and is now saying "the holocaust happened', here is a recent writing of David Cole:
David Cole wrote: June 16, 2020
Seven years ago I was banished from conservative circles for having been a “Holocaust denier” in my youth. The fact that I had never been any such thing was irrelevant. The Huffington Post and MSNBC called me “denier,” and that’s all that mattered.
Friends turned their back on me, the GOP officially expelled me, and conservative website after website stood in line to pile on. The Washington Times called me “pure evil,” PJ Media called me “an offence to God,” and the American Spectator called me a “Jewish anti-Semite” who unleashed “uncomprehending horror” on the world.
I tried to plead my case. I tried to explain that the points I made on national TV in the early 1990s were solidly based on facts and figures. I argued that much of what I’d said back then was and is confirmed by respected historians. “Please stop acting emotionally and look at the substance of my views,” I implored.
No dice. When it comes to genocide, those who fuss over the minor points of numbers and statistics are “minimisers.” Might there be one or two things “off” in the historical narrative of the Holocaust? Sure, but who cares? Genocide claims must be respected, not placed under a microscope.
https://www.takimag.com/article/race-wa ... -genocide/
And here is an excellent post by the founder of RODOH Scott Smith that is well worth a revisitation:
Scott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2014 9:24 pm...Sure, Mr. Cole may still have some disappointing views on the Big-H, a position similar to David Irving's, and I may think that is wrong, but so what? Big deal.
The WORST damage — in my humble opinion — that can ever be done to RevisionismTM is to create a sort of Orthodoxy to replace an Orthodoxy.
The first rule of historiography is that historians disagree. If Revisionists (large-R) are true to their craft, then they will accept this cardinal maxim too and understand that not all Revisionists will necessarily agree.
Some will be better than others at "revising history according to the facts," to paraphrase the great Progressive/Isolationist Prof. Harry Elmer Barnes. A scientific method for History means to revise it in a never-ending feedback loop; it is absolutely not a catalog of canonical truths kept by some intellectual priesthood. Revisionism isn't a "movement" the way that I see it.
Mr. Toben and some others may disagree and see only some sort of fight against the Joos--that either does or does not pass muster. Well, that is not historiography. That is not historical revisionism (small-r). That is not "bringing history into accord with the facts." That approach is one of propaganda only. That approach will FAIL scientifically, just as Hollywood hoaxing will fail (ultimately) where it ultimately counts. (Pseudo-scientists like Ms. Sturdy-Colls would do well to learn this lesson as well.)
The greatest crime for any Revisionist, is to aspire to be the last word on the subject. There is no "Pope" of Revisionism, nor should there be. To me that is the only important methodological point.
Mr. Cole might have some differing views on the Big-H and its revision. Big freaking deal.
I hope that David Cole will do us the justice of clarifying his views and debate Eric Hunt or Fritz Berg or whomever--and that is where the subject can move forward. Baby steps, yes. That is how it is done.
That is the way that real historiography works, and those who will not engage their intellectual opponents are not making a full scientific contribution. Real Science is not about an echo-chamber of Faith--and those who would try to make a religion or a doctrine out of History are less historians than charlatans. Leave the Doctrine and the Hoaxing to the Lipstadts and to the Wiesels, etc.
Again, the absolute worst mistake that Revisionists can make is to dismiss the "unorthodox" without ado. That is why it is useful to debate each other and our opponents, even those whose views we are unlikely to change with any meritorious arguments. In a free environment of debate and scholarship, the intellectually curious can make up their own minds. And they will. That is why it is necessary to strongarm Revisionists or anyone else whose views on the Big-H are not sufficiently Kosher. So let's leave the vileness to the Hoaxsters.
Mr. Cole can attest to that kind of coercion and so can Mr. Hunt, as can many others who have been beaten or jailed for having the wrong views regarding recent history. I don't think I can emphasize this point more strongly. The Truth is something that honest people aspire towards but will never fully attain. And Lies don't become the Truth with any army of Good Guy enforcers or budgetary endowment.
To ritually condemn David Cole because he does not have sufficiently "Revisionist" views is just as vile as the Hoaxsters, who ritually condemn those whose views are not sufficiently Holocausty.
The second worst mistake, in my view, for Revisionists to make is to conflate a mission of intellectual curiosity and historical adventure with "fighting the Joos." That is probably what Mr. Toben and many like him see as crucial--so let's continue to botch the historical and scientific investigation of the matter, shall we? Nuff said.
I never said that it was easy. One side has more money and slicker propaganda, and they don't play fair--but fat coffers, coercion and violence does NOT manufacture the truth. It doesn't make the Sun revolve around the Earth. Propaganda that revolves around lies will fail. It will inevitably fail. I didn't say it would not do damage to good people along the way.
So the Truth is a not a "movement" and it is not an absolute in any case. It is about intellectual curiosity and about honesty. So simple and yet so hard. It is not about "fighting the Joos" nor finding "decent" Joos. That is some other issue besides real historiography. So leave the "unreal" for the Popes and the Hoaxsters--and for anybody else whose Messiah walks on water. Pay your $1 and move right along. The big kids are nonplussed by the big infidels.