Eventually Hitler and the Nazis are gonna get rehabilitated. Kids will walk around campus going "HEIL HITLER!" Whoopi Goldberg will wear a swastika armband. I´m already bored by the whole thing ....
Gee, Hollywood had total confidence in you, a directly descendant of the Elvis killer (allegedly). But a fact based thought in your head was a step too far?
You deserve the first spot on the CA reparation List.
Consider the screenshot of the 'Teachers' posted in the interview part two, they were watching a Schindler's List movie in a classroom ...., the what?? were they engaging in a Hollywood art study? No, it's about 'teaching the Holocaust'.
It is ridiculous to feed students Hollywood movies unless it's a study of what is mostly junk art, or a study of culture (or lack thereof) or indeed, a study of propaganda (displaying Muslims often as terrorists for instance..). The 'veracity' of the screenshot is moot, the only valid question is: are they really feeding students Hollywood movies as a means of a study of history?
So mister 'critical thinking' Cole, instead of addressing this issue goes on with talking hobby horse 'dumb people' in the 'denial' scene. Jews are verbally strong he said, the first thing which comes to mind is amusing verbal and narrative redundancy when I read mister Cole.
For now the attack of countering bullshit with bullshit seems appropriate when people have no other means, when people have a hunch, but are in lack of means to work it out intelligently. Why are they even occupied with it, because the Holocaust is a Jewish obsession and extortion racket imposed on the Goyim, which some of the Goyim are trying to shake off., like a religion imposed upon atheists, who cares whether they do it stupidly.... militant atheism also has its stupidities. Moreover, Jews are very preoccupied with themselves and their sufferings, mythical or real, to the point of morbidity, we Goyim have to divide our attention between the eternally victimized attention-seeker's issues and our own real interests and topics.
Hi David have you ever read the book by Brian mark rigg: called Hitlers Jewish soldiers? It a good read about men in the German Army who were half Jewish or a quarter Jewish. It a real eye opener. It’s as controversial as your work I would say.
This seems like a hyperbolic statement borne from dislike of bad optics masquerading as a self evident fact, that's what it seems like but as we all know appearances can be deceiving. I'm sure the harm of internet trolls can not only be quantified but also would no doubt be equal to the harm leftists inflict on normal white people, that's plausible.
Speaking of, it's a good thing you got interviewed by counter currents and not some neo nazi site like daily stormer, the average person definitely makes a distinction between those two despite the fact their views on controversial topics are virtually identical. As we all know white nationalist talking points are fine long as there's no swastikas or shock humor included with it which is literally the same as leftists putting CRT in school curriculums and castrating children.
It's just like holocaust denial versus revisionism, everyone knows there's evidence disproving the former whereas the latter has such impeccable optics that nobody ever has an irrationally hysterical reaction to it or erroneously claim it's actually just plain denial in disguise.
Now that I know counter currents is safe and won't infect my mind with toxic nazism that's been empirically proven to be just as bad as the left, and Q anon schizos for that matter, I now support giving infinite money to a corrupt eastern european country to protect their border. I'm also gonna call anyone who disagrees with lockdowns a sociopath in an attempt to shame them into compliance, that's called having standards. With that I'll finally be able to talk about the JQ and speak positively about hitler (without swastikas!) while still being accepted by the mainstream, just like counter currents itself, all with this one simple trick. Amazing.
I just feel it in my loins that I'm well on my way to becoming Dave's favorite substack commenter.
The whole point of the comment was to illustrate via direct comparison how irrational, dismissive and hypocritical Dave was being. I don't know if you intentionally misinterpreted that or if it was accidental but given the intent it was by definition not a strawman. At any point Dave could've explained the glaring flaws in his logic, he could've resisted being hyperbolic and making claims he cannot prove but he didn't. I responded the way I did to show just how flawed and ridiculous his claims were by contrasting it. To take what I said any other way is to project a completely different intent and effectively strawman the point I was making which is rather ironic given your accusation.
Take note of how Dave chooses to address Shermer compared to how he's spoken about Anglin, he only speaks about the latter in vague dismissive terms and wrings his hands that people are retweeting him. Dave never actually explained how or why Anglin's tweets are so damaging and dismissed him as nazi. That's deflection. The fact that Dave felt the need to invent a quote by Anglin to respond to in a previous Taki article is absolutely pathetic and honestly, shocking that he'd stoop so low. You want to talk about strawmen, that's one of the most comical examples of one I've ever seen.
To top it all off he sings the virtues of a site that is identical minus the shock humor. He did that while claiming they have higher standards and implied they're excluded from his ridiculous claim about harming Whites more than leftists do. He said that without any explanation whatsoever beyond appealing to his own authority. Somehow this isn't exactly how it looks, it's definitely not hypocritical and illogical behavior driven by emotion... Right. You mentioned a non sequitur about Anglin interviewing Dave, mentioned the word spine, individual personality and implied I'm susceptible to a logical fallacy. Was that supposed to prove that Dave wasn't being a hypocrite or were you just going off on a tangent for no particular reason? I ask because I don't see how you saying those things actually proves my claim of his hypocrisy wrong.
If someone doesn't like Anglin? Fair enough. Behaving exactly like the leftists you write scathing articles about purely because you don't like him? I'm gonna call that out because I believe we shouldn't lower ourselves to their level. There's no shortage of legitimate criticisms that can be laid towards Anglin but Dave ignored all that to behave like a hysterical shitlib. Sorry but I need something more than someone's word alone that a site that anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows is engaging in shock humor is harming anything let alone Whites. You agree with Dave that the guy who runs the most censored website on the internet should be shunned because you personally don't like the optics? Okay but it's really strange that neither you nor Dave can simply say that without appealing to some undefined standards whose real world effects can't be explained.
The implicit message here is that we must adhere to the optics the Left laid out for us otherwise we lose, just like revisionism. No humor allowed, that's the defining difference, no need to explain why Counter Currents isn't constantly taken offline while Daily Stormer is. We wouldn't want to too in depth on why that is lest the dogmatic claims about optics fall apart, better to shun a much more popular site discussing the same things on the basis of optics because that's far more important than spreading awareness.
Speaking of revisionism if only they had listened to Dave then somehow, for reasons he can't actually explain, it would've worked out just fine. It definitely wasn't doomed from the start because the small hats controlled the media, you just have to take his word for it. Meanwhile I can explain all these things in a manner that's completely consistent and doesn't need to be spoken about in extremely vague terms to not fall apart. I can do that without having to call into question a person's standards, question whether they have a spine or inject any sort of emotional argument into the equation. But still, again, somehow you're definitely right. You can't prove it, can't talk about it in any sort of depth but you're right. Come the fuck on with this bullshit.
I'm playing devil's advocate because it seems to me that optics cucking is precisely what created the cuckservative GOP we have now that can't even conserve the girl's bathroom. I need more than some bitter former revisionist with a chip on his shoulder barking dictates at me to deny what I see, if that makes me spineless then so be it. It's not even the premise I disagree with it's the dogmatic nature of it and the resulting hysteria anytime these arbitrary standards are even slightly deviated from.
I expect more from Dave, he's so often thorough and logically coherent but he throws all that out the window whenever he's talking about someone he has personal animosity towards. I also have a tendency to call out bullshit whenever I see it, hence my comment.
Finally, it goes without saying but you failed to convince me that anything I said is wrong. Nowhere did you actually explain the real world damaging effects of associating with Anglin let alone in direct comparison to Counter Currents or any of the other claims for that matter. It's not as though I'm not open to hearing it, I'm not against criticizing anyone so long as it's deserved. This was not that, not in the slightest. I dislike what in this instance appears to be bad faith emotional arguments, pontification without evidence and a litany of fallacies totally lacking coherence. What Dave wrote and what you replied to me with here matches those things exactly.
Nobody is gonna stop you or anyone else from wringing your hands about Anglin but I'm not going to stop calling out blatant bullshit when I see it. The irony is I would've loved to see Dave give Anglin an honest critique, he's veering so close by proxy now with his talk of christianity making people irrational but still not directly touching on what he says. They agree on so much but that's right where they start to diverge, the hopelessness of voting and clinging to trust the plan God is in control bullshit and no prominent people on the right honestly challenges him on that. Anglin used to post Dave's articles on his forum when it was online because he is one of the only people calling out this Q conspiracy shit from a right wing perspective so it's not like he's not aware of him or doesn't take him seriously. Before this I doubt Anglin would've dismissed Dave as a kike and left it at that but now he has every right to since he made up a fake response to strawman him with.
That's just so convenient, what are the odds that he would bait such a reaction by dismissing him with a invented quote that doesn't sound like anything he would actually say? I'm sure that wasn't intentional at all. Having standards sure makes people behave in deceptive ways huh? It's cool though it only *looks* that way, you have to have standards to understand that it's not actually how it appears. Funny how that works.
Hey David Cole, I don't know if you heard but this guy Matt (History Speaks) called you a holocaust denier in a chat with Richard Spencer. At around 43 minutes in: https://easyupload.io/2q5g7p
BTW if you two have already debated somewhere I'd love to hear/read it.
I agree with mister Cole that Jews have considerable literary talent (as he states in his interview), all the more reason to be on your guard sometimes, depending on the situation, or its utility... The diary of Anne Frank is no doubt of literary quality, who cares about the pen, although it has become so popular nowadays that one must question the literary quality, personally I never fully read it for that reason. But who cares, Anne was still very young, even the youthful works of geniusses cannot stand up to the test.
As of the verbal talent, the Jewish writer Israel Shamir wrote that in the arts Jews are visually handicapped due to millennia of iconoclasm. Staking it all on verbal and literary skills, and even 'too much blabla'? Darwin might agree.
Anyway, who cares about facts, we Goyim have become obsessed with facts, while the highly imaginative Jews are worthy of many Oscars by mister Wilde:
"Facts are not merely finding a footing-place in history, but they are usurping the domain of Fancy, and have invaded the kingdom of Romance. Their chilling touch is over everything. They are vulgarising mankind."
The Jews still know how to romance (lowercase intentional..), how to be imaginative, while we Goyim have about totally lost the precious art of lying.
Now take Schindler's List, aside of the literary quality, which is good enough for the overly simple and sentimental, and those who are impressed by bad actors with bad vibes like Liam Neeson, the music (written by John Williams, we Goyim rock) is very tolerable. The people who have been debunking the story of Schindler's List are very brute and artless people though. If even art of a doubtful but acceptable quality has no chance, even the muse of better art must flee.
Our lack of artful imagination is also the reason that some Jews have been capable of slapping us with vulgar selective facts around the ears, which picked up by our own democratic vulgarians have become an obsession.
It appears that the Goyim and the Jews have to work at a compensating fruitful exchange, we Goyim need more fancy-full imagination, less vulgar facts, and the Jews need somewhat to be pulled out of their obsessive fantasy worlds by our adherence to facts.
I know you from Taki, not your early work, but I would be interested to know your views on Deborah Lipstadt - not her historical opinions so much as the sort of individual she is. When I read Denying the Holocaust I was taken aback by her sheer lack of interest in the motivation, sincerity or sanity of her subjects. McCarthyites, trained historians, scientists and sheer loons seemed to be all the same to her. Can you shed any light?
I never heard of counter currents, so I googled it and wound up in a strange site called countercurrents. org. The site is a weird mishmash of do-gooder articles and a lot of stuff about India. Not exactly the kind of place that would host your particular form of outrageousness.
I’ve tried watching your old holocaust film, but couldn’t get in to it honestly. I can see the value in historical accuracy but at the end of the day you may as well be investigating the numbers on the Armenian or Rwandan genocide.
It isn’t all that relevant to a lot of people besides Jews and weird goosesteppers. I hadn’t even met a single Jew growing up, and never lived in a place with a sizeable population. Similarly I can’t imagine most blacks are concerned with the hall of cost either.
I do respect your testicular fortitude for doing it though.
Eventually Hitler and the Nazis are gonna get rehabilitated. Kids will walk around campus going "HEIL HITLER!" Whoopi Goldberg will wear a swastika armband. I´m already bored by the whole thing ....
Gee, Hollywood had total confidence in you, a directly descendant of the Elvis killer (allegedly). But a fact based thought in your head was a step too far?
You deserve the first spot on the CA reparation List.
Very interesting to read of your 'back story'.
“I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against.”
― Malcolm X
Consider the screenshot of the 'Teachers' posted in the interview part two, they were watching a Schindler's List movie in a classroom ...., the what?? were they engaging in a Hollywood art study? No, it's about 'teaching the Holocaust'.
It is ridiculous to feed students Hollywood movies unless it's a study of what is mostly junk art, or a study of culture (or lack thereof) or indeed, a study of propaganda (displaying Muslims often as terrorists for instance..). The 'veracity' of the screenshot is moot, the only valid question is: are they really feeding students Hollywood movies as a means of a study of history?
So mister 'critical thinking' Cole, instead of addressing this issue goes on with talking hobby horse 'dumb people' in the 'denial' scene. Jews are verbally strong he said, the first thing which comes to mind is amusing verbal and narrative redundancy when I read mister Cole.
For now the attack of countering bullshit with bullshit seems appropriate when people have no other means, when people have a hunch, but are in lack of means to work it out intelligently. Why are they even occupied with it, because the Holocaust is a Jewish obsession and extortion racket imposed on the Goyim, which some of the Goyim are trying to shake off., like a religion imposed upon atheists, who cares whether they do it stupidly.... militant atheism also has its stupidities. Moreover, Jews are very preoccupied with themselves and their sufferings, mythical or real, to the point of morbidity, we Goyim have to divide our attention between the eternally victimized attention-seeker's issues and our own real interests and topics.
https://counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/David-Cole-1.jpg
Hi David have you ever read the book by Brian mark rigg: called Hitlers Jewish soldiers? It a good read about men in the German Army who were half Jewish or a quarter Jewish. It a real eye opener. It’s as controversial as your work I would say.
"they harm those people no less than leftists do"
This seems like a hyperbolic statement borne from dislike of bad optics masquerading as a self evident fact, that's what it seems like but as we all know appearances can be deceiving. I'm sure the harm of internet trolls can not only be quantified but also would no doubt be equal to the harm leftists inflict on normal white people, that's plausible.
Speaking of, it's a good thing you got interviewed by counter currents and not some neo nazi site like daily stormer, the average person definitely makes a distinction between those two despite the fact their views on controversial topics are virtually identical. As we all know white nationalist talking points are fine long as there's no swastikas or shock humor included with it which is literally the same as leftists putting CRT in school curriculums and castrating children.
It's just like holocaust denial versus revisionism, everyone knows there's evidence disproving the former whereas the latter has such impeccable optics that nobody ever has an irrationally hysterical reaction to it or erroneously claim it's actually just plain denial in disguise.
Now that I know counter currents is safe and won't infect my mind with toxic nazism that's been empirically proven to be just as bad as the left, and Q anon schizos for that matter, I now support giving infinite money to a corrupt eastern european country to protect their border. I'm also gonna call anyone who disagrees with lockdowns a sociopath in an attempt to shame them into compliance, that's called having standards. With that I'll finally be able to talk about the JQ and speak positively about hitler (without swastikas!) while still being accepted by the mainstream, just like counter currents itself, all with this one simple trick. Amazing.
I just feel it in my loins that I'm well on my way to becoming Dave's favorite substack commenter.
The whole point of the comment was to illustrate via direct comparison how irrational, dismissive and hypocritical Dave was being. I don't know if you intentionally misinterpreted that or if it was accidental but given the intent it was by definition not a strawman. At any point Dave could've explained the glaring flaws in his logic, he could've resisted being hyperbolic and making claims he cannot prove but he didn't. I responded the way I did to show just how flawed and ridiculous his claims were by contrasting it. To take what I said any other way is to project a completely different intent and effectively strawman the point I was making which is rather ironic given your accusation.
Take note of how Dave chooses to address Shermer compared to how he's spoken about Anglin, he only speaks about the latter in vague dismissive terms and wrings his hands that people are retweeting him. Dave never actually explained how or why Anglin's tweets are so damaging and dismissed him as nazi. That's deflection. The fact that Dave felt the need to invent a quote by Anglin to respond to in a previous Taki article is absolutely pathetic and honestly, shocking that he'd stoop so low. You want to talk about strawmen, that's one of the most comical examples of one I've ever seen.
To top it all off he sings the virtues of a site that is identical minus the shock humor. He did that while claiming they have higher standards and implied they're excluded from his ridiculous claim about harming Whites more than leftists do. He said that without any explanation whatsoever beyond appealing to his own authority. Somehow this isn't exactly how it looks, it's definitely not hypocritical and illogical behavior driven by emotion... Right. You mentioned a non sequitur about Anglin interviewing Dave, mentioned the word spine, individual personality and implied I'm susceptible to a logical fallacy. Was that supposed to prove that Dave wasn't being a hypocrite or were you just going off on a tangent for no particular reason? I ask because I don't see how you saying those things actually proves my claim of his hypocrisy wrong.
If someone doesn't like Anglin? Fair enough. Behaving exactly like the leftists you write scathing articles about purely because you don't like him? I'm gonna call that out because I believe we shouldn't lower ourselves to their level. There's no shortage of legitimate criticisms that can be laid towards Anglin but Dave ignored all that to behave like a hysterical shitlib. Sorry but I need something more than someone's word alone that a site that anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows is engaging in shock humor is harming anything let alone Whites. You agree with Dave that the guy who runs the most censored website on the internet should be shunned because you personally don't like the optics? Okay but it's really strange that neither you nor Dave can simply say that without appealing to some undefined standards whose real world effects can't be explained.
The implicit message here is that we must adhere to the optics the Left laid out for us otherwise we lose, just like revisionism. No humor allowed, that's the defining difference, no need to explain why Counter Currents isn't constantly taken offline while Daily Stormer is. We wouldn't want to too in depth on why that is lest the dogmatic claims about optics fall apart, better to shun a much more popular site discussing the same things on the basis of optics because that's far more important than spreading awareness.
Speaking of revisionism if only they had listened to Dave then somehow, for reasons he can't actually explain, it would've worked out just fine. It definitely wasn't doomed from the start because the small hats controlled the media, you just have to take his word for it. Meanwhile I can explain all these things in a manner that's completely consistent and doesn't need to be spoken about in extremely vague terms to not fall apart. I can do that without having to call into question a person's standards, question whether they have a spine or inject any sort of emotional argument into the equation. But still, again, somehow you're definitely right. You can't prove it, can't talk about it in any sort of depth but you're right. Come the fuck on with this bullshit.
I'm playing devil's advocate because it seems to me that optics cucking is precisely what created the cuckservative GOP we have now that can't even conserve the girl's bathroom. I need more than some bitter former revisionist with a chip on his shoulder barking dictates at me to deny what I see, if that makes me spineless then so be it. It's not even the premise I disagree with it's the dogmatic nature of it and the resulting hysteria anytime these arbitrary standards are even slightly deviated from.
I expect more from Dave, he's so often thorough and logically coherent but he throws all that out the window whenever he's talking about someone he has personal animosity towards. I also have a tendency to call out bullshit whenever I see it, hence my comment.
Finally, it goes without saying but you failed to convince me that anything I said is wrong. Nowhere did you actually explain the real world damaging effects of associating with Anglin let alone in direct comparison to Counter Currents or any of the other claims for that matter. It's not as though I'm not open to hearing it, I'm not against criticizing anyone so long as it's deserved. This was not that, not in the slightest. I dislike what in this instance appears to be bad faith emotional arguments, pontification without evidence and a litany of fallacies totally lacking coherence. What Dave wrote and what you replied to me with here matches those things exactly.
Nobody is gonna stop you or anyone else from wringing your hands about Anglin but I'm not going to stop calling out blatant bullshit when I see it. The irony is I would've loved to see Dave give Anglin an honest critique, he's veering so close by proxy now with his talk of christianity making people irrational but still not directly touching on what he says. They agree on so much but that's right where they start to diverge, the hopelessness of voting and clinging to trust the plan God is in control bullshit and no prominent people on the right honestly challenges him on that. Anglin used to post Dave's articles on his forum when it was online because he is one of the only people calling out this Q conspiracy shit from a right wing perspective so it's not like he's not aware of him or doesn't take him seriously. Before this I doubt Anglin would've dismissed Dave as a kike and left it at that but now he has every right to since he made up a fake response to strawman him with.
That's just so convenient, what are the odds that he would bait such a reaction by dismissing him with a invented quote that doesn't sound like anything he would actually say? I'm sure that wasn't intentional at all. Having standards sure makes people behave in deceptive ways huh? It's cool though it only *looks* that way, you have to have standards to understand that it's not actually how it appears. Funny how that works.
We'll both be fine, we don't agree and that's okay
Hey David Cole, I don't know if you heard but this guy Matt (History Speaks) called you a holocaust denier in a chat with Richard Spencer. At around 43 minutes in: https://easyupload.io/2q5g7p
BTW if you two have already debated somewhere I'd love to hear/read it.
I agree with mister Cole that Jews have considerable literary talent (as he states in his interview), all the more reason to be on your guard sometimes, depending on the situation, or its utility... The diary of Anne Frank is no doubt of literary quality, who cares about the pen, although it has become so popular nowadays that one must question the literary quality, personally I never fully read it for that reason. But who cares, Anne was still very young, even the youthful works of geniusses cannot stand up to the test.
As of the verbal talent, the Jewish writer Israel Shamir wrote that in the arts Jews are visually handicapped due to millennia of iconoclasm. Staking it all on verbal and literary skills, and even 'too much blabla'? Darwin might agree.
Anyway, who cares about facts, we Goyim have become obsessed with facts, while the highly imaginative Jews are worthy of many Oscars by mister Wilde:
"Facts are not merely finding a footing-place in history, but they are usurping the domain of Fancy, and have invaded the kingdom of Romance. Their chilling touch is over everything. They are vulgarising mankind."
The Jews still know how to romance (lowercase intentional..), how to be imaginative, while we Goyim have about totally lost the precious art of lying.
Now take Schindler's List, aside of the literary quality, which is good enough for the overly simple and sentimental, and those who are impressed by bad actors with bad vibes like Liam Neeson, the music (written by John Williams, we Goyim rock) is very tolerable. The people who have been debunking the story of Schindler's List are very brute and artless people though. If even art of a doubtful but acceptable quality has no chance, even the muse of better art must flee.
Our lack of artful imagination is also the reason that some Jews have been capable of slapping us with vulgar selective facts around the ears, which picked up by our own democratic vulgarians have become an obsession.
It appears that the Goyim and the Jews have to work at a compensating fruitful exchange, we Goyim need more fancy-full imagination, less vulgar facts, and the Jews need somewhat to be pulled out of their obsessive fantasy worlds by our adherence to facts.
I know you from Taki, not your early work, but I would be interested to know your views on Deborah Lipstadt - not her historical opinions so much as the sort of individual she is. When I read Denying the Holocaust I was taken aback by her sheer lack of interest in the motivation, sincerity or sanity of her subjects. McCarthyites, trained historians, scientists and sheer loons seemed to be all the same to her. Can you shed any light?
I never heard of counter currents, so I googled it and wound up in a strange site called countercurrents. org. The site is a weird mishmash of do-gooder articles and a lot of stuff about India. Not exactly the kind of place that would host your particular form of outrageousness.
I’ve tried watching your old holocaust film, but couldn’t get in to it honestly. I can see the value in historical accuracy but at the end of the day you may as well be investigating the numbers on the Armenian or Rwandan genocide.
It isn’t all that relevant to a lot of people besides Jews and weird goosesteppers. I hadn’t even met a single Jew growing up, and never lived in a place with a sizeable population. Similarly I can’t imagine most blacks are concerned with the hall of cost either.
I do respect your testicular fortitude for doing it though.
Strange that this should appear after a conversation I was involved in the other day. Almost as if I enabled a lightbulb moment!