Article 6527 of alt.revisionism:
Xref: kzoo misc.test:69047 alt.revisionism:6527
Newsgroups: misc.test,alt.revisionism
Path: kzoo!k044477
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Letter from David Cole to me, 20 June 1995
Message-ID: <1995Jul1.015134.9667@hobbes.kzoo.edu>
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       k044477@kzoo.edu       jrm0@aol.com
 http://www.kzoo.edu/~k044477/    I speak only for myself.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor