Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time

by Michael Shermer

  David Cole

  The most paradoxical of the deniers is David Cole. His mother "was raised as a secular Jew" and his father "was raised Orthodox in London during the Blitz," and he proudly displays his Jewish heritage while simultaneously denying its most significant modern historical event. As he told me in a 1994 interview, "I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. That is, if I don't mention the Judaism I will be accused of being ashamed. If I mention it up front I will be accused of exploiting it." Cole's attentions center on the physical evidence, specifically on denying that gas chambers and crematoria were instruments of mass murder. For his views, he was physically beaten at the University of California, Los Angeles, during a debate on the Holocaust. He has received regular death threats from "a small group of people that genuinely hate me with a passion," and the Jewish Defense League, the Anti-Defamation League, and Jewish organizations in general "are a little harder on me because I am Jewish." He has been called a self-hating Jew, antisemitic, and a race traitor; and an editorial in The Jewish News compared him to Hitler, Hussein, and Arafat.

  Although Cole's personality is affable and his attitude sanguine, he sees himself as a rebel in search of a cause. Where other deniers are political and racial ideologues, Cole's interests run deeper. He is a meta-ideologue— an atheist and an existentialist on a quest to understand how ideologues invent their realities. In the process, Cole has joined every conceivable fringe organization, including the Revolutionary Communist Party, Workers World Party, John Birchers, Lyndon LaRouchers, Libertarians, atheists, and humanists.

  I was everywhere. I ran a chapter of the Revolutionary Communist Party. I ran a John Birch Society chapter. I had about five different names, and there was, literally, not a part of the American political spectrum I wasn't involved in. I was a supporter of, and subscriber to, the ADL and the JDL. I have a World Jewish Congress card. I worked for the Heritage Foundation on the right, and the ACLU on the left. My point in doing this was that I felt superior to ideology and to the poor, brainwashed idiots who toil their lives away in pursuit of abstract concepts, (in Applebaum 1994, p. 33)

  Holocaust denial, then, is just one in a long line of ideologies that have fascinated Cole since he was expelled from high school in southern California. With no college background but a parental stipend for self-education, Cole has a personal library that houses thousands of volumes, including a considerable Holocaust section. He knows his subject and can "debate the facts until the cows come home." Where other fringe claims only held his attention for a few months to a year, the Holocaust "is more about real physical things than some abstract concept that requires faith. We are talking about something for which much of the evidence still exists." And much of that physical evidence was filmed by Cole on a fact-finding mission over the summer of 1992, financed by denier Bradley Smith. "I figured I needed $15,000 to $20,000, and Bradley set to work—it took him about a month and a half to raise that amount." Cole's stated goal in his research is

  to try to move revisionism away from the fringe and into the mainstream.... I want to get people who are not right-wingers or neo-Nazis. Right now it is in a very dangerous position because there is a vacuum created by mainstream historians denouncing revisionism. The vacuum has been filled with the likes of Ernst Ziindel. Ziindel is a very likable human being, but he is a fascist and he is not the person I would like to see recognized as the world's leading Holocaust revisionist. (1994)

  Cole states that he wants his video footage to be studied by professional scholars (he says he offered it to Yad Vashem in Jerusalem) but has edited it into a marketable product to be sold through IHR's catalogues, as he did his first video of Auschwitz, which he says has sold over 30,000 copies.

  David Cole likes to stir things up, and not just for historians. Cole, for example, might take an African-American date to a denier social event where white supremacists will be present "just to watch them squirm and stare." Even though he disagrees mightily with many deniers' beliefs and most of their politics, he will introduce himself to the media as a "denier," knowing it will draw scorn and sometimes physical abuse. What is an outsider like Cole to do? He is angry that he has been locked out by historians who, he says, "are not gods, are not religious figures, and are not priests. We have a right to ask them for further explanations. I am not ashamed to ask the questions I am asking" (1994). One wonders, however, why such questions need to be asked, and why denial holds Cole's attention.

  Interestingly, in 1995 Cole experienced something of a falling out with the deniers, triggered by a number of events, including an incident in Europe in October 1994, on another video tour of Nazi death camps. According to Bradley Smith, Cole was at the Natzweiler (Struthof) camp examining the gas chamber with Pierre Guillaume (Faurisson's French publisher), Henri Roques (author of The "Confessions" of Kurt Gerstein), Roques's wife, and denier Tristan Mordrel. While they were inside the building housing the gas chamber, one of the guards, according to Smith, "excused himself, went out, and locked the exit door from the outside." After about twenty minutes, the guard unlocked the door, and they returned to their cars, whereupon Cole discovered that "a front door window in his car had been smashed and his travel journals, papers, books, personal effects, videotapes and still camera film had all been stolen. In short, all his research. He was cleaned out" (Smith 1994). Smith claims the trip cost him $8,000 to fund, so he is now selling an eighty-minute video of Cole telling his story in order to dig himself out of the hole. Ironically, Henri Roques denies Cole's story:

  The six of us were never locked from outside the gas chamber in order to be entrapped in it! Simply the guard locked the door from inside and he had to open it once because tourists were knocking at the door, and he told them that the visit was possible only for people with special permission (which was the case for our party). My wife and I remember only one guard. According to the guard and, later on, to the gendarmes in Schirmeck (near Struthof), this kind of theft is unfortunately common, especially in a car with a foreign license plate. Initially, I thought that it could have been a theft directed against revisionist people but I do not see anything which could substantiate this and, furthermore, the conversations I had with P. Guillaume and T. Mordrel tend to eliminate that possibility. Cole's version could make the readers believe in an anti-revisionist operation carried out with the complicity of the guards but I don't think it is fair to accuse the guards of having "entrapped" us or even perhaps participated in a theft. (1995, p. 2)

  In another ironic twist, when Robert Faurisson claimed in the Adelaide Institute Newsletter that the Struthof gas chamber was never used for mass homicide, Cole, to his credit, rebuffed him:

  What evidence does Faurisson give us to "prove" that no homicidal gassings ever took place at Struthof? He tells us of an "expertise" that has "disappeared," but, "thanks to another piece of evidence," we know what it said. He refers us to a Journal of Historical Review article for more information. One would hope to find out in this article just what that other piece of evidence is that confirms the existence and conclusions of the 'expertise,' but sadly Faurisson refuses to enlighten us. So what do we have? A report that has disappeared and a revisionist who assures us that he knows what the report said, without feeling the need to provide us with any further evidence. How would a revisionist respond if an "exterminationist" acted this way? Revisionists routinely dismiss documents when the originals have vanished. We don't accept "hearsay," and we certainly don't take exterminationists on their word when it comes to the contents of documents. (1995, p. 3)

  The Jewish Agenda of Holocaust Denial

  Running throughout almost all denier literature—books, articles, editorials, reviews, monographs, guides, pamphlets, and promotional materials—is fascination with Jews and everything Jewish. No issue of JHR fails to contain something on Jews. The January/February 1994 issue, for example, features a cover story on who killed the Romanovs and drove the Bolsheviks to power. Yes, it was the Jews, as Mark Weber explained: "Although of
ficially Jews have never made up more than five percent of the country's total population, they played a highly disproportionate and probably decisive role in the infant Bolshevik regime, effectively dominating the Soviet government during its early years." But Lenin, who ordered the assassination of the Imperial family, wasn't Jewish. Weber gets around this fact by noting, "Lenin himself was of mostly Russian and Kalmuck ancestry, but he was also one-quarter Jewish" (1994c, p. 7). This is a typical denier line of reasoning. Fact: The Communists killed the Romanovs and instigated the Bolshevik Revolution. Fact: Some of the leading Communists were Jewish. Conclusion: The Jews killed the Romanovs and caused the Bolshevik Revolution. By the same logic: Ted Bundy was Catholic. Ted Bundy was a serial killer. Catholics are serial killers.

