Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old January 28th, 2010 #1
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default What's the deal with Mark Weber?

Leading Holocaust Denier Admits Holocaust Happened:
http://www.ety.com/HRP/rev/markweber.htm

I remember reading an article by Robert Faurisson a couple of years ago in which he talked about how he couldn't get Weber to clearly state whether he believed in the gas chambers, but I must've missed it when Weber actually came right out and said he was no longer a revisionist. Pretty bad when the head of the IHR for the last 15 or so years comes out and says something like that.

The article quotes from the Goebbels diaries; anyone take issue with those quotes?
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old January 28th, 2010 #2
tuisto
Senior Member
 
tuisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: relegational
Posts: 2,265
tuisto
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander View Post
Leading Holocaust Denier Admits Holocaust Happened:
http://www.ety.com/HRP/rev/markweber.htm

I remember reading an article by Robert Faurisson a couple of years ago in which he talked about how he couldn't get Weber to clearly state whether he believed in the gas chambers, but I must've missed it when Weber actually came right out and said he was no longer a revisionist. Pretty bad when the head of the IHR for the last 15 or so years comes out and says something like that.

The article quotes from the Goebbels diaries; anyone take issue with those quotes?

Born Jewish, Auster converted to Christianity as an adult and is now a member of the Episcopal Church, though he has said he deeply detests the Church's current direction and liberalism.[1] He attended Columbia University


The article you are refering to is written by the jew Auster, enuf said.
 
Old January 28th, 2010 #3
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tuisto View Post
Born Jewish, Auster converted to Christianity as an adult and is now a member of the Episcopal Church, though he has said he deeply detests the Church's current direction and liberalism.[1] He attended Columbia University


The article you are refering to is written by the jew Auster, enuf said.
The Episcopal Church's "current direction" has persisted for well over a century. Columbia University was/is the nexus of Jewish/Communist acedemia in the United States. See the Frankfurt School, among other treasonous pursuits.

It would seem by the record of Jew Auster's life that he's actually a great supporter of what have become traditional conditions, including Jewish duplicity.
 
Old January 28th, 2010 #4
Thomas de Aynesworth
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,752
Default

So a Jew converts to Episcopalian Christianity and kvetches about its direction. He's trying to weaken the church, obviously.
 
Old January 28th, 2010 #5
albion
Senior Member
 
albion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,499
Blog Entries: 2
albion
Default How Relevant is Holocaust Revisionism?

By Mark Weber
January 7, 2009

For more than 30 years, writers and publicists who call themselves revisionists have presented evidence and arguments questioning generally accepted accounts of the Holocaust. Some of these researchers have shown impressive fortitude -- defying smears, abuse, physical violence, and worse.1

In countries where “Holocaust denial” is a crime, skeptics have been fined, imprisoned or forced into exile for expressing dissident views on this issue.2 These victims of what amounts to a blatant suppression of free speech include Robert Faurisson and Roger Garaudy in France, Siegfried Verbeke in Belgium, Jürgen Graf and Gaston-Armand Amaudruz in Switzerland, and Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf in Germany.

Revisionists have published impressive evidence, including long neglected documents and testimony, that has contributed to a more complete and accurate understanding of an emotion-laden and highly polemicized chapter of history.

I have played a role in this effort. In published writings, in lectures, and in courtroom testimony, I have devoted much time and work to critically reviewing the “official” Holocaust narrative, to countering Holocaust propaganda, and to debunking specific Holocaust claims.

But in spite of years of effort by revisionists, including some serious work that on occasion has forced “mainstream” historians to make startling concessions,3 there has been little success in convincing people that the familiar Holocaust story is defective.

This lack of success is not difficult to understand. Revisionists are up against a well-organized, decades-long campaign that is promoted in the mass media, reinforced in classrooms, and supported by politicians.4

Tim Cole, a history professor and prominent specialist of Holocaust studies, has written in his book Selling the Holocaust: “From a relatively slow start, we have now come to the point where Jewish culture in particular, and Western culture more generally, are saturated with the 'Holocaust’. Indeed, the ‘Holocaust’ has saturated Western culture to such an extent that it appears not only centre stage, but also lurks in the background. This can be seen in the remarkable number of contemporary movies which include the 'Holocaust’ as plot or sub-plot.”

Between 1989 and 2003 alone, more than 170 films with Holocaust themes were made. In many American and European schools, a focus on the wartime suffering of Europe's Jews is obligatory. Every major American city has at least one Holocaust museum or memorial. The largest is the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, which is run by a taxpayer-funded federal government agency, and draws some two million visitors yearly.

A number of countries, including Britain, Germany and Italy, officially observe an annual Holocaust Remembrance Day. The United Nations General Assembly in 2005 approved a resolution introduced by Israel to designate January 27 as an international Holocaust remembrance day.

In the United States and western Europe, the Holocaust has become is a venerated, semi-religious mythos. Prof. Michael Goldberg, an eminent rabbi, has written of what he calls a “Holocaust cult with its own tenets of faith, rites and shrines.” In this age of secular “political correctness,” Holocaust “denial” is the modern equivalent of sacrilege.

A major reason for the lack of success in persuading people that conventional Holocaust accounts are fraudulent or exaggerated is that -- as revisionists acknowledge – Jews in Europe were, in fact, singled out during the war years for especially severe treatment.

This was confirmed, for example, by German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels in these confidential entries in his wartime diary:5

Feb. 14, 1942: “The Führer [Hitler] once again expresses his resolve ruthlessly to clear the Jews out of Europe. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that they are now experiencing. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.”

March 27, 1942: “The Jews are now being deported to the East from the Generalgouvernement [Poland], starting around Lublin. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely, and there’s not much left of the Jews. By and large, one can say that 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated, while only 40 percent can be put to work. The former Gauleiter of Vienna, who is carrying out the operation, is proceeding quite judiciously, using a method that is not all too conspicuous. The Jews are facing a judgment which, while barbaric, they fully deserve. The prophecy the Führer made about them for having brought on a new world war is beginning to come true in the most terrible manner. One must not be sentimental in these matters.”

April 29, 1942: “Short shrift is being made of the Jews in all eastern occupied territories. Tens of thousands of them are being wiped out.”

No informed person disputes that Europe’s Jews did, in fact, suffer a great catastrophe during the Second World War. Millions were forced from their homes and deported to brutal internment in crowded ghettos and camps. Jewish communities across Central and Eastern Europe, large and small, were wiped out. Millions lost their lives. When the war ended in 1945, most of the Jews of Germany, Poland, the Netherlands and others countries were gone.

Given all this, it should not be surprising that even well-founded revisionist arguments are often dismissed as heartless quibbling.

But despite a discouraging record of achievement, some revisionists insist that their work is vitally important because success in exposing the Holocaust as a hoax will deliver a shattering blow to Israel and Jewish-Zionist power. This view, however, is based on a mistaken understanding of the relationship between “Holocaust remembrance” and Jewish-Zionist power.

Even before World War II, the organized Jewish community was playing a major role in the political and cultural life of Europe and the United States, and the Zionist movement was already very influential. Although propaganda about the wartime catastrophe of Europe’s Jews was a factor in American society during the 1950s and 1960s, it was not until the late 1970s that “the Holocaust” began to play a really significant social-political role. It was not until the late 1970s and early 1980s that the term began to appear as a specific entry in standard encyclopedias and reference books, and became an obligatory subject in American textbooks and classrooms.

In short, the Holocaust assumed an important role in the social-cultural life of America and western Europe in keeping with, and as an expression of, a phenomenal increase in Jewish influence and power. The Holocaust “remembrance” campaign is not so much a source of Jewish-Zionist power as it is an expression of it. For that reason, debunking the Holocaust will not shatter that power.

Suppose The New York Times were to report tomorrow that Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust center and the US Holocaust Memorial Museum had announced that no more than one million Jews died during World War II, and that no Jews were killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz. The impact on Jewish-Zionist power would surely be minimal.

Although “Holocaust remembrance” remains well entrenched in our society, its impact seems to have diminished in recent years. In part this is because the men and women of the World War II generation are nearly all gone. But another factor has been a major shift in the world-political situation. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Soviet empire, the end of US-Soviet “Cold War” rivalry, the Nine-Eleven terror attack in 2001, the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, and current world economic crisis, have ushered in a new era – one in which the Holocaust imagery of the 1940s is less potent because it’s less relevant.

Criticism of Israel and its policies has become much more common in recent years, even in the United States. Among thoughtful men and women, and especially in the youth, sympathy for Israel has fallen perceptibly, while skepticism about the role of the Holocaust in society has grown. Tony Judt, a prominent Jewish scholar who lives and works in New York, wrote recently:6

“Students today do not need to be reminded of the genocide of the Jews, the historical consequences of anti-Semitism, or the problem of evil. They know all about these – in ways our parents never did. And that is as it should be. But I have been struck lately by the frequency with which new questions are surfacing: `Why do we focus so much on the Holocaust?’ `Why is it illegal [in certain countries] to deny the Holocaust but not other genocides?’ `Is the threat of anti-Semitism not exaggerated?’ And, increasingly, `Doesn’t Israel use the Holocaust as an excuse?’ I do not recall hearing those questions in the past.”

This shift has also been noticed at the Institute for Historical Review. Over the past ten years, sales of IHR books, discs, flyers and other items about Holocaust history have steadily declined, along with inquiries about Holocaust history and requests for interviews on this subject. At the same time, and obviously reflecting broader social-cultural trends, there has been a marked rise in sales of IHR books, discs, flyers and other items about Jewish-Zionist power, the role of Jews in society, and so forth. This has been matched by an increase in the number of inquiries and requests for interviews on those issues.

Jewish-Zionist power is a palpable reality with harmful consequences for America, the Middle East, and the entire global community. In my view, and as I have repeatedly emphasized, the task of exposing and countering this power is a crucially important one.7 In that effort, Holocaust revisionism cannot play a central role.

One influential statesman who seems to understand this is the former prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohammed. In a much-discussed address delivered at an international conference in October 2003, he spoke forthrightly against Jewish-Zionist power, while making clear that he accepts the familiar “Six Million” Holocaust narrative. In the global struggle against this power, he said, “we are up against a people who think ... We cannot fight them through brawn alone. We must use our brains also … The Europeans killed six million Jews out of twelve million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.”8

Setting straight the historical record about the wartime fate of Europe’s Jews is a worthy endeavor. But there should be no illusions about its social-political relevance. In the real world struggle against Jewish-Zionist power, Holocaust revisionism has proved to be as much a hindrance as a help.

http://www.ihr.org/weber_revisionism_jan09.html
 
Old January 28th, 2010 #6
George Witzgall
Senior Member
 
George Witzgall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,961
George Witzgall
Default

The Goebbels quote buttresses the argument that there was not, in fact, a systematic, detailed plan or desire to exterminate all Jews, as we are taught to believe (on punishment of imprisonment in many countries).

In the midst of a desperate global struggle for the very survival of the German people, with millions dying on both sides and Germans hopelessly outnumbered, the most anti-semitic of German anti-semites is not saying that all Jews should be exterminated:

Quote:
March 27, 1942: "The Jews are now being deported to the East from the Generalgovernement [Poland], starting around Lublin. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely, and there's not much left of the Jews. By and large, one can say that 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated, while only 40 percent can be put to work. The former Gauleiter of Vienna, who is carrying out the operation, is proceeding quite judiciously, using a method that is not all too conspicuous. The Jews are facing a judgment which, while barbaric, they fully deserve. The prophecy the Fuhrer made about them for having brought on a new world war is beginning to come true in the most terrible manner. One must not be sentimental in these matters."
No, Goebbels is stating that (due to scarce food and resources, and poor health and unsuitability for working) probably 60% of Jewish captives will end up having to be exterminated, while 40% could be put to useful labor to assist in the survival of the German people. The goal was not extermination, but to use Jewish slave labor to enable Germans to survive this unprecedented cataclysm.

Yes, Jews were treated like less-than-human slaves, like chattle, like property, like a resource to be exploited; of course (unlike in ante-bellum America, or countless other places and times where/when slave labor was used), the very survival of the German people was at stake when they resorted to enslaving their fellow humans.

Unfortunately, whenever and wherever there was a question as to whether food and medical help should go to a "slave" or to save a German, the German was counted more important; a harsh, brutal, evil, calculation, but no more evil than the calculus of slavery before or since.

Does it make the most anti-semitic of Germans of that crazy time when life meant little and death was all around evil, brutal, criminal? Yes.

Does it make such Germans uniquely evil, inhumanly brutal, as we are required to believe on punishment of imprisonment? more evil than biblical King David, whose rise to power was predicated on how many palestinian foreskins he could collect (unfortunately he only got two hundred or so)? No. or more recently, more evil than Hutus who attempted a machete genocide on their fellow Tutsi? No.
__________________
I understand and do not understand.

Last edited by George Witzgall; January 28th, 2010 at 11:02 AM.
 
Old January 29th, 2010 #7
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by albion View Post
Suppose The New York Times were to report tomorrow that Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust center and the US Holocaust Memorial Museum had announced that no more than one million Jews died during World War II, and that no Jews were killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz. The impact on Jewish-Zionist power would surely be minimal.
Weber can't possibly believe this. It's just a cop-out.

He has a right to his opinion, but someone who feels this way shouldn't have been head of the IHR.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old January 29th, 2010 #8
tuisto
Senior Member
 
tuisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: relegational
Posts: 2,265
tuisto
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander View Post
Weber can't possibly believe this. It's just a cop-out.

He has a right to his opinion, but someone who feels this way shouldn't have been head of the IHR.
Weber is right on the money:
remember, they changed the inscriptions relating to Auschwitz deaths not such a long time ago:

Previous to 1992, anyone who publicly doubted the 4.1
million"gassing" deaths at Auschwitz was labeled an anti-Semite,
neo-nazi skinhead (at the very least). Quietly, because of
revisionist findings, the official figure was lowered to 1.1
million. No mention of that missing 3 million. (Foner)

On May 12th, 1945, a few months after the liberation of Auschwitz,
a Soviet State Commission reported that not less than four million
people were murdered there (Reitlinger, 499). This number was
displayed at the Auschwitz State Museum until 1991, when it was
lowered to 1.1 million (Cattani, 19). The total death toll for the
Holocaust, however, stayed at about six million. Mainstream
historians, it seemed, were caught in a bind. Had three million
fewer people died in the Holocaust? And if so, why hadn't
historians reevaluated their own figures?


What repercussions did it have? None whatsoever....
 
Old January 29th, 2010 #9
Mark van Schaik
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Niggerlands
Posts: 340
Default

I've heard respectable revisionists complain about this Weber for quite some time, now it's becoming more and more apparent as to why!
 
Old January 29th, 2010 #10
notmenomore
Senior Member
 
notmenomore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,174
notmenomore
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander View Post

The article quotes from the Goebbels diaries; anyone take issue with those quotes?

It's not so much the quotes as it is what gets made of them. The quotes themselves I've seen verbatim before in Irving's Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich. (Many have damned Irving previously for this particular work, and Irving has since been depreciated by his supposed "recanting" of his revisionist positions.)

I think in this case that George Witzgall actually has a reasonable discussion of the Goebbels' quotes.

In any event Weber can at best be seen to have taken his revisionist thinking to a cerebral level that's unusable for (and, as we see in this particular review. damaging to) WN positions. Regardless of what Weber intends, the fact remains that the juden have exaggerated and propagandized their faith-based "Holocaust" to a political tool that's completely at odds with established historical facts.
__________________
No way out but through the jews.
 
Old January 29th, 2010 #11
tuisto
Senior Member
 
tuisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: relegational
Posts: 2,265
tuisto
Red face

[quote=George Witzgall;1095590]

Quote:
In the midst of a desperate global struggle for the very survival of the German people, with millions dying on both sides and Germans hopelessly outnumbered, the most anti-semitic of German anti-semites is not saying that all Jews should be exterminated:
What a monstrous thing to say!

"Judea declares war on Germany" in 1933. That's a fact.

Goebbels is trying to protect his family from a pest. It is most unfortunate (since all he did was fighting off the most deadly parasites in human history) to qualify him as an "ANTI" ...something.
Does it make sense to qualify some one who sprays poison to kill cockroaches
as "the most anti cockroach person of anti cockroach persons"?

Last edited by tuisto; January 29th, 2010 at 04:54 PM.
 
Old January 29th, 2010 #12
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander View Post
The article quotes from the Goebbels diaries; anyone take issue with those quotes?
Professor Faurisson does:

[Mark Weber's] exploitation here of those excerpts from Goebbels’s diary is stupefying. The Propaganda Minister’s comments bear the stamp of a National-Socialist propagandist’s phraseology, and are on the subject of events in which he had no personal part, no direct responsibility and of which he, in Berlin, had merely heard talk. In Toronto in 1988, during the second Zündel trial, Weber, at his end, had above all stated that according to him there was “a great doubt about the authenticity of the entire Goebbels diaries,” and had insisted on the fact that the contents of the March 27, 1942 note were particularly suspect. These were his very words under oath:

The later entry, which I think is the 27th of March [1942], is widely quoted to uphold or support the extermination thesis. It is not consistent with entries in the diary like this one of March 7th, and it is not consistent with entries at a later date from the Goebbels diaries, and it is not consistent with German documents from a later date.

[…] there is a great doubt about the authenticity of the entire Goebbels diaries because they are written on typewriter. We have no real way of verifying if they are accurate, and the U.S. Government certified, in the beginning of the publication, […] that it can take no responsibility for the accuracy of the diaries as a whole.

[…] I think again it is worth mentioning that the passage of the 27th of March is inconsistent with the passage of the 7th of March and the one from April, and I don’t remember the date exact (Transcript, p. 5820-5821). Goebbels had no responsibility for Jewish policy. He wasn’t involved in that. He was the Propaganda Minister. He was involved only to the extent that there were Jews in Berlin and he was responsible for Berlin (pp. 5822-5823).

How can Weber today invoke a wholly doubtful document and, in that document, a passage that is particularly suspect? Is it because at some time between 1988 and 2009 he completely changed his mind on these points? If so, when did he ever advise us of the change, and what were the reasons for such a turn-around?

Last edited by Hadding; January 29th, 2010 at 06:07 PM.
 
Old January 29th, 2010 #13
tuisto
Senior Member
 
tuisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: relegational
Posts: 2,265
tuisto
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
How can Weber today invoke a wholly doubtful document and, in that document, a passage that is particularly suspect? Is it because at some time between 1988 and 2009 he completely changed his mind on these points? If so, when did he ever advise us of the change, and what were the reasons for such a turn-around?
I don't read revisionist books, except the ones whose authors are attacked and incarcerated.
Intellectuals are suspect to begin with, especially those who thrive in ZOG society.
 
Old January 29th, 2010 #14
James Hawthorne
Senior Member
 
James Hawthorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,037
Blog Entries: 89
James Hawthorne
Default

Revisionists and former Weber associates have turned against him for using the IHR as a sinecure.

For his total lack of productivity, for not publishing the Journal of Historical Review, for not publishing the monthly IHR newsletter, for not holding anymore IHR yearly conferences, bilking the mailing list for a salary and much more. Revisionist Paul Grubach has been strong in pointing out Weber's lazy and indolant behavior, his lack of productivity, of not doing his work - in fact of not doing any work and getting paid 48,000 per year from donations.
__________________
Aryan Matters

VNN Media
 
Old January 29th, 2010 #15
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawthorne View Post
Revisionists and former Weber associates have turned against him for using the IHR as a sinecure.

For his total lack of productivity ...
The most obvious criticism is that he has abandoned the purpose of the organization and therefore ought to turn it over to somebody else who is committed to that purpose. It's not about fighting "Jewish-Zionist power." It's about promoting truth in history. It helps us to have the truth even when it doesn't hurt the Jew.

Last edited by Hadding; January 29th, 2010 at 09:49 PM.
 
Old January 31st, 2010 #16
James Hawthorne
Senior Member
 
James Hawthorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,037
Blog Entries: 89
James Hawthorne
Default

Recent communication from Revisionist Paul Grubach...

Quote:
Subject: Paul Grubach discusses Mark Weber and the current Revisionist Crisis

Dear Friends,

Of late, Mark Weber is generating a lot of news stories on the web sites of the enemies of Revisionism. The bees nest that he has stirred up has no sign of going away. There will probably be much more written about him in the near future by the enemies of Revisionism. Among other things, Weber has drawn erroneous conclusions in regard to diaries of Joseph Goebbels. This has done damage to the Revisionist movement. (I will address this issue in the future.)

At this time, I would like to address another important issue that surrounds Weber. In recent his recent fundraising efforts for his IHR that is on the brink of extinction, Mark Weber has made this claim: "In this critically important struggle, no comparable institution matches the IHR's record of focus, achievement and resolve."

This is blatantly false, and I think Mark Weber knows it. Let me start out with this simple point. Under the fine leadership of Richard Widmann, we Revisionists have created the online Revisionist journal, Inconvenient History. I would be quick to point out that we are not paid for this work and we do the work in our spare time. Now, contrast this with Mark Weber's record. As former IHR editor, Ted O'Keefe, so rightly noted, Mark Weber is the world's only salaried Revisionist. Revisionism is supposed to be his full time job, for which he is paid around $45,000 per year. Yet, Weber does not now, nor has ever, produced an online Revisionist journal, despite the fact that he has ample time on his hands to do so, and he is adequately paid for his labor. A former IHR employee pointed out, Weber would rather sit around, type out lengthy correspondence on this computer, chit-chat about current politics, talk on the phone to his wife and friends, and send out newspaper clippings to about 1000 people. (The employee was in a position to closely observe Weber's work habits for many years.) And, oh yes, every once in a while he speaks on an obscure radio talk show, writes a short essay for his web site, or sponsors an "open house" in which about two dozen people show up for food, drinks and "spirited conversation." Weber does very little of any real value.

Directly contradicting what Weber wrote, the IHR under Weber's leadership has demonstrated a lack of achievement. As a leader of the IHR, Mark Weber has driven the once thriving think tank to the brink of extinction. He destroyed the Journal of Historical Review; he destroyed the IHR's book publishing arm; he destroyed the IHR newsletter; and he destroyed the yearly IHR conferences. After years of prodding, the lazy Weber briefly sponsored a weekly Internet Radio Broadcast. But, like most of Weber's projects, it disappeared in a short time.

Weber has a proven inability to get his work done. Many years ago, he was supposed to write a book entitled The Final Solution: Legend and Reality. Weber never finished the book, even though he had ample opportunity to do so. If this demonstrates anything at all, it shows Weber's lack of focus and resolve to get a job done. Now, contrast this record with that of Germar Rudolf. Germar, who is no longer active in the Revisionist movement, was hunted around the world by the German government, and he operated on a miniscule budget. Yet, despite all of the adversity that this brave Germanic dynamo faced, Germar produced two journals and a countless number of books!!!!

One more example: Brad Smith. Revisionist spokesman Smith operates on a very miniscule budget, and he is recovering from cancer. Despite this adversity, the good soldier Smith still produces a monthly Revisionist newsletter. Yet, the healthy Weber who took in millions of dollars over the years from donations, has next to nothing to show!!!!!!!!

For years, many people told Weber to move the IHR to a less expensive location in order to save money. He refused to do this. It was only after Weber literally drove the IHR to brink of extinction that he chose to move the IHR to a less expensive location. Did he do this to save his approximately $45,000 per year salary????

In past fundraising letters, Weber refers to the "robust sales of educational materials." A large proportion of the books and tapes he sells were inherited from the glory days of the IHR, when Willis Carto was in charge. The Weber-led IHR has produced very little of real value.

Mark Weber led the charge to drive Willis Carto's Liberty Lobby and Spotlight out of business. Weber defeated Carto and company in court, and Weber took in about one million dollars from Carto. And what does Mark Weber have to show for his years of legal battling and the one million dollars taken from Carto? Next to nothing!!! The IHR in on the verge of extinction!!!!!!!!! Once again, directly contradicting what Weber wrote in his fundraiser, this shows a lack of achievement, resolve and focus on Weber's part.

Now, let us compare Weber's record to that of his enemy, Willis Carto. The elderly Carto lost his home, Liberty Lobby, and his Spotlight. Yet, Carto and company arose from the ashes, and went on to create the American Free Press and the Barnes Review. It is Weber's enemy Carto that demonstrated focus, achievement and resolve, and not Weber.

What is Mark Weber to do???

This missive is not meant to degrade Mark Weber. If I've said it once, I've said it one thousand times, Mark Weber (in my opinion) is an outstanding writer, speaker and debater. I believe he could have been an outstanding historian. Let us hope that Mark Weber acquires some real resolve and focus, rises to the occasion, and uses his obvious talents more productively. Only time will tell if Mark Weber can show some backbone and arise from the ashes like his enemy Willis Carto did.

In addition, let us hope that Mark Weber publicly addresses the claims of the anti-Revisionist writers that continue to use his essay, "How Relevant is Holocaust Revisionism?" as a battering ram against the Revisionist movement.

So, if Mark Weber shows substantial improvements in his productive output, and he publicly addresses the claims of the anti-Revisionists who are using his material against the Revisionist movement, I for one would be willing to "cross the aisle," shake hands and welcome him back to the Revisionist movement.

Paul Grubach
Also: Mark Weber must resign from the Institute for Historical Review

Also: Paul Grubach Slams Mark Weber

Also: Mark Weber Must Go
__________________
Aryan Matters

VNN Media
 
Old February 1st, 2010 #17
tuisto
Senior Member
 
tuisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: relegational
Posts: 2,265
tuisto
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawthorne View Post
Revisionists and former Weber associates have turned against him for using the IHR as a sinecure.

For his total lack of productivity, for not publishing the Journal of Historical Review, for not publishing the monthly IHR newsletter, for not holding anymore IHR yearly conferences, bilking the mailing list for a salary and much more. Revisionist Paul Grubach has been strong in pointing out Weber's lazy and indolant behavior, his lack of productivity, of not doing his work - in fact of not doing any work and getting paid 48,000 per year from donations.
Weber really looks after all very suspicious to say the least, indolence and laziness combined with leadership bearing witness of -manipulation.
 
Old February 1st, 2010 #18
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tuisto View Post
What repercussions did it have? None whatsoever....
1. That fact is not as widely known as it should be. You probably wouldn't have known that that was the case unless revisionists had told you. If facts such as that one were more widely known, it would have an impact, at least with those who are able and willing to think rationally.

2. The holohoaxers would and do claim that the changing of the plaque at Auschwitz is not an admission that six million weren't exterminated. You'll have to ask them to explain their reasoning on that, because I don't pay much attention to their BS anymore and don't know the particulars.

3. I believe (and I think it's obvious) that the holohoax is being used, not only as a tool for extorting money and shielding jews and israel from criticism, but to enforce multiracialism by instilling a guilt complex in whites. The idea that's been implanted through holohoax propaganda is that "white pride = genocide." Even if the average teenager doesn't know Napoleon from the Romanovs, he has seen movies like Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds and has gotten plenty of holohoax indoctrination in school; if nothing else, he knows that whites (allegedly) perpetrated the worst mass murder in history and should therefore bend over and gleefully take it up the ass from Big Jew. This is why revisionism continues to be important.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/

Last edited by Igor Alexander; February 1st, 2010 at 06:17 AM.
 
Old February 1st, 2010 #19
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawthorne View Post
Revisionists and former Weber associates have turned against him for using the IHR as a sinecure.
I think Arthur Butz is another one. I remember reading a letter he wrote to that effect online.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old February 1st, 2010 #20
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander View Post
2. The holohoaxers would and do claim that the changing of the plaque at Auschwitz is not an admission that six million weren't exterminated. You'll have to ask them to explain their reasoning on that....
There's a New York Times article from 1989 featuring comments from Yehuda Bauer that explain why they lowered the number at Auschwitz. The claims at all the sites added together produced a total much higher than 6 million and Bauer complained that this was damaging the credibility of the whole story. The number at Auschwitz was lowered to bring it into accord with the 6 million figure.
 
Reply

Tags
holohoax, ihr, mark weber, revisionism

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:37 PM.
Page generated in 0.15815 seconds.