The IHR publishes an unreviewed “journal,” “The Journal of Historical Review,” as well as “The IHR Newsletter,” and an “IHR Update.”
“The impressively titled Institute was once a reputable historical revisionist entity but was taken over by ideological radicals and now is housed in a rented garage in a run-down commercial area of Costa Mesa, California. They once produced a historical journal with a large circulation, but chronic mismanagement coupled with expensive legal problems has reduced their subscription list to less than two hundred individuals of the type who once worshipped [David] Irving and their slim ‘Journal’ appears about as often as Irving’s books after the fall.” One of its two ‘directors’ was once arrested in Germany for defacing a Catholic church with swastikas and now supplements his income by acting as a shift manager for a fast food restaurant in South Central Los Angeles and the other does duty as an automobile mechanic.
” A second ‘director’ abruptly resigned his position after posting on his Internet site the stunning revelations that he was a space alien whose parents had been giant turtles.
” A third ‘director’ found it necessary to leave the United States and he now lives in a small village in Central Mexico and runs a Flying Saucer Research Center. His own newsletters specialize in well-illustrated articles on anal probes allegedly conducted by small, pale men with large black eyes. The illustrations come from a book on proctology and are not recommended for viewing before eating. “
(Kolchek, Dr. Karl, “Suffering Fools Gladly? David Irving & Revisionism“)
Dan Gannon, the owner-operator of the Portland, Oregon, bulletin board system known as “banished.uucp,” published articles from Carto’s organization on a regular basis, presumably as a public service to those wishing to obtain a more accurate understanding of the true nature of Carto and his associates. Many of these documents are archived by ftp.nizkor.org, and thus available for anonymous retrieval. (Mr. Gannon’s computer system offered its users a steady diet of anti-Semitic and racist material; Gannon was an eager campaigner for Mr. Carto’s anti-Semitic agenda.)
Why did Gannon do it, when he knew from past experience, both on UseNet and GEnie, that he would be laughed at and hated for doing so? Martinez provided the answer during a discussion of free speech issues in general, and the Alan Berg show in particular:
Alan Berg gave huge amounts of air time to racists so that he could satisfy his ego by responding to them and ridiculing them. The racists know they will be ridiculed when they go on such programs, and assume they will be despised by more than 99 percent of the people who hear them spout their venom. But none of that is of any matter to them. The fraction of 1 percent is. There they will find the malcontents, the embittered, the bigots, and the sincerely concerned but ignorant people like I was. The numbers are in their favor, and they know it. Snyder’s program [Tom Snyder interviewed David Duke on television, and seeing that show led Martinez into the supremacist camp. knm] may have reached 2 million listeners; if only one-tenth of 1 percent of them respond favorably, they have recruited 2,000 people, no doubt swelling the ranks of their group ten- or twentyfold. One hundredth of 1 percent would make them happy. (Martinez, 242)
A parting comment or two regarding Mr. Gannon, from those he most admires:
Prince Otto von Bismark, a member of the great chancellor’s family, characterized Ribbentrop as ‘such an imbecile he is a freak of nature.’ The French ambassador remarked: ‘I could not talk to Ribbentrop; he listened only to himself.’ Goering referred to him as ‘Germany’s number-one parrot,’ because of his endless repetition of meaningless claptrap.” (Conot, Robert E. Justice at Nuremberg. New York: Harper & Row, 1983, 52-53)
One can only wonder how these folks would have viewed Mr. Gannon…
IHR publications posted to UseNet newsgroups are archived on ftp.nizkor.org, and are available to the public via anonymous ftp. In general, the filename reflects the source of the article:
IHR newsletters are prefaced with IHR, while JHR files are prefaced with JHR. The file extensions reflect either the month and year of publication, plus the volume number (if provided) i.e. IHR.0492n86 contains material from the April, 1993, newsletter, number 86, while JHR.v12n4 contains material from the Journal of Historical Review, volume 12, number 4. Spotlight articles use the form “spotlight.mmyy,” i.e. “spotlight.0193” contains material from the January, 1993 editions.
The publishing arm of the IHR and other related organisations, Noontide Press, which can boast of such titles as “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,” “The six millions reconsidered” and “Antizion,” The treasurer of its holding company is Carto’s wife and until 1981 its firm office manager was one Lewis Brandon.
Noontide Press is owned by the Legion for Survival of Freedom, which is the umbrella corporation under which the IHR itself operates.
Additional titles offered by Noontide press include these gems:
“Amendment to the Constitution” (Pace) – a proposal to restrict U.S. citizenship to white people.
“Our Nordic Race” (Hoskins) – an “outline (of) present threats to Nordic survival”, complete with proposed measures to “protect and preserve the Nordic race.”
“The Testing of Negro Intelligence” (Osborne & McGurk) – the authors’ findings “give little comfort to egalitarians.” Those findings are based, of course, on “performance on intelligence tests from 1966- 1980.”
“For Those Who Cannot Speak” (McLaughlin) – you may have guessed that he’s not talking about Holocaust victims. This book is a “vigorous ‘case for the defense’ for National Socialist Germany.”
“Hitler : the Unknown Artist” (Price) – “What a magnificent production!”, gushes the blurb. “The first comprehensive… catalog of Hitler’s paintings, drawings, sketches, doodles and daydreams.” Yes, folks, his daydreams.
And don’t forget perennial favorites “Hitler at My Side” and “IQ and Racial Differences”.
Martinez mentions one more book published by Noontide Press, ‘The Road Back,’ and notes that it has been used as a textbook for seminars at the Aryan Nations. “It includes an illustrated chapter on methods for mining roads and blowing up bridges.”(Martinez, 241)
Mark Weber, writing in the East Bay Express (Get pub/orgs/american/ihr/express.011792 for the complete Weber letter, transcribed with permission for release on UseNet), claimed that Noontide Press and the Institute for Historical Review were “entirely independent” of the Liberty Lobby. This flew in the face of reality, however, since the business license for both was filed by Carto’s wife Elisabeth, and Carto was listed on the letterhead of the IHR as “founder.” Carto’s weekly, ‘The Spotlight,’ regularly promoted Noontide Press as an integral part of the Liberty Lobby’s “Liberty Library.” [Note: Following the ouster of Willis Carto from the IHR in 1994, reportedly at gunpoint, Weber’s assertion is finally correct. knm]
Carto has apparently lost control of his Noontide Press publishing arm, according to The Dignity Report, a publication of the (Portland, Oregon) Coalition for Human Dignity’s Research Department. (Get pub/people/c/carto.willis/carto.005 for full details.) This during the same period when Carto was successfully removed from his controlling position at the Institute for Historical Review. Legal maneuvers, however, continue – in October of 1995, Willis Carto filed a document with the Office of the Secretary of State, Corporate Section, which outlined changes to the Legion’s charter, and signed the document as the President of the Corporation. (URL ftp://ftp.nizkor.org/pub/ orgs/american/legion-for-survival-of-freedom/legal contains legal filings of interest with regard to the legal battle between Willis Carto and Greg Raven.)
The Journal of Historical Review
In a mid-1995 fund-raising letter from the IHR, the authors suggested that publication of the Journal might be discontinued, due to serious financial problems. How much of this is rhetoric, aimed at picking the pockets of supporters, and how much reflects the loss of the Edison millions through the forced ouster of Willis Carto is unknown.
In the meantime, Carto’s Spotlight announced (August, 1994) the publication of “The Barnes Review,” Carto’s new Holocaust denial publication, which will compete with the JHR for readers and, of course, money. According to the ADL (ADL Special Report, “Embattled Bigots: A Split in the Ranks of the Holocaust Denial Movement”, p. 5), the Spotlight staff will assist in the prouduction of the Barnes Review.
The Spotlight evolved from the Liberty Lobby’s newsletter, “Liberty Letter,” which echoed Willis Carto’s earlier anti-Semitic assaults during the period when he controlled “American Mercury.” According to Deborah Lipstadt,
“In 1975 the lobby’s Liberty Letter, whose circulation was more than one-hundred thousand, was subsumed by the Spotlight, a tabloid newspaper that regularly featured articles on Bible analysis and the putative efforts of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission to dominate the nation. It offered its readers tips on avoiding taxes and fighting the IRS. The paper attacked Martin Luther King, Jr., as a Communist and praised members of the Ku Klux Klan. It has memorialized Gordon Kahl, the leader of the right-wing-extremist group Posse Comitatus, who killed three [US] federal marshals and wounded a number of others before he was killed in 1983 in a shoot-out with federal agents.” (Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 150)
Lipstadt offers information which suggests that Spotlight‘s standards for journalistic integrity leave something to be desired:
“…In 1979 Spotlight‘s lead article described how a global elite planned to topple world governments. The paper claimed that its reporter had attended an international conference in Austria at which such plans were discussed. In truth, no one from the Spotlight attended this legitimate conference, and the reporter who wrote the story admitted to falsifying it.” ( Ibid, 150)
Lipstadt goes on to explain that the primary focus of Spotlight‘s attention lies in exposing what it calls the “Jew-Zionist” international bankers’ conspiracy, aimed at Americans, and the “Holocaust Hoax,” which it maintains is an integral part of this vast conspiracy. Holocaust denial “has also become a regular staple.” (Ibid., 150)
“The nature of Spotlight‘s readership can be gauged to some degree by the contents of its classified advertising section. There are ads for poetry, laetrile prescriptions, dating services for patriotic Christians, and devices for dramatically increasing a car’s gasoline mileage (these devices have supposedly been kept off the market in a conspiracy against the American consumer). In addition, its classified section regularly offers Nazi paraphernalia, gun silencer parts, bullet-proof vests, clandestine mail drops, and instructions for manufacturing false identification.” (Lipstadt, 151)
The masthead of the May 3, 1993 edition of The Spotlight lists Robert Weems with the Southern Bureau. Weems is a former KKK leader and founding chairman of the PAC (see Section 4.2).
The Canadian representation on the international bureau is Ron Gostick. Gostick controls the “Freedom Council of Canada,” along with Patrick Walsh, both of whom are described as officers of the anti-Semitic (and non-governmental) “Canadian Intelligence Service.” Walsh is said to be the “Canadian correspondent of the Liberty Lobby,” although I am uncertain as to what this refers to. (Anderson, 154)
IHR/JHR Editorial Advisory Staff & Writers
No information available as of this date. “Andrew Arnold” was the author of a recent (April 1993) Spotlight article attacking the Museum of the Holocaust, in Washington, D.C. No biographical information was provided with the article. (get pub/orgs/american/ihr/spotlight.0493 to see the entire article, as posted to UseNet by Dan Gannon.)
Dr. Robert Faurisson
Faurisson, a former French academic, contends that the Holocaust was a hoax which benefits Israel in the form of reparation payments, (Barrett, 162) a view commonly aired by those espousing Holocaust denial. Seidel provides excellent background material:
In November 1978 Robert Faurisson wrote a letter on the ‘problem’ of the gas chambers. Its timing was important. Its publication in Le Monde followed close on the heels of a scandalous interview with Darquier de Pellepoix in the weekly magazine, L’Express. Darquier was the Vichy Commissioner General for Jewish Affairs. Darquier has been described as the ‘French Eichmann’–though even Eichmann, the architect of the ‘Final Solution’, did not seek to deny its reality. …The Holocaust denial in France has become synonymous with the Faurisson affair. What is more, it has become embroiled with Noam Chomsky, the distinguished American linguist and staunch opponent of the Vietnam war. (get pub/orgs/american/ihr/seidel.001 for Seidel’s discussion of Chomsky’s role – it is beyond the scope of this FAQ. knm)
Faurisson’s book is entitled Memoire en Defense–contre ceux qui m’accusent de falsifier l’histoire. La question des chambres a gaz (Testimony in Defence: Against those who Accuse me of Falsifying History. The Question of the Gas Chambers). It is Faurisson’s answer to the accusation of falsifying history. Testimony in Defence was published in Paris by Pierre Guillaume for the left anarchist publishing house, La Vieille Taupe (The Old Mole), in 1980. …
Faurisson’s denial of the Holocaust first appeared in the satirical Canard Enchaine [“Le Canard Enchaine”.knm] on 17 July 1974. It subsequently gained public attention in December 1978 when the influential Paris daily, Le Monde, published a letter from Faurisson headed ‘The problem of the “gas chambers” or “The rumour of Auschwitz”‘. He wrote with calculated cynicism: ‘The non-existence of the “gas chambers” is good news for poor humanity. Good news like this should not be suppressed any longer.’
Robert Faurisson is not a historian. He belongs to a long line of antisemitic academics and literary critics. Until recently, he was a lecturer in twentieth-century French literature at the University of Lyons II. He specialises in revealing ‘the real meaning’ of texts. In Faurisson’s view, texts have one particular meaning, or none at all, an approach to stylistics he calls ‘the Ajax method’–because ‘it scours as it cleans as it shines’. (Seidel, 98-111. Seidel provides extensive information regarding Faurisson’s background, writing, and trial. Get pub/orgs/american/ihr/seidel.001 to review his material.)
Faurisson has also pronounced the Diary of Anne Frank and the Gerstein Report to be “fabrications and falsifications,” and asserts that the Holocaust “lie” is essentially “Zionist” in origin, and that it has led to a “huge financial swindle of which the state of Israel is the principal beneficiary.” It was the widespread publication of this sort of material that led the Dean of Lyons University to suspend Faurisson’s lectures.
Faurisson was one of the four members of the IHR advisory board who testified at the trial of Ernst Zündel in Canada.
Felderer, testifying at the trial of Ernst Zündel (Canada), explained his conviction on a charge of “threatening or expressing contempt for a group” for publishing a “Jewish Information” tract entitled “Please accept this hair of gas victim,” which he described as satire, by stating that he was being “persecuted by Zionists.” (Bilodeau)
According to the Toronto Star, “Felderer called his native Sweden a ‘totalitarian state’ and compared his trial to a ‘Soviet show trial,’ and “…said Nazi concentration camps were more humane than modern prisons.” (Bilodeau)
Lindsay was one of the four members of the IHR advisory board who testified at the trial of Ernst Zündel in Canada. (Barrett, 162) Any additional documented information which we can utilize to augment this section will be appreciated.
In an article published to coincide with the official opening of the Washington, D.C. Holocaust Museum, one editor is briefly described as follows:
“Theodore J. O’Keefe is an editor with the Institute for Historical Review. Educated at Harvard University, he has studied history and literature on three continents, and has published numerous articles on historical and political subjects.”
According to the 1990 Harvard Alumni Directory, Mr. O’Keefe failed to graduate, so the reader will have to make his own decision about whether or not he obtained his education there. Additional material would be appreciated.
The above “bio” of Mr. O’Keefe would seem to be simply one more example of how the IHR can be relied upon to mislead its readers. (We have written to the IHR [April, 1993] and asked for more informative information regarding Mr. O’Keefe’s educational background and areas of expertise, but no additional information has been provided.)
As of mid-1995, Mr. O’Keefe may have left the IHR.
Mr. Raven, now the President and CEO of the Legion for the Survival of Freedom, and therefor the IHR itself, offers insight into his personal political beliefs in this message which he posted during a GEnie debate into Holocaust denial:
Category 15, Topic 4 Message 33 Fri Mar 13, 1992 G.RAVEN at 03:02 EST My only concern is in going after the facts. As such, I am not interested in defending Adolf Hitler to my dying breath. I will say, however, that he was a great man ... certainly greater than Churchill and FDR put together, and possibly the greatest leader of our century, if not longer. This is not to say that he was perfect, but he about the best thing that could have happened to Germany.
(Other examples of Mr. Raven’s historical beliefs may be found within the IHR archives here – his writing may be found in the directory pub/people/r/raven.greg.)
Roques…wrote a thesis titled ‘Confessions of Kurt Gerstein: A Comparative Study of Different Versions – A Critique.’..[he] claims in his thesis to have ‘scientifically’ disproved that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were used for mass murder. After submitting his ‘revisionist’ thesis to the University of Paris, where it was rejected, he received his doctorate with distinction from the faculty of letters of the University of Nantes.
A government investigation into the granting of his degree revealed a number of irregularities:
First, Roques transferred from the University of Paris to Nantes…three months after the deadline for student enrollment had passed and without authorization from the University rector. Second, he did not have the necessary qualifications or title for presenting a thesis in literature or history. Third, the mandatory oral examination did not take place. Fourth, he wrote the thesis in two months rather than the two years required minimum registration period. Finally, the signature of one of the examiners said to have been present at the presentation of the thesis was forged.
In 1986, the French Minister of Higher Education… invalidated Roque’s thesis citing the above irregularities….
Since 1986, Roques has established close ties to the IHR. He was a guest speaker at their Eighth Annual Conference in 1987, and joined their Editorial Advisory Committee in 1990. IHR now offers Roque’s discredited thesis for sale on its mail-order booklists.” (Caplan, 43-44)
Udo Walendy was described in the Simon Wiesenthal Center infiltration report as follows:
Udo Walendy is a notorious Holocaust denier who, for years, has served on the advisory board of the Journal of Historical Review, the official publication of the Institute for Historical Review of Costa Mesa, California. (see entries for Mark Weber and Willis Carto) …Walendy expressed interest in … offering his assistance in the creation of a Nazi center in Germany.
In response to my query, the IHR provided the following background information concerning Mr. Weber:
Mark Weber was born in October 1951 in Portland, Oregon, where he was also raised. He graduated from Jesuit High School there in 1969.He studied at the University of Illinois (Chicago), the University of Munich (Germany), and Portland State University, from where he received a Batchelor’s degree in history (with high honors). He then did graduate work in history at Indiana University (Bloomington), where he served as a history instructor and received a Master of Arts degree in European history in 1977.
He has travelled widely in Europe and northwestern Africa. He lived and worked for two and a half years in Germany (Bonn and Munich), and for a time in Ghana (West Africa), where he taught English, history and geography at an all-Black secondary school.
During the five years he lived in Washington, D.C. (1978-1983) he carried out extensive research on the Holocaust issue at the National Archives and the Library of Congress. Weber is the author of numerous articles, reviews and essays dealing with the Holocaust story, and his writings on other historical, political and social issues have appeared in a variety of periodicals.
In March 1988 Weber testified for five days in Toronto District Court as a recognized expert witness on the “Final Solution” and the Holocaust issue.
He moved to Southern California at the beginning of 1991 to work for the Institute for Historical Review. He is now editor of the ‘Journal of Historical Review,’ published six times years by the IHR.
Mark Weber serves as Carto’s pipeline to the German paleo-nazis, as was conclusively demonstrated by the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s recent penetration of the German right. Here’s what the infiltration report has to say about Mr. Weber’s Nazi connections:
Mark Weber works for the Institute for Historical Review (Costa Mesa, California), one of several antisemitic organizations founded by Willis A. Carto. The I.H.R. devotes most of its time to spreading the bizarre notion that the Holocaust is wildly exaggerated and that the gas chambers of Hitler’s death camps are a myth. In 1978, Weber was identified as the news editor of the National Vanguard, the publication of William Pierce’s neo-Nazi group, the National Alliance.Weber’s name came up in several conversations with German neo-Nazis, including Wolfgang Kempkens and Roy Godenau. As part of Ron Furey’s cover, a “cold” phone line at the Simon Wiesenthal Center was attached to an answering machine informing the caller that he/she had reached The Right Way. That phone number was known only to the Center’s senior research staff, Ron Furey, and the neo-Nazis to whom it was given.
At 2:55pm on Friday, February 12, 1993, a man identifying himself as Mark Weber called the number, requested a copy of The Right Way, and left his P.O.B. address for mailing. The Center’s graphics department sent him a colorful subscription application for the non-existent periodical, instead. This was apparently enough to satisfy Mr. Weber’s curiosity because he soon acceded to Ron’s request for a meeting.
That meeting took place on February 27, 1993 at the Cafe Westminster in Westminster, California. It was filmed by a CBS camera crew stationed in a van outside. Mr. Furey spoke to Mark Weber at length about the “state of the movement” in Germany. To help establish his credibility, he showed Weber several photos picturing him and several German neo-Nazis together. Weber correctly identified them all.
Weber soon felt comfortable enough to discuss the miserliness of his current employer and to ask about the possibility of finding work with The Right Way. He was also recommended by Reinhard Kopps (see entry) to Richard Eaton for a separate project.
[email protected] (Chana Braun) provided us with an interesting glance into Mark Weber’s intregity when she wrote <[email protected]> that “…I have excellent evidence that Mark Weber colors the truth (to put it mildly) in regards to debates,” and then went on to detail a series of exchanges between a Holocaust denier and others on another computer network.
Her article outlined the exchange dealing with Mark Weber’s being invited to join in the debate, and Mr. Weber’s demand that she (Chana Braun) not “bring in any outside help” in her debate with him.
(Mr. Weber, quite clearly, was not the least bit interested in an open and comprehensive debate on a public computer network.) (get pub/people/w/weber.mark/webers.feet for the full text of Chana’s article.)
As Chana explained:There was absolutely no response to that reply and nothing more was heard concerning the possibility of an open discussion on that network until the February 1992 issue of the IHR Newsletter. Here, then is the way that it was reported (and keep in mind that Mark Weber is the editor of the Newsletter).
“In the January Newsletter I told about an IHR activist who had received a challenge to publicly debate the Holocaust on [the network] open forum bulletin board computer service – the largest interactive computer network.
…After we promptly offered Mark Weber to represent that Revisionist [sic] side, XXX suddenly flip-flopped. Deciding that she is not a ‘scholar’ after all, but merely an ‘amateur,’ she complained that it would be ‘unfair’ for her to have to face a professional historian.”
The plot in this story thickens. The one opposing the Holocaust Deniers on that network wrote a letter to the editor of the Newsletter (i.e. Mark Weber). Since the IHR is such a staunch champion of Freedom of Speech, it seems strange that 3 months later, that letter has still not received a reply much less been printed in the IHR Newsletter.
Here, then, is the letter that the IHR Newsletter refuses to print or even acknowledge:
February 27, 1992
Mark Weber, Editor
Institute of Historical Review
1822 1/2 Newport Blvd.
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
I read with interest the article in your IHR Newsletter #85 February 1992 concerning [the network] and me. This is truly a work of revisionism (e.g. distorting the facts to fit into your personal view of the world) and, since those connected with the IHR claim that they are eager to be taken seriously, it is surprising that I was not contacted for comment before you went to press.
Let’s get the facts straight. Your “IHR activist” was posting messages denying the Holocaust. I responded. He claimed that no one was willing to debate the Holocaust. This, of course, is absurd. I told him that he could name his sources and begin. He posted a message about The Leuchter Report. I rebutted his erroneous statements. (By the way, I don’t believe he has read the report. You might want to check on that before you encourage his “activism” too much.) He then suddenly claimed on the public board that he didn’t have time to debate and he was trying to get someone online from the IHR. I responded by telling him that everyone was welcome. That is when he contacted you and you agreed to come online.
What your “IHR activist” presented to me were a set of ridiculous conditions. They included that the debate take place only between you and me and that it be advertized on [the network]. I was told to contact the “Arts Club Leader” to urge her to agree. First, [the Arts Club Leader] doesn’t have the authority to grant such requests. Even if she did, as I told your “activist,” there are no precedents to such a closed debate on Prodigy and that involving the Arts Club Leader might even be counter-productive. My reasoning was this: “In fact, involving the Arts Club leader might be counter-productive in that it calls attention to this single debate and, if it ever begins, our messages might undergo closer scrutiny by the censors. I don’t think either of us wants that.” In fact, since you are such a champion for “open debate,” I was very surprised that you wished for this one to be closed to others.
One of the amusing requirements for your participation in the debate was an agreement by me that I would have no outside help (whatever that means). This amusement I expressed to your “activist” in the following quote: “I am an amateur (i.e. I don’t get paid by anyone to research the Holocaust, I am not employed by anyone or any organization that has an interest in the Holocaust and/or Holocaust Denial, etc.). You have presented yourself in the same manner. Mr. Weber, I think you would agree, is a professional. There is no prohibition against him joining the discussion but I do think it odd that you ask that I not ask for any outside help when you are bringing in a professional.”
If you notice, I claim amateur status because I don’t get paid – not because I am not a “scholar” or because it would be “unfair” for me to have to debate a professional. Yet, you are apparently so frightened of debating in a situation where you cannot control all the factors that I heard nothing else from you or your “activist.” Please notice, I did not say I wouldn’t agree to your terms regarding outside help. I only said that I found it “odd” that a professional would insist on such a term before debating an amateur.
However, the greatest part of your article had to be the sub-headline of “Another Anti-Revisionist Gets Cold Feet.” I assure you, Mr. Weber, that my feet are toasty warm. In fact, I closed my message to your “activist” with the following: “I guess the main question is: Do you and Mr. Weber desire to have an open discussion or not? If so, post a message (either on your own or one on behalf of Mr. Weber). That is the manner in which all other discussions are initiated on [the network] and I don’t see any need to make an exception for this one.”
I am still waiting for an answer to that question. What temperature are your feet, Mr. Weber?
Mr. Weber, to our knowledge, has still not either printed the above letter in the “open” IHR Newsletter or responded privately to Ms. Braun. Given that more than a year has passed, it would seem that Mr. Weber’s feet are rather chilly indeed.
In an article published in the Express, a San Francisco Bay Area weekly newspaper, Paul Rauber included the following comments about Mark Weber:
The question [of whether the IHR denies the Holocaust] appears to turn on IHR’s Humpty-Dumpty word game with the word Holocaust. According to Mark Weber, associate editor of the IHR’s Journal of Historical Review, “If by the `Holocaust’ you mean the political persecution of Jews, some scattered killings, if you mean a cruel thing that happened, no one denies that. But if one says that the `Holocaust’ means the systematic extermination of six to eight millions Jews in concentration camps, that’s what we think there’s not evidence for.” That is, IHR doesn’t deny that the Holocaust happened; they just deny that the word “Holocaust” means what people customarily use it for. (Rauber, ‘Sticks’)Weber’s claim for the “independence” of the IHR is marked by the same disingenuousness that characterizes that institutes scholarship. In 1980 the business license for “The Noontide Press/Institute for Historical Review” was filed by Elisabeth Carto, wife of Liberty Lobby founder and treasurer Willis Carto. Carto himself is listed on IHR’s letterhead as “founder.” IHR’s activities are regularly promoted in the Spotlight, as are the racist and anti-Semitic books by Noontide Press, which are advertised as part of the Lobby’s “Liberty Library.” (Rauber, ‘Response’)
According to the July, 1995, “IHR Update,” Mr. Weber is now the IHR Director. He is also listed in a July 1995 legal document as the Secretary of the Legion for the Survival of Freedom.