cue the lightning bolts

the only question that matters: is it true?

Iran has signed the NPT. As a signatory to the NPT, Iran may rightfully, legally, use nuclear technology for peaceful energy purposes. Iran has submitted to and passed repeated IAEA inspections. The US intelligence community (NIE) does not consider Iran a nuclear threat. Israel refuses to sign the NPT. Israel has an estimated several hundred undeclared nuclear weapons. Russia and China have warned that an attack on Iran will have global consequences. That's the situation in a nutshell. Where to next, people? Where to?

Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? - Galatians 4:16


Bishop Williamsom and Holocaust Denial: Why the Uproar?

By Mark Weber
Director, Institute for Historical Review

March 4, 2009

The furor over the “Holocaust denial” remarks of Bishop Richard Williamson is not a controversy about historical truth, the role of history in society, anti-Semitism or “hate.” This affair is really about power -- about those who really wield it in our culture, as well as about how and why that power is used.

Williamson is a 68-year-old English-born traditionalist Roman Catholic who has been fiercely criticized in recent weeks for his remarks about the Holocaust. In a Swedish television interview, which has been widely viewed on the Internet and quoted widely in the media, he expressed the view that no more than 300,000 Jews died in German concentration camps during World War II, and none were killed in gas chambers.

The uproar, which has received wide media attention, began several weeks ago after Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of Williamson and three other renegade bishops as part of an effort to heal a rift with a conservative Roman Catholic group that opposes liberalizing trends within the Church.

Read more @ Institute for Historical Review

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir,

Let's examine the amount of donations the IHR/Mark Weber received from the revisionist/patriot community, and then ask this question: Is the revisionist/patriot community getting a good return on their money?

For said years, the IHR/Mark Weber took in the following in "Contributions, Gifts, Grants, And Similar Amounts Received: Direct Public Support."

Tax Year 2000--$346, 572

Tax Year 2001---$209, 229

Tax Year 2002---$610, 152

Tax Year 2003--$210, 363

Tax Year 2005--$409, 477

Tax Year 2006--$299, 623

Now, this adds up to be $2,085,416. That is to say, the IHR/Mark Weber took in $2,085,416 in donations from the Revisionist/patriot community for these six tax years. Have we, in turn, received a good return on our money????

I say, Hell no!!! Mark Weber destroyed the Journal of Historical Review, the yearly IHR conferences, the IHR's book publishing arm, and the IHR newsletter. He even refuses to sponsor a weekly Radio talk show!

What does Mark Weber/IHR do to deserve $2,085,416 from the Revisionist/patriot community???? Well, he sends out newspaper clippings to one thousand people or less. He sells a bunch of old books and DVDs, many of which are decades old. He attempts to market the works of others like Kevin MacDonald and Pat Buchanan--books that can be obtained cheaper elsewhere. And finally, every once in a great while Weber writes a short essay or gives a short speech.

In my opinion, this is madness!!!! The $2,085,416 is a horrendous waste of money!! I can think of far more productive ways to utilize this money than to send it to Mark Weber.

Unfortunately, Mark has proven himself to be a horrible leader and Director. He led the charge to destroy Willis Carto's Liberty Lobby and the Spotlight, and took in about one million dollars to boot? And what does he have to show for it? Absolutely nothing!!

Mark Weber destroyed the Journal of Historical Review, the IHR's book publishing arm, the yearly IHR conferences, and the IHR's newsletter. And what has Mark Weber given us in return?? Well, he sends out newspaper clippings to a thousand people or less.

Weber has very little business acumen, as "his" IHR is forever teetering on the brink of financial disaster, despite the fact that he beat Carto in court and took in one million dollars. Contrast Weber's poor record with that of his hated enemy, Willis Carto. Carto lost his home, his Liberty Lobby and Spotlight, but he bounced back and went on to create the American Free Press and The Barnes Review, etc.

People who have been in a position to observe Mark Weber first hand, like former IHR editor Ted O'Keefe and former IHR employee Ken Usher, will tell you that he has an inability to get his work done. Indeed, this character trait has plagued much of his career. He was supposed to write a very important book, The Final Solution: Legend and Reality. Vintage Weber--he never finished the book. Brilliant procrastinator that he is, Mark can always concoct a convenient excuse as to why it is not his fault that he never published this important book.

In a six year period, Mark Weber/the IHR took in a whopping $2,085,416!! And he has next to nothing to show for it. He is wasting Our Revisionist/patriot money. His web site basically consists of a bunch of newspaper clippings, old issues of the now-defunct Journal of Historical Review, and he attempts to sell very old books or other people's books (books that can be easily obtained elsewhere). Every once in a great while, he gives a short speech or writes an essay. His main duty appears to be to send out newspaper clippings to about one thousand people. This is foolish waste of the large sums of money that Weber is taking in from the revisionist/patriot community and things have to change.

One of the most important functions of a "political/historical think-tank" like the IHR is to "keep current." That is to say, to provide new and original scholarly material on political and historical issues. Mark Weber's IHR virtually does none of this.

Please keep in mind Mark Weber's battle cry, which he conveniently used when he was fighting Carto: "The IHR does not belong to one man. It belongs to all of us, because without all of us it would not exist." Ergo, we all have a right to join in the attempt to improve the IHR.

In a best-case scenario, I believe our goal should be to get Mark Weber to be more productive. This would be in the best interests of himself and the entire movement. Specifically, he should re-start the Journal of Historical Review, and he should host a weekly Internet Radio broadcast.

But I hold no illusions about Mark. He wants to do the least amount of work and to continue to collect a paycheck for so doing. He is as stubborn as a mule, and there is probably nothing that can be done to make him more productive. This being so, he should resign from the IHR.

But, once again, I hold no illusions about this either. Mark Weber has a tighter grip on the IHR than Willis Carto ever did. He is not going to give up his control of the IHR, and thus, it will probably go bankrupt in the near future. It cannot go on like it is in this present non--productive condition.

Paul Grubach

legal mumbo jumbo

Disclaimer: The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.