?
-
Guest
http://www.blame-him-because-he-voted-for-Christians.org/story.php?id=11787
A Jewish Revisionist's Visit to Auschwitz
Report; Posted on: 2007-03-02
[ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ]
"...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."
by David Cole
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
villified. 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 laws, 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 inflluence. 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, Revsionist
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 pussycat 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 hearby 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!
-----------------------------------------------------------
From The Journal of Historical Review, March-April 1993 (Vol. 13, No.
2), pages 11-13. This essay was first presented at the Eleventh IHR
Conference, October 1992.
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,
who hit him in the face and bloodied his nose. JDL leader Irv Rubin
also tried to push him down a flight of stairs. In April 1992 he
appeared -- along with Journal editor Mark Weber -- as a guest on the
Montel Williams Show, a nationally syndicated television program, to
present a revisionist view of the Holocaust story.
Original article
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n2p11_Cole.html
Source: Institute for Historical Review
2006 don't-blame-him-because-he-voted-for-Christians.org.
A Jewish Revisionist's Visit to Auschwitz
Report; Posted on: 2007-03-02
[ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ]
"...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."
by David Cole
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
villified. 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 laws, 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 inflluence. 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, Revsionist
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 pussycat 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 hearby 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!
-----------------------------------------------------------
From The Journal of Historical Review, March-April 1993 (Vol. 13, No.
2), pages 11-13. This essay was first presented at the Eleventh IHR
Conference, October 1992.
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,
who hit him in the face and bloodied his nose. JDL leader Irv Rubin
also tried to push him down a flight of stairs. In April 1992 he
appeared -- along with Journal editor Mark Weber -- as a guest on the
Montel Williams Show, a nationally syndicated television program, to
present a revisionist view of the Holocaust story.
Original article
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n2p11_Cole.html
Source: Institute for Historical Review
2006 don't-blame-him-because-he-voted-for-Christians.org.