IHR and the Mark Weber controversy

[ASMarques]

APPEAL TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I have no idea of what changes the IHR will undergo, if any. But one thing is obvious to me: every effort should be made to keep its present materials continually available on the Web.

There seems to exist a lot of discontentment with the lack of new IHR production. I disagree with that view. New in-depth written materials are hardly needed -- or even desirable -- unless new "Holocaust"-related developments, hopefully even breakthroughs for our present knowledge, occur. What may seem boring old stuff to old revisionist hands continues to be a potential treasury of ground-breaking information to anyone unfamiliar with it, and a good part of it is due to Mark Weber himself.

Many discussions on public fora, as well as private lists, make extensive use of the IHR on-line materials. If I had to indicate the single page that I found the most useful resource in many discussions I have participated in, in the last decade or so, this would be it:
http://www.ihr.org/main/search.shtml

The outward-reaching "propaganda" means have slowly assumed many different shapes, such as the very effective video clip format, Blogosphere posts, now even short Twitter comments, etc., but, of course, the hardcore information in the on-line books and articles one is able to link to constitutes the back-spine of the whole effort.

The revisionist sites I know are complementary, and not redundant, though naturally some essential materials overlap. So my appeal is the following: do not take the revisionist ammunition away from the on-going fights, large or small, many of them unseen, that constantly take place. Please make sure that, whatever the IHR may become, the old materials will stay on-line.

[KostasL]

APPEAL TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I have no idea of what changes the IHR will undergo, if any. But one thing is obvious to me: every effort should be made to keep its present materials continually available on the Web.

There seems to exist a lot of discontentment with the lack of new IHR production. I disagree with that view. New in-depth written materials are hardly needed -- or even desirable -- unless new "Holocaust"-related developments, hopefully even breakthroughs for our present knowledge, occur. What may seem boring old stuff to old revisionist hands continues to be a potential treasury of ground-breaking information to anyone unfamiliar with it, and a good part of it is due to Mark Weber himself.

Many discussions on public fora, as well as private lists, make extensive use of the IHR on-line materials. If I had to indicate the single page that I found the most useful resource in many discussions I have participated in, in the last decade or so, this would be it:
http://www.ihr.org/main/search.shtml

The outward-reaching "propaganda" means have slowly assumed many different shapes, such as the very effective video clip format, Blogosphere posts, now even short Twitter comments, etc., but, of course, the hardcore information in the on-line books and articles one is able to link to constitutes the back-spine of the whole effort.

The revisionist sites I know are complementary, and not redundant, though naturally some essential materials overlap. So my appeal is the following: do not take the revisionist ammunition away from the on-going fights, large or small, many of them unseen, that constantly take place. Please make sure that, whatever the IHR may become, the old materials will stay on-line.

You are absolutely right.

I will try to save this material in my archive.

[Kiwichap]

ASMarques "New in-depth written materials are hardly needed -- or even desirable -- unless new "Holocaust"-related developments, hopefully even breakthroughs for our present knowledge, occur."

Funny that ASMarques. It seems you are expecting the 'smoking gun' to put to bed the scam once and for all. Yet, the scam is a patently obvious scam. There is nothing left to reveal, to do, or battle over. The evidence can not show it more of a scam than it already is.

There were no gas chambers (science), no mass graves (where are they?), the so-called witness's are a laugh a minute. Wolves, keyholes, surviving six gassings, Ha ha ha.

Brave good folk, in the know, are thrown in prison. Truth is no defence.

GAME OVER.

There is nothing for revisionists to do except laugh and laugh and laugh, at the weird and wonderful stories of the wicked mentality. Laugh at the folly of the liars.

Yeah, whats goin on is WICKED. Hey Bradley, do athiests believe in wickedness?

Look at what has happened to the German people. Check out what Dr Tobens about to do. I believe the German priest who posted, "the German law is against the pro-lifers".

Yeah, don't fall back, don't run away. This is a battle between Light and Darkness; Truth and Lies; Goodness and wickedness; Life and Death! This battle has real victims, real wounded, and tonnes of dead! This battle has ruined lives, and falsely shamed a good nation, This battle has also enriched the greedy liars; beaten and imprisoned the just, spawned a bandit state, and oppressed the planet, since it's foul lie took wings.

Listen up, we better win this battle, I don't want a court where truth is no defense. I don't want to worship a stupid talmudic religion of the undead. I don't want my country turned into a servile whorehouse like Germany.

Germans are oppressed by wicked evil lies. The rulers of Germany are devils!

Just ask Dr Toben. He is willing to put all on the line! What does a man put it all on the line for? Huh, huh. Who can answer that?

Ask Dr Toben what this battle is all about. Ask him whether it is already OVER!!

With all the evidence about, the lovely sanity of the argument, the patient resolve and sacrifice of the truth seekers... ITS OVER!

It has been over for years. There was no holocaust. Most folk just don't know it yet. Five minutes in school, and everyone is a revisionist, unless you are an OUTRAGED LIAR!
I have seen the end of these liars, and it aint pretty. We better win. We will win!

I prefer the sane approach; Ha ha ha, ya just gotta laugh. I'll say it again, ya just gotta laugh at the wickedness of the liars. The ball is in their court, it's been there for years. I reckon their team would probably be the best soccer team ever, with all the dribbling they do.

THEY need to come up with something, not us! Yeah, they need to come up with SOMETHING or I may think they are lying. Which I do.

[ASMarques]

ASMarques "New in-depth written materials are hardly needed -- or even desirable -- unless new "Holocaust"-related developments, hopefully even breakthroughs for our present knowledge, occur."

Funny that ASMarques. It seems you are expecting the 'smoking gun' to put to bed the scam once and for all. Yet, the scam is a patently obvious scam. There is nothing left to reveal, to do, or battle over. The evidence can not show it more of a scam than it already is.

Let me put it in another way: in my opinion, at the present stage, there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to destroy what is already a true religion, and a powerful young one at that. You can no longer hope to strangle it in the cradle as I used to believe was possible.

So, no, I'm not expecting the 'smoking gun' to put to bed the scam once and for all, as you put it. Quite on the contrary. I believe the scam is here to stay for a long, long time, and -- this is the important part that concerns us -- so is its debunking that will continue to appeal to reasonable people who come in contact with it.

What I meant was simply this (and please allow me to use an old religion much more tolerant of dissidence nowadays than it used to be in the past, to illuminate my meaning):

-- The hope of new findings, so absolutely fundamental that they would put to rest the "Holocaust" lie, is akin to the hope that new discoveries in the caves by the Dead Sea, or a new pseudo-gospel manuscript from the first half of the 2nd cent. would put to rest the belief in the existence of a historical Christ figure among the believers, and even less that it took to flight after having resurrected and promptly disappeared into the clouds. In an analogous way, you simply cannot reason a true "Holocaust" believer out of his faith in the "Holocaust" as the central event of modern sacred history. It's not a matter of history for him: it's a matter of sacred history. I confess I'm at a loss to understand why so many "Holocaust" debunkers fail to understand this crucial point that, yes, faith in the power of reason (the one and true faith, if you wish, or the miracle that actually works) beats the Ersatz faiths, and also that what you really need is to reach more people with the same frame of mind, i.e. who don't believe in belief without evidence.

-- What we need in order for the truth not to perish and the good fight to be maintained for the foreseeable future, instead of being driven into the dark for a long time, as happened with such early anti-Christian writers as Celsus and Porphiry (their writings were destroyed and we only know about them through their refutal by their opponents, and even so the excellence of their arguments shines through), is good propaganda, not more learned treatises on the very same subjects presenting the same arguments over and over again. In historical terms we are now past the juncture where historical figures like the early anti-Christian writers were. I believe we are past the stage where the whole effort might have been suppressed and completely driven out of view. We owe that, of course, to the lonely courage of people like Rassinier, Faurisson, Butz, Stäglich and Zündel, and also to the appearance of the nearly miraculous reality of the Internet. So, what we must manage is to go on collecting small victories, and I think we are doing rather well along those lines. But don't wait for a catastrophic sinking of the opposition: I doubt it will happen.

Don't worry too much about new scholarly production that will in any case be ignored, ridiculed and, in the measure of the possible, silenced by the powerful, to the entire satisfaction of the horde of the faithful that empowers them. Do worry about the on-line availability of the precious materials that empower you to find your likes hidden amongst the crowd. They -- we -- are the ones who will win in the end, if indeed anyone will, but it will take a very long time, in my opinion.

Nonetheless, we must worry at all times about the quality of the propaganda. It must be fine-tuned to the truth. This is why I try to fish for the right lost souls by first showing them where I come from, as I did in this post, instead of going around quoting the embarrassing idiocies of some revisionists who swear by the Protocols of Zion and its likes.

In a nutshell: please don't take the old materials of the IHR away from us. In spite of the fast, hard-hitting formats such as the video clips, the IHR sort of content-rich resources are the bedrock of the right sort of propaganda.

[ASMarques]

But don't wait for a catastrophic sinking of the opposition: I doubt it will happen.

Of course, I would be delighted to be in the wrong on that one. I mean, the adversary conceding defeat or public opinion forcing such an unheard of state of affairs.

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

Yes, particularly the Journal of Historical Review. A journal that was largely was put out before Weber was head of the IHR, and whom Weber isn't even the one to digitize it: Germar Rudolf digitized the journal so that it could be put on the web at the IHR site. I suppose Weber can be credited for then having the website up and running.

[ASMarques]

Yes, particularly the Journal of Historical Review. A journal that was largely was put out before Weber was head of the IHR, and whom Weber isn't even the one to digitize it: Germar Rudolf digitized the journal so that it could be put on the web at the IHR site. I suppose Weber can be credited for then having the website up and running.

I don't know about that. I know he can be credited with very good scholarly research of the "Holocaust" and a large quantity of very high-quality accurate writings on the subject, unless you present me with a convincing theory about collective falsifications and secret ghost-writers at the IHR.

Let me put a question to you. Would the withdrawal of Weber's writings from the visible revisionist corpus matter, and if so how much? Some suggestions:

1) Yes. It would be a major setback for serious revisionism.

2) Well, yes, it might constitute a minor nuisance, nicely balanced by the reestablishment of some sort of control by the "Protocols" kind of people over there at the IHR.

3) No. It won't matter at all, provided more martyrs are ready to go up in flames at the German circus clutching their Protocols.

My answer would be an unhesitant 1).

And yes, I use the Protocols as an emblematic device. You know what I mean. It's also an ability issue, not simply a personal courage one.

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

Writing a few good essays over around a 12 year period; and doing a lot of work for the IHR are two different things.

I think his Nuremberg essay is excellent, however I could point out errors in his Buchenwald essay.

Weber as news clipper: that doesn't really have to be a pejorative phrase. If you go to the IHR right now, those articles he's chosen are quite good and revisionist related. I know of a lot of other revisionists who do the same thing, and as of 1/27/9 we have:
1) Holocaust Denied: Israel’s Ethnic Cleansing
by John Pilger

2) Pope’s Gesture to Traditionalists Outrages Jews
Reuters

3) No Killing of Jews in Gas Chambers, Says Catholic Bishop
Swedish Television (Video)

Those are all important revisionist issues.

[Friedrich Paul Berg]

I was very pleasantly surprised to see the following on pages 15 and 16 of the current issue of Bradley Smith's Report at http://www.codoh.com/newsite/sr/online/sr_158.pdf

One of us who has been deeply distressed, and angered, to see almost everything revisionists had valued about the Institute to be disappeared (alright—destroyed), is Fritz Berg. Soon after Weber’s article appeared, Fritz posted a short response on the CODOH Fo-rum. It read:

Fritz Berg
"Over the last ten years, who has done more harm to the holocaust revisionist movement than Mark Weber?

Any candidates, folks? Elie Wiesel, perhaps--or Steven Spielberg, Angela Merkel, or Ehud Olmert? The answer is that none of the others shut down a revisionist journal. Germar's journal will almost certainly be revived when Germar is released--but the IHR journal is gone forever so long as Mark Weber is the director of the IHR. Irving's imprisonment actually helped bring world attention to the fact that there are people who "deny" the holocaust. Mark Weber has by his own admissions made it clear that he sees holocaust revisionism as harmful--to exactly what is not clear. At the very time when many leading revisionists had taken a public stand in Teheran to tell the entire world that the holocaust was essentially a hoax, Mark Weber went out of his way to publicly undermine them all on national television [the Shawn Hannity program—Ed.] throughout the US.

No single person anywhere in the world has done more harm to what so many of us are trying to achieve than Mark Weber.

I suggest we put a letter together to the IHR board calling for Mark Weber's resignation and sign that letter." end of quote from FPBerg

Mark Weber called me after he had read Berg’s post to ask if I were going to allow the statement to remain on a Website “that I control.” I said that I did not want to talk about it on the telephone, that we should discuss it by email where we would each have a copy of what the other had written. Mark was absolutely adamant. He had to talk. What he wanted me to understand was that Berg’s post was “insulting” and that no friend would allow it to stand.

I felt myself in a dilemma. On the one hand I understood that I was undermining a friendship that I had always valued. On the other, I understood that Berg was right. I told Mark that the questions Berg raised had been talked about for years, privately, among revisionists around the world. I told him that I agreed with Berg.

That no one has done more to harm revisionism over the last ten years than my friend Mark Weber.

What is new to me is that Weber went to such cowardly lengths to suppress my criticism of him. I am grateful that Bradley Smith did NOT give in to Weber's wishes. Weber's "backsliding" has been the subject of many posts here over recent weeks, not just from me--but he never joined in to try to defend himself in the open, ever. As far as I know, he has never ever participated in any discussions on this forum. But behind the scenes, Weber has been very active (at least recently). Some of my posts on this forum were deleted as a result of Weber's pressure, I believe.

Unfortunately, the current IHR board members, one of whom actually is Weber, are beyond the pale as far as any likely action to remove Weber. However, the IHR mailing list, which is the product of three decades of genuine holocaust revisionism, is available and may become the basis of a NEW institute that still cares about holocaust revisionism.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at: http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!

[Ketcher]

To quote Weber in his many fund raising letters, "A healthy vibrant IHR is what is needed"... is what we do not have.

Let us look at the facts,

1. He (Weber) stopped the JHR.

The journal has halted publication since 2002 however, due to "lack of staff and funding", according to the organization's website.

Fritz Berg states ... since this the IHR has had many hundreds of thousands in bequests "lack of funding" ??? ..... NO.... Indolent behaviour YES!

2. Weber has no weekend conferences anymore. The conference mentioned in Bradley's newsletter was a Saturday night meeting only.

3. Germar Rudolf published 27 books - Weber ( if it even was Weber ) ONE.

4. Weber and Raven tried to sell the Spotlight list to the ADL.

In 2001, Eric Owens, a former employee, revealed that Mark Weber and Greg Raven from the IHR's staff had been planning to sell their mailing lists to the Anti-Defamation League.

5. Weber is indolent and lazy and is using the mailing list to keep his 50K lifestyle on track. - Produces NOTHING!

6. All the IHR is is a news clipping service, thanks to Weber.

7. The board will not do anything to replace Weber, as who will they replace him with? We need Germar out, then we have an option.

8, IHR News and Comment news clipping spamming service, just think Weber gets paid $50,000 a year for putting together OTHER PEOPLE'S news clippings... not bad work if you can get it.

9. No IHR Update since Summer 2007 - I guess Weber is bored doing that also.

10. Micheal Piper will be doing broadcasts next week on RBN about Weber and his behaviour.

http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/

[Ketcher]

Yes, particularly the Journal of Historical Review. A journal that was largely was put out before Weber was head of the IHR, and whom Weber isn't even the one to digitize it: Germar Rudolf digitized the journal so that it could be put on the web at the IHR site.I suppose Weber can be credited for then having the website up and running.

Does that statement in bold justify a salary of $50,000 a year?

Fire Weber and let CODOH administer the archive section of the website.

[Moderator]

Does that statement in bold justify a salary of $50,000 a year?
Fire Weber and let CODOH administer the archive section of the website.

50K? It's a deal.

[ASMarques]

In an analogous way, you simply cannot reason a true "Holocaust" believer out of his faith in the "Holocaust" as the central event of modern sacred history. It's not a matter of history for him: it's a matter of sacred history.

Here is what I mean:
http://www.zenit.org/article-24958?l=english

Father Federico Lombardi in the editorial of the Vatican Television Center's weekly program 'Octava Dies' on the theme "The Shoa and the mystery of God": "Those who deny the Holocaust don't know anything about the mystery of God, nor of the cross of Christ."

Et cetera.

[Vlad]

Nice quote. Doesn't explain or excuse Weber's obstructionism though.

[ASMarques]

Nice quote. Doesn't explain or excuse Weber's obstructionism though.

Of course not. I was underlining what I had previously written about the Holocaust as a religion. I meant that in a literal sense, not as a metaphor.

Concerning Weber and the IHR, I simply admire his work as an author. I didn't know anything about the allegations that others have posted on this thread, and I don't feel qualified to have a definite opinion on the subject.