This is superficially all fine and dandy, because I am sure a lot of people would rather go to prison/be isolated than murdered in cold blood by an unhinged fanatic. That said however Cole’s argument assumes that the immediate consequences are the only consequences. What Cole doesn’t talk about is the fact that while at the moment jews are criminalizing critical discussion of the ‘holocaust’; they are already paving the way for stronger punishments than simply fining and/or imprisoning their enemies.
Indeed there is an increasing medicalization of the whole concept of having a critical opinion of jews/Israel (as has been noted by Andrew Joyce) (4) and it is not unreasonable to suppose that in the next decade or two (if nothing changes) then criticism of jews and Israel will be considered ‘delusional’ and, as such, grounds for sectioning an individual, because they are evidently not right in the head.
Nor does Cole consider the fact that Muslims going mad over ‘hate speech’ directed at them is used by jewish organizations to push the boundaries of control on freedom of speech (as seen after the Charlie Hebdo case) so that the forces of law and order are increasing forced to prioritize political crimes over crimes of property and the infliction of bodily harm. (5)
This is hardly without harm especially as it is these very laws that Muslims exploit in order to justify their rampages since, after all they like the jews are a ‘persecuted minority’ trying to gain equality in a ‘racist system’. It is frankly dishonest for Cole not to even mention the fact that while Muslims may pull the trigger it is jews; who have enabled them to do it (viz. the creation of special anti-racism laws and the removal of selective immigration laws), gave them the gun and justified the acts after the fact (as being caused by ‘systematic racism’ and ‘Islamophobia’ leading to ‘alienation’ and ‘radicalization’ of the Muslim population).
Cole’s dishonesty is even more apparent on the subject of Israel when, for example, he claims, with typical chutzpathic aplomb, that jews don’t commit terrorist attacks or political violence. The fact is that they do and they have very, very long history of it.
In fact if you read the Torah, rabbinic commentaries, the story of the Shtetl and (especially) the history of Israel then you find it is actually one very long history of terrorism and political violence (often dressed up in religious garb no less).
As Elliot Horowitz, Ami Pedahzur and Arie Perliger have all noted in their work; asserting that the jews have been a meek and non-violent people is quite literally nonsense. (6)
This is thrown into stark relief when we note that only just recently an Israeli political columnist who writes for a mainstream right-wing Israeli news outlet actually advocated immediately exterminating all of Germany and Iran by nuking them. (7) When you take into account that the same threat is known to be part of Israeli policy (well actually it is just nuking the whole of Europe in ‘revenge’ for the ‘holocaust’ if Israel ever is losing a major war) and has been made on the political stage by Israeli leaders before; (8) then the idea that jews are a lesser threat then the legions of Islam to Europe is thrown into sharp relief as simply absurd.
That said Cole is partly right; the two threats are different.
The primary threat of the legions of Islam to Europe is on a primarily demographic, but it is felt more by the man on the street for the simple reason that most Islamic violence is low-level thuggery interspersed with more catastrophic (although mere pin pricks in the greater scheme of things) terror attacks.
The jewish threat on the other hand is of a whole different magnitude altogether, because while the Islamic threat is very visible as it affects people’s lives in obvious ways. The jewish threat is barely felt at street-level, because it exists in much higher arenas.
Where, for example, jews disproportionately help form and norm anti-nativist ideas, while absolutely insisting on nativism for Israel (for example Tim Wise and Barbara Spectre). It is also the state of Israel with its 200 nuclear weapons (and extensive biological and chemical arsenal) (9) and the, as we have seen, expressed desire to wipe Europe off the map at the first available opportunity. As Kevin MacDonald has rightly pointed out recently; jewish radicalism is increasingly the norm in Israel and as such Israel is going to get only ever more extreme and genocidal if current trends continue. (10)
Move over Ahmadinejad; you’ve got nothing on Netanyahu.
So the jewish and Islamic threats are different; the Muslims want a global caliphate, which has the only benefit that you might live through it. While the jewish threat by contrast is seeking the ultimate extermination of Europeans in ‘revenge’ for the ‘holocaust’, which you more than likely won’t live through.
Speaking of the ‘holocaust’ I couldn’t really mention Cole and not bring it up. From the above I think we can agree that Cole isn’t exactly ‘on our side’ and is actually shilling for Israel over at Takimag as well as trying to make the jews look like a lesser threat than the forces of Islam (I wonder why?).
Now everyone knows Cole made a ‘revisionist documentary’ about Auschwitz and the almost obscene lack of evidence (or even specifics from the ‘experts’) there is behind this charge in the mid-1990s.
Fair enough; he also got death threats from the Jewish Defense League (JDL) and was beaten up by them.
However ironic as it may seem; Cole actually downplays the very people who beat him up as a bunch of odd exceptions and small-time (if rather violent) thugs. The fact is that the JDL, the Kach organization and the modern equivalent, the Jewish Defense Organization (JDO), were, and are, fairy hard-core terrorists as can be ascertained by merely reading a book about them. (11)
Just a little chutzpah there, but it does give a good idea that Cole has strongly ideologically tinted lens to his work as well as being extremely egoistic.
He readily admits for example that, from 1997 until he was found out fairly recently, he was a knowing ‘holocaust scammer’ and profited personally from the ‘holocaust’ industry. (12) That said we at least owe him a nod in regard to his honesty about it, but it is worth bearing in mind that Cole, having been found out, is now seeking to carve out a new career niche for himself.
After a mensch has got to eat: hasn’t he?
I quote Cole’s own words about what he believes:
For the record, I never denied the Holocaust. My position was that Auschwitz was not an extermination camp, and the buildings displayed there as gas chambers are Soviet fakes. I never denied mass exterminations of Jews at camps like Treblinka and Sobibór.’ (13)
Cole is being typically disingenuous here, because he ‘denies’ that Auschwitz was used as a death camp. He claims Treblinka, Sobibor and (presumably) Belzec were ‘death camps’ and that he has ‘never denied this’. This is rank lunacy of the first order for the simple reason that the ‘evidence’ for these camps being part of a ‘mass extermination program’ targeted specifically at jews (aka the ‘holocaust’) is actually worse than the ‘evidence’ for Auschwitz, which Cole ‘denies’ was a ‘death camp’.
To be specific:
A) There is no physical evidence of such a homicidal purpose at the camps.
B) The ‘survivor’ testimony is even more insane and contradictory than the ‘survivor’ testimony at Auschwitz. I mean gassing people with the fumes of a captured Russian submarine’s diesel engine or killing them with electrical frying pans is hardly likely to be true in the first place let alone with the absence of other evidence (rather like the infamous ‘vacuum chambers’): is it?
C) The ‘survivors’ shouldn’t have survived a pure death camp according to the official narrative and simple applied logic.
D) The transit/logistics records directly contradict the whole claim (i.e. huge numbers of jews can be shown to have transited through these ‘pure death camps’ came out alive and been sent on to work camps a few days later).
Cole has got to know this given that the numerous book length revisionist studies that have come out since he was around (and are freely available on the internet) that his position is frankly laughable, but hey it is all about being ‘respectable’ and reinventing his career.
After all if Cole was really interested in historical truth; he’d be speaking about why serious scholars, in the true sense of the term, of the ‘holocaust’, such as Jurgen Graf, Thomas Kues and Carlo Mattogno, are wrong and he is right.
But hey it is easier to go and bash out easy-reading copy for Takimag than dare debate those three scholars than a comedian with a PhD like Michael Shermer. (14)
That’s of course after you try to argue for a European-American alliance with Israel, downplay and misrepresent jewish terrorism (historic and current) and try and make everyone feel sorry for your personal trials and tribulations in general.