of coke needed to do the cremation at Auschwitz Birkenau. Mr. Irrebod is pointing out the amount of wood necessary to open air burn for some 750,000 cremated people at Treblinka. He asks where was all this wood fuel stored.
My questions are: Where did this wood fuel come from? How was all this wood fuel transferred up ‘The Tube? What would happen if it started to rain or heavy snow during a burning?
Seems to me that the cremation time, required fuel, and open air cremation was the message of this video, not to see if flesh would burn or not.
Link to video: https://www.bitchute.com/vi... Content begins at 3:02:35. The audio and the video are a bit off from each other by a few seconds
Thanks for your time

[david2923]

is there another Leg of Lamb cremation video out there?
If the link I gave to Irrebodd's video does not work, try this one.... https://www.bitchute.com/video/MQxyferx8mht/
Watch from 3:03:10

[Sannhet]

This thread was split apart from another thread: Subject: David Irving incapacitated, recovers

Webmaster

Another relevant reply on Cole + Irving from the original thread:

viewtopic.php?p=97537#p97537

I might as well quote it here, as it contains a reply to borjastick's post which is now here:

_________________________________

[Quoted]

[David Cole] means to obscure and obstruct. He groups everything that ever happened to the jews and that which they would not have wanted as 'the holocaust' therefore 'IT' happened.

To bring it back to David Irving, I think he and David Cole share something in common.

Here is one thing HMSendeavour quotes David Cole as having recently said:

[in the mid or late 1990s] Faurisson began to see that the smart ones in the circle, me and Irving and eventually Weber, the three smartest guys in the circle were moving in a different direction

This sounds like what is called "retconning," a self-serving attempt to alter a person's past.

I understand the two Davids' motivations.

Irving once said something that I think may explain both cases: Roughly paraphrasing, Irving said that you only have so much "capital" in life to spend, by which he explained he meant social or political capital. It was a way to say you could only make controversial positions up to a point, and couldn't take controversial positions on too many things too often. You have a certain amount of points to use and have to play them strategically; if you want to matter, you have to bend with the wind at times, like a tree that survives a hurricane.

These are not "armchair" thoughts by David Irving, as he of course served prison time for being involved in Revisionism and was subject to costly harassment lawsuits and, even worse I think in his case, as someone who made his life's work the documentation of and writing of history, his reputation was hit hard by the late 1990s and 2000s, someone who for thirty years was considered in the mainstream to be among the very best WWII-era and Germany-oriented historians. When he reoriented to make concessions to the orthodox Holocausters, he was trying to revive his reputation.

Likewise with David Cole after he resurfaced in May 2013 (not by his own will; I believe an ex-girlfriend 'doxxed' him as living and working under an assumed name in LA and active in Republican Party politics in California for 15 years, successfully covering up his previous involvement in Holocaust Revisionism). Cole, in the past seven years, has had some influence doing what he wants to do, and in the open: Journalism and political activism. He probably would not be allowed to do that, on the platforms he is on, if he was seen as a hardline Denier. So he "retcons" his history, claims to have discovered three million murdered Jews -- but also afaict still claims to be a Revisionist. He gets to be on both sides. If an anti-Denier activist type questions him, he'll denounce everyone, as he does in the text HMSendeavour posted above.

Irving made the same move but without the disappearance and living under an assumed name and without the name-calling and insults.

I doubt whether either of the Davids (the b.1968 Jew who questioned the Holocaust and then disappeared and then resurfaced, or the b.1938 Englishman) are in any way were convinced by facts to become Believers or Partial-Believers. They do claim to be for sake of their reputations, and may have in some way even talked themselves into it.

David Cole's verbal aggressiveness in insisting he is better and smarter than the Revisionists is just his personality flourish. I don't think I have seen Irving do that.

[End Quote]

[Lamprecht]

In his second video after this one, he addressed my suggestion he tried smoking pot, but he would not address my question about Dean Irrebod's leg of lamb cremation demonstration at 28:43. I feel he was quite unfair to Dean's demonstration. The following is my reply to this video.

I suspect that this is this David's second video that you're referencing here?


https://youtube.com/watch?v=qnmTZUxNIHI

[david2923]

Yes, that is correct. You notice He did not address Dean Irrebodd's leg of lamb cremation demonstration just pot smoking question