  The Jewish focus is pervasive in JHR. Why? Mark Weber bluntly justified the IHR's attitude:

  We focus on the Jews because just about everyone else is afraid to. Part of the reason we exist, and part of the pleasure is to be able to deal with a subject that others are not dealing with in a way that we feel helps provide information on what is relevant. I wish that the same considerations were given in our society to talking about Germans, or Ukrainians, or Hungarians, that are given to talking about the Jews. At the Simon Wiesenthal so-called Museum of Tolerance there are constant references to what the Germans did to the Jews in the Second World War. We permit and encourage in our society what would be considered vicious stereotypes if applied to other groups, when they are applied to the Germans or the Hungarians. This is a double standard, of which the Holocaust campaign is the most spectacular manifestation. We have a museum in Washington, D.C., to the memorial of non-Americans victimized by other non-Americans. We don't have any comparable museum to the fate of American-Indians, the victims of blacks in slavery, the victims of communism, etc. The very existence of this museum points up this perverse sensitivity of Jewish concerns in our society. The IHR and those affiliated with us feel a sense of liberation in that we say, in effect, we don't give a damn if you criticize us or not. We're going to say it anyway. We don't have a job to lose because this is our job. (1994b)

  There is not a lot of gray area in this statement. Sensitivity about Jews and the Holocaust "campaign" is "perverse," and taking them on provides "pleasure" and "liberation." Germans, however, are the victims who must be treated better.

  The Conspiratorial Side of Holocaust Denial

  Embedded in the Jewish agenda of Holocaust denial is a strong conspiratorial streak. The "Holocaust" News, published by the Centre for Historical Review (not to be confused with IHR), claims in its first issue that "the 'Holocaust' lie was perpetrated by Zionist-Jewry's stunning propaganda machine for the purpose of filling the minds of Gentile people the world over with such guilt feelings about the Jews that they would utter no protest when the Zionists robbed the Palestinians of their homeland with the utmost savagery" (n.d., p. 1). The more Holocaust deniers make their arguments, the more they believe them, and the more Jews and others argue against them, the more convinced Holocaust deniers are that there is some sort of Jewish conspiracy to "create" the Holocaust so that Jews can gain aid and sympathy for Israel, attention, power, and so on.

  An early, classic example of conspiratorial thinking that influenced the modern denial movement is Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics ([1948] 1969), written by Francis Parker Yockey under the nom de plume Ulick Varange and dedicated to Adolf Hitler. The IHR catalogue describes the book as "a sweeping historico-philosophical treatise in the Spenglerian mold and a clarion call to arms in defense of Europe and the West." The book introduced Willis Carto, the founder of IHR, to Holocaust denial. Imperium details the "imperial" system modeled after Hitler's National Socialism in which democracy would whither away, elections would cease, power would be in the hands of the public, and businesses would be publicly owned. The problem, as Yockey saw it, was "the Jew," who "lives solely with the idea of revenge on the nations of the white European-American race." A conspiratorialist, Yockey described how the "Culture-Distorters" were undermining the West because of the covert operations of "the Church-State-Nation-People-Race of the Jew" (see Obert 1981, pp. 20-24) and how Hitler heroically defended the purity of the Aryan race against inferior racial-cultural aliens and "parasites" such as Jews, Asiatics, Negroes, and Communists (see Mclver 1994).

  Yockey's conspiratorial bent is not uncommon in America, an example of what Richard Hofstadter called the "paranoid style" in American politics. For instance, the German-American Anti-Defamation League of Washington, D.C., which "seeks to defend the rights of German-Americans, the forgotten minority," published a cartoon asking "How long can the Jews perpetrate the Holocaust myth?" over a vulgar caricature of Jewish media moguls manipulating the press to perpetuate the hoax. The same organization produced an advertisement that asked, "Would Challenger have blown up if German scientists had still been in charge?" "We don't think so!" exclaims the ad, before explaining that Soviet "Fifth Columnists in the United States" have secretly worked to eliminate German scientists from NASA. For the conspiratorialist, all manner of demonic forces have been at work throughout history, including, of course, the Jews, but also the Illuminati, Knights Templar, Knights of Malta, Masons, Freemasons, Cosmopolitans, Abolitionists, Slaveholders, Catholics, Communists, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Warren Commission, World Wildlife Fund, International Monetary Fund, League of Nations, United Nations, and many more (Vankin and Whalen 1995). In many of these, "the Jews" are seen to be at work behind the scenes.

  John George and Laird Wilcox have outlined a set of characteristics of political extremists and fringe groups that is useful in considering the broader principles behind Holocaust denial (1992, p. 63):

  1. Absolute certainty they have the truth.

  2. America is controlled to a greater or lesser extent by a conspiratorial group. In fact, they believe this evil group is very powerful and controls most nations.

  3. Open hatred of opponents. Because these opponents (actually "enemies" in the extremists' eyes) are seen as a part of or sympathizers with "The Conspiracy," they deserve hatred and contempt.

  4. Little faith in the democratic process. Mainly because most believe "The Conspiracy" has such influence in the U.S. government, and therefore extremists usually spurn compromise.

  5. Willingness to deny basic civil liberties to certain fellow citizens, because enemies deserve no liberties.

  6. Consistent indulgence in irresponsible accusations and character assassination.

  The Core and the Lunatic Fringe of Holocaust Denial

  The development of the Holocaust denial movement has striking parallels with the development of other fringe movements. Since deniers are not consciously modeling themselves after, for example, the creationists, we may be tracking an ideological pattern common to fringe groups trying to move into the mainstream:

  1. Early on, the movement includes a wide diversity of thought and members representing the extreme fringes of society, and it has little success in entering the mainstream (creationism in the 1950s; denial in the 1970s).

  2. As the movement grows and evolves, some members attempt to disassociate themselves and their movement from the radical fringe and try to establish scientific or scholarly credentials (creationism in the 1970s when it became "creation-science"; denial in the 1970s with the founding of IHR).

  3. During this drive toward acceptability, emphasis moves away from antiestablishment rhetoric and toward a more positive statement of beliefs (creationists abandoned the antievolution tactic and adopted "equal-time" arguments; IHR has broken with Carto and generally deniers are trying to shed their racist, antisemitic reputation).

  4. To enter public institutions such as schools, the movement will use the First Amendment and claim that its "freedom of speech" is being violated when its views are not allowed to be heard (creationists legislated equal-time laws in several states in the 1970s and 1980s; Ziindel’s Canadian "free speech" trials [see figure 19]; and
Bradley Smith's advertisements in college newspapers).

  5. To get the public's attention, the movement tries to shift the burden of proof from itself to the establishment, demanding "just one proof" (creationists ask for "just one fossil" that proves transitional forms exist; deniers demand "just one proof1' that Jews were killed in gas chambers).

  The Holocaust denial movement has its extremes, and members of its lunatic fringe commonly hold neo-Nazi and white supremacist views. Holocaust denier and self-proclaimed white separatist Jack Wikoff, for example, publishes Remarks out of Aurora, New York. "Talmudic Jewry is at war with humanity," Wikoff explains. "Revolutionary communism and International Zionism are twin forces working toward the same goal: a despotic world government with the capital in Jerusalem" (1990). Wikoff also publishes statements such as this one, made in a letter from "R.T.K." from California: "Under Hitler and National Socialism, the German troops were taught White racism and never has this world seen such magnificent fighters. Our job is re-education with the facts of genetics and history" (1990). Interestingly, Remarks is endorsed by Bradley Smith, and Wikoff reviews books for JHR.

  Another denier newsletter, Instauration, featured in its January 1994 issue an article titled "How to Cut Violent Crime in Half: An Immodest Proposal," with no byline. The author's solution is vintage Nazi: