"Mark concluded some time ago that "The Holocaust" was a reflection of Jewish power and decided to emphasize that aspect rather than the mechanics of it."Does this make any sense at all? And if it did make sense, has it brought success? No, it has only confused and muddied the waters. Mark went farther than that and pronounced Holocaust Revisionism as "irrelevant." Irrelevant to what? His choice of what to write about? "It is my opinion that "the Holocaust" is an extortion racquet, a criminal enterprise benefiting Jews and Israel and others."This, then, is how Jews extend their power that you mentioned above. So Mark decides to say that he now believes the holocaust is/was real but just not quite as bad as they say. What Mark did was get out of the overheated kitchen and move to what he hoped was safer ground. By doing so, he betrayed his revisionist colleagues and supporters of IHR ... and he did not confer with them in advance of his announcement and change of direction. Naturally there is criticism and it's not unfair. Can you really say with a straight face that "News and Comment" is invaluable?It's exactly as Paul Grubman and John de Nugent have said all along: Mark Weber is a talented and useful ally, but he is not a leader or an organizer and never will be (except for trying to organize a position and income for himself). The Jews played a role in his getting control of IHR, a strong and thriving institution at that time compared to what it has become since. It's a tragedy for our side. Jewish power, as you term it, was far ahead, in terms of smarts, of the bumblers fighting over money at IHR, of which you were one and so was Paul, which he readily admits. The money went down a black hole. The IHR was defanged and has been simply subsisting on the reputation built by others ever since. Mark Weber tries to pretend that he's accomplishing something by issuing his email press releases. And you, Harvey, also won't admit what went wrong, and why, but want to be everyone's friend and allow the various groups, now at odds, to scramble over the small amount of money that's available. So much for fighting Jewish power.Carolyn
From: Harvey Taylor <hataylor2003@yahoo.com>
Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 1:21 AM
Am very sorry to see the vituperation and unfair criticism of Mark. When the Board separated IHR from the control of Mr.Carto it was out of concern for the planned use of contributions to the Institute for Historical Review. I was a strong supporter of legal action to recover those funds which had been donated to the IHR and not Mr.Carto. I believed that we, the Board, had an obligation to initiate legal proceedings to recover those bequests. From that time up until very recently, IHR had to devote a tremendous ammount of time and money to that effort, time and money which was unproductive.Mark inherited the decision to recover the IHR directed funds.He was obligated to attempt to carry it out.In the interim, IHR and Weber were called every name in the book. Yes, we should have restructured and relocated IHR offices long ago but that also requires money. Whoever runs IHR must spend considerable time communicating with others collecting intelligence. Mark concluded some time ago that "The Holocaust" was a reflection of Jewish power and decided to emphasize that aspect rather than the mechanics of it. It is my opinion that "the Holocaust" is an extortion racquet, a criminal enterprise benefiting Jews and Israel and others. When Mark wrote a post last year questioning the relevancy of holocaust revisionism I immediately responded in opposition. When you question the relevancy you imply that the subject is irrelevant .That was a strategic eror in my judgment.Mark should have asked the effectiveness of Holocaust revisionism and perhaps recommended a different approach. Regardless, IHR's website and News and Comment are invaluable.because they demonstrate the duplicity and corruption of the FDR administration. I was in hopes that we could utilize the IHR tax status to support others financially.I am very pleased to see and read Paul's efforts and the work of the old tiger Bradley Smith. I believe that we probably underestimate the influence Holocaust revisionism has on the Jewish establishment based here in the US. Some time in the future it will explode the current world order.
My best to all who fight the good fight.
Harvey Taylor
On 7/18/2010 7:18 PM, margaret huffstickler wrote:
(Prior to his tenure, by the way, there was no IHR Web site as far
as I am aware.)-----Since the takeover was in -- when? -- 1994? -- that is not surprising.--- On Sat, 7/17/10, Carolyn <warwo14@yahoo. com> wrote:
From: Carolyn <warwo14@yahoo. com>
Cc: weber@ihr.org
Date: Saturday, July 17, 2010, 12:38 PM
Dear Kevin,Looking for new terminology is a worthwhile pursuit. I hope you will put more attention on it and come up with labels that are more helpful. I was interviewing the one and only Lady Michele Renouf yesterday; she has come up with a good term for those who like to use "Holocaust Denier": Debate Deniers.The thing with terminology is to get everyone to use it, or at least enough people, so that it catches on. The media, of course, promotes their own terms and labels, so they have the advantage.Carolyn
From: Kevin Alfred Strom <kevin.alfred. strom@revilo- oliver.com>
Cc: "Carolyn" <warwo14@yahoo. com>, weber@ihr.org
Date: Saturday, July 17, 2010, 10:50 AM
Carolyn wrote:
>
>
> Kevin,
>
> It should be noted that the IHR website's readership is as high as it is
> because of all the wonderful revisionist articles archived there from
> the years that it functioned as a revisionist institution under other
> than Mark Weber's leadership.
>
> Not to unfairly diminish Mark Weber's intelligence, gifts and ability to
> write and speak, but he has not continued to create the same kind of
> body of work that is the backbone of the IHR website.
>
> In addition, a large amount of the money the IHR earns is undoubtably
> from book sales. These books were inherited by the new owners of the IHR
> after their successful lawsuit. So, in a sense, the present IHR is
> living off the accomplishments of the past.
>
> As to your Revilo Oliver comment, I think Mark Weber was the first to
> attack people and their long-standing philosophies on his own side,
> starting with Willis Carto, and over money too. Since then, he decided
> it was easier to attack holocaust revisionism and the holocaust
> revisionists than the holocaust and holocausters themselves. He has now
> established himself with those who say, "We don't want any holocaust
> revisionists in our midst," as though they are the kiss of death. He
> will just have to live with his decision. As we all do.
>
> Regards,
> Carolyn Yeager
[...]
Thank you, Carolyn. I appreciate your thoughts and your work.
I still consider Mark Weber to be a revisionist, though he has
changed his major focus to critiquing contemporary Jewish power.
(Prior to his tenure, by the way, there was no IHR Web site as far
as I am aware.)
There is room for many different approaches.
I hope that one or more of these approaches breaks through to a high
level of success soon. We desperately need that success if we are to
survive as a people.
I've never really liked the term "revisionist, " though I understand
its noble origins.
To the newcomer, it sounds kind of Orwellian. The term suggests
people who want to "revise the past" to make it fit their political
predilections, much in the manner of Stalin's pre-Photoshop artists
who would airbrush out purged former comrades in group photos
reprinted in the newer editions of Soviet history books.
"Truth-teller" sounds too unscholarly and self-righteous, though the
meaning is right. "Exactitude" and "integrity" could be root words
for a new term, but don't lend themselves well to alternative forms.
With my best regards,
Kevin.
--
http://kevinalfreds trom.com/
__._,_.___
MARKETPLACE
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment