David Cole on Robert Faurisson
“I’m going to make this short, and it will be my final word on the subject. I’ve been hearing a lot recently about Robert Faurisson badmouthing me. This is nothing new. This is what Faurisson does. He has systematically alienated, via his unwarranted insults, Mark Weber and David Irving, the two finest revisionist historians there are. Faurisson is displeased that I point out in my book that he froze on the witness stand at the Zundel Trial when asked about the Einsatzgruppen operations in the East after the invasion of Russia. If he is angry, let it be with his own behavior on the stand, preserved in the record of the proceedings (and accurately reproduced by me in my book). If Faurisson does not like Faurisson’s words being recorded, Faurisson needs to take that up with Faurisson. Just as in the case of “skeptic” fraud Michael Shermer, Faurisson is upset that I recounted his own words. Tough shit, boys.
“After my outing, Freddy Leuchter Facebook friended me like we were old pals. I’d met him maybe three times in my life, and I’d never had any conflict with him. A few days ago, Faurisson declared me an enemy, and Freddy concurred. And all of a sudden we were old enemies instead of old pals. The truth is, we were neither. Freddy isn’t a historian; Weber and Irving are. If Weber and Irving are on Faurisson’s enemies list, I am happy to be in their company. I’d rather be Weber’s real-life friend than Leuchter’s Facebook friend.
“Mark Weber and I have been friends for almost a quarter century. It is a friendship built on respect. Have we disagreed? Sure. All friends do every now and then. But we’ve never taken it public or made it a spectacle. Same with Bradley Smith, a friend of mine since 1989. But Faurisson? When he declares you an infidel, he makes a bigger spectacle of it than Cecil B. De Mille on acid.
“I have never sought conflict with Faurisson, but he has come at me time and again, and time and again I have stated that I don’t give one small damn about his opinion of me. He should be thankful to a man like Weber for giving him a forum for as long as he did. Instead, Faurisson strikes out at anyone who “displeases” him, and, in doing so, violates the tenet of a free and friendly exchange of ideas that separates revisionism (in theory if not in practice) from “orthodox” Holocaust historiography.
“He’s insignificant to my work and my life. I’m sorry that he’s bitter, but I can’t help that. He’s not worth another one minute of keyboard-typing. End of story.”
https://www.facebook.com/BigInfidel Scroll down to 21 July.
Smith Asks a Question: I thought David Cole/Stein going off on Faurisson this way was much more than just not necessary. Still, I did want to see the quote “’accurately reproduced’ by me [David] in my book.” I wrote to ask that he help me find that quote in his book, which is not indexed. I made no comment on the ugly, insulting language he used re Faurisson.
Cole Replies: “Are you running the Treblinka piece [this refers to an article he wrote for SR ] or not? If you have my book, the Faurisson comment is on page 30. But that’s irrelevant to the Treblinka piece. The Faurisson comment you quote was from a Facebook post. The Treblinka piece is something scholarly that I prepared specifically for you.”
Following that, I received a second message: “First of all old man, if you’re going to troll my Facebook page, be aware that I do not treat social media like a book or essay. It’s SOCIAL MEDIA. It’s ephemeral. It’s a conversation with my friends on my private page. I do not expect my private conversations to be critiqued as though I were submitting a scholarly essay.
“I’m curious — are you similarly grilling Leuchter on his claim that I am not a revisionist? I used the term ‘reproduced’ as in ‘represented.’ I accurately represented Faurisson’s behavior on the stands based on the trial transcripts (as I was not in Toronto in ’85 to see the trial myself). Faurisson is too unimportant a figure for me to have devoted even one page to reprinting the actual transcripts. It’s a throwaway paragraph about a marginal kook. He was asked on the stand if he had ever studied the mass killings following the invasion of Russia, he admitted that he never had, and it was embarrassing. End of story.”
Smith Replies: “I do intend to run your piece on Treblinka. I think you present it well. I also expect it to be criticized. I did buy your book and perused it all, read the appendix more closely. [Re the quote we are discussing] ‘If Faurisson is angry, let it be with his own behavior on the stand, preserved in the record of the proceedings (and accurately reproduced by me in my book’”
“Is this behavior reproduced in the Appendix? Or? You can save me some 15 minutes or maybe an hour if it you tell me where.”
A bit later I caught up with his question about my trolling his Facebook page where his diatribe on Faurisson appeared.
“I first got it I think from Santomauro. Then I went to take a look. I may be an old guy, you’re acting like a child. I asked you a simple question. You get defensive. You get defensive because you wrote saying you had done something you did not do. Your FB page is private in no way whatever — other than your wish that it were so if you say something there that is not true. If this sounds like I am getting impatient with you, it is because I am.
“Don’t get pissy with me, or have a hissy fit. I do not think I am going to be in the mood for it.”
Cole Replies: “A) My Facebook page is private. But when one of my friends shares something, it can be seen by others. That doesn’t mean that my page is not private. But if one of my friends decides to share something, he can.
“B) If you want me to go fucking dig up the transcript of the Faurisson cross-examination from the Zundel Trial (which I only have in hard-copy, unless you know of a complete online source), I will, just to prove a point. Unlike you, Weber read my book front-to-back, and gave me various positive and negative notes. There was no disagreement regarding the way I presented Faurisson’s behavior on the stand. He was ill-prepared and ignorant on the Eastern Front killings. It will take me several days to find the transcripts. As I said, I will find them, if you insist, but, regardless…
“C) We’re finished. Permanently. You’ve always been a pathetic puppet dancing at the end of Faurisson’s strings, which, considering how unimportant he is in the big scheme of things, is pathetic to an even greater degree. I was prepared to let it go, because I realize your need for money and I equally realize that since the “official” Faurisson / IHR split, having him in your corner helps you out financially. You should have understood that I was being tolerant by letting it go, and you should have refrained from pushing it further. You did not. I, on the other hand, have been willing to let things go, including behavior of yours toward Weber after the 2009 “split” that I consider to be in direct contradiction to your supposed belief in “open debate.”
“Faurisson will be dead soon, and where will that leave you? You’ve alienated Weber, and now you’ve alienated me. You’re not good at long-term thinking. I suppose you’ll still have Rudolf, who, from what I have seen, has been enough of a gentleman to not get involved in the recent attacks against me from Faurisson.
“Parfrey [Cole’s publisher] will run my Treblinka piece as the thing that Brad Smith was too much of a pussy to run unless I kowtowed to Faurisson. Fine. It will only demonstrate that I have (as always) tried to remain independent of revisionist orthodoxy and pressure.
“Your mailing list is drying up faster than Faurisson’s health. I tried to offer you something for the future, out of friendship, not respect. There is no respect there, as there is regarding how I feel toward Weber. But there is/was friendship, and I try to be loyal to my friends, even the ones I find better suited for ridicule.
“No more. We’re through. You do not have the right to use any footage from Gran Tabu. We had already decided mutually that it was owned jointly by you, me, and Rudolf, and that all three parties must give consent before any use can be made of the film. I withdraw my consent.”
Smith Replies: [I wrote to say that I had not replied to the above originally as I was running errands with my wife but that now I was back.]
“Sure, get me the relevant passages with re to Faurisson that you mention [above], even though I did not ask you for them. That’s an expression of your hysteria. But do as you say you will.
“Re your tolerance: it is nothing compared to your hysteria in “defending” yourself. With a bit more manliness, take your time and think about this, you would not feel the need for these lady-like hissy-fits.
“With re to running your article on Treblinka: I did not say or even suggest that I was not going to run it. It’s your hysteria that causes you to think I will not run it. Man up, David. I expect to run it, and have a reply to it.
“Re El Gran Tabu: understood.
There has been no further reply from David Cole/Stein. The entire exchange took place on one day, 22 July 2014. It’s all over. One question was too much for the hissy-boy. Perhaps the implications of the one question. Not for me, but for David Cole Stein. Some 25 years and it’s come to an end because of one question. I’m OK with it. When he gets anxious, I just don’t care for the quality of his prose.
A follow-up thought: David Cole Stein now has the opportunity to go off on Smith. The above screed is nothing to what he is capable of. I can picture him doing it even now. And what he does, if he does do it, will be out-of-this-world exceptional. You will never have read anything like it. I almost look forward to it. I do look forward to it. He’s that good.