Facebook Twitter Gplus RSS

The Unforgivable Sins of Mark Weber

Published on November 25, 2013 by in Blog

[CONTENT REDACTED BY REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR]

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
24 Comments  comments 

24 Responses

  1. Markus

    If I were Mark, I would resign voluntarily and may continue the revisionist work on the side.

    Mark does some good work and is knowledgable, but the lack of leadership and low approaval ratings by his professional pals and the steady decine of the institute, prove that something needs to be done.

    I couldn’t live with such harsh critique from all sides in the revisionist party. Faurrison and Rudolph, Yeager, and others who criticize him are usually quite tolarant people and know about the difficulties revisionism brings.

    I guess this is the red line in the sand. GET OUT

  2. JohnM

    Weber won’t resign, all his buddies are on the board, as well as himself, shows how crafty and sly Weber is. The only thing Weber cares about is Weber, and keeping that 50K sinecure going. Weber suffers from chronic indolence and laziness.

  3. No, he won’t, if there is no pressure applied. I think it’s a good idea to publicize the situation and remind people that it doesn’t have to be this way. It’s good to draw attention to his indolence and not let him get away with presenting himself as an “asset” to revisionism. The trouble with your approach is that you accept the status quo.

  4. Agreed. It shows you’ve got to get rid of your money before you die, because if you leave it to people after your death some con artist like Weber always gets his hands on it.

  5. Varg

    The solution is simple: start your own revisionist institute. Put up a blog, put up a donation button, and see what happens. If nobody pays attention to you then complain no more – you had your chance.

  6. Ian Wright

    I hate to say it, but the IHR has become irrelevant. Weber has seen to that. I often wonder if that was as a result of circumstance, or design. Whatever the reason, in the interests of revisionism, one of two things must happen. Either Weber is outed, or an alternative organization must be formed. At the moment the IHR is a toothless bulldog and worthless to the greater cause.

  7. The solution is simple: start your own revisionist institute.

    I knew someone would say this, since it’s what a lot of people immediately think. It is easier to bring forth this libertarian “solution” than to understand the underlying problems.

    The solution cannot be to multiply revisionist institutes, but to have one institute that carries weight and respect, that everyone stands behind to give it strength. The IHR goes back to 1978, has quite a history and track record; it’s ranks were made up of the true luminaries of the Revisionist Movement who are now older, some no longer productive and some deceased, but they left their mark. Because of the crisis [over money] that befell the Institute in the early 1990′s, this momentum was broken and Mark Weber took advantage of that. Many revisionists thought that he was trustworthy. But Mark had to know he had no leadership qualities, he had no boldness, no courage; he always sought consensus. He also knew that he was lying about writing the book for which he had accepted a large advance from a trusting soul who wanted to help. But Mark wanted the steady income that he saw was possible without working too hard.

    These are ignoble motives, and Mark Weber has every sign of an ignoble personality. He is dishonest, sly, lacking in candor, lacking even in self-respect. All his previous revisionist associates have denounced him, but he pretends as if he doesn’t even know it. In addition, he has brought the IHR to a standstill [making the holohoax industry happy], while at the same time locking himself in as lifetime director.

    For these reasons, Mark Weber has lost any claim to “rights” (legal or otherwise) in this matter. The IHR is not his personal property, he did not found it. The reduced board he has put in place is made up of people who have no interest in or relationship to the work of revisionism — so both Weber and his board are parasites, or squatters, preventing the rightful heirs of the founders to exercise their aims and philosophy. Mark Weber has diverted the founding program and “work” of the IHR to something much less and much weaker.

    Therefore, it’s the right thing to do to take back the existing IHR, not start a new one. To leave the IHR as it is, is an idea that flows from weakness. In an Aryan system that is working properly (as also in a National Socialist system), the good of the whole is what is wanted, and if you are not the best person to do the job, you must gracefully relinquish the job for the good of the whole. And accept one to which you are better suited. Therefore, it’s up to every person in the consciously Aryan community to join in a “pressure campaign” to make this “bad apple” do the right thing, in the right way.

    It goes without saying that it’s also up to Revisionists (with a capital R) to offer their willingness to take some responsibility for running a new and improved “real” INSTITUTE of Historical Research and Review. We are losing our scholars because Revisionism offers no opportunities for them! Let’s reinvigorate the IHR!

  8. Ian – Why hate to say it? But it is not the IHR that is irrelevant, but Mark Weber’s style of directorship that is irrelevant. What must happen is to get Weber out. It’s not feasible to start a new one. Calling for Weber’s resignation has been the universal reaction for years. But look at how passive you are about it; everyone is that way. It’s because of a lack of Will that these type of people continue to hold their positions. MW certainly doesn’t have any political power. He stays in place purely because of the unwillingness of anyone to put much attention on getting him out.

    At least it can be pointed out as strongly and as widely as possible how little is done there; practically nothing. The belief that we need to SUPPORT everything is wrong. Instruct people not to fall for Weber’s newsletters that he and the IHR are “reaching out” and “making a difference.” Pure empty propaganda! Naturally, people tend to feel sorry for MW, and would feel sorrier for him if he got kicked out without a “severance package.” That’s a mistake. Just like jews, that is what these people count on — sympathy.

  9. Thanks endzog, and especially for your wonderful cartoon. I added it to my article … the article needed a little spicing up!

  10. DIANNE

    Sounds like Mark weber has infiltrated the IHR to bring it down. We need IHR more than ever to teach this generation the truth about the Holohoax, as they are getting brainwashed at school and being taken to visit the so called ‘death camps’.

  11. Thank you Carolyn. Just did a video of only that portion of the podcast dealing with Mark:
    http://trutube.tv/video/17530/Carolyn-Yeager-Why-Mark-Weber-Must-Go

  12. Sorry, this is a better link, it should embed:
    CAROLYN’S VIDEO: WHY MARK WEBER MUST GO!

    [wpvideo IWwe97ZZ]

  13. JohnM

    This will give readers an insight into what sort of person Mark Weber really is.

    It was the late Revisionist Bill Curry’s dying wish that Weber write the book “Final Solution – Legend & Reality”. Mr Curry let Weber stay at his Nebraska home, gave him a financial stipend, all Mr Curry asked was for this book to be published before he died. Weber took the lodging, and the stipend, but never completed the book. I believe even on Mr Curry’s death bed, he was asking if the book had been completed.

    Please phone Mark Weber and ask about this book and Mr Curry. He is too ashamed of this to even talk about it.

  14. Thanks John. I’m going to talk more about Weber tomorrow night. So tune in. You can call in too, in the 2nd hour.
    But it won’t be only about Weber.

  15. Very nice expose Carolyn.

    Mark Weber is a spineless fraud – utterly lacking in courage, integrity and character. Look at this statement from the IHR’s website:

    “The IHR does not “deny” the Holocaust. Indeed, the IHR as such has no “position” on any specific event or chapter of history, except to promote greater awareness and understanding, and to encourage more objective investigation.”

    http://www.ihr.org/main/about.shtml

    So what Weber is saying is – he does not “deny” the fraudulently alleged Belzec holocaust; he does not “deny” the fraudulently alleged Chelmno holocaust; he does not “deny” the fraudulently alleged Sobibor holocaust; and he does not “deny” the fraudulently alleged Treblinka holocaust.

    I would love to debate him on any one (or all four) of those fraudulently alleged “holocausts” and why he lacks the courage to take a “position” on these so-called “specific events.”

    Keep up the good fight Carolyn.

  16. “All the way back in 2004, one of the brightest lights in the holocaust revisionist movement, Germar Rudolf, dramatically pointed out Mark Weber’s failings as Director in an article “IHR: Is the Ship Sinking?.”

    Yes, in 2004, it was “sinking.” However, it has now sunk to the bottom.

    Here are article titles that I found on the IHR website today (12-3-13):

    Eating Nuts May Prolong Life, New Study Shows (BBC News)

    US Cities That Foreign Governments Warn Their Citizens About (The Washington Post)

    Modern Life ‘Turning People Off Sex’ (BBC News)

    Today’s Kids Less Fit Than Their Parents Were, New Study Finds (The Associated Press)

    Pope Francis Calls Unfettered Capitalism ‘A New Tyranny’ (Reuters)

    The Untold Story of Military Sexual Assault (The New York Times)

    We need an “Institute for Historical Review” to see this cut and paste crap that we get from yahoo?

    Mark Weber is a worse than worthless parasite and should not be supported in any way, shape or form.

  17. Very nice comment, Mr. Gerdes! I apologize to my listeners for not finding that myself. The entire passage at the page you linked to is:

    A Target of Bigotry

    Predictably, we have come under fire from hostile sectarian groups that regard the IHR as harmful to their interests. Zionist groups such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League routinely smear the IHR, attacking us as a “hate group” or dismissing us as a “Holocaust denial” organization.

    In fact, the IHR steadfastly opposes bigotry of all kinds. We are proud of the support we have earned from people of the most diverse political views, and racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds.

    The IHR does not “deny” the Holocaust. Indeed, the IHR as such has no “position” on any specific event or chapter of history, except to promote greater awareness and understanding, and to encourage more objective investigation.

  18. I would love to debate him on any one (or all four) of those fraudulently alleged “holocausts” and why he lacks the courage to take a “position” on these so-called “specific events.”

    Yes, so would I. Maybe you and I can get together and debate him in absentia. He would be welcome to join if he wished and I would remain only providing the platform. But since he will never do that, we’d be justified in doing it without him.

  19. Thank you for the offer Carolyn – it’s an interesting idea. However, I have an incredibly simple debate challenge that I am focusing on at the moment. (Which can be seen on The N.A.F.H. website.) So even though I’m tempted, at this point I will pass on your offer. I will keep it in mind though.

    Thanks again.

  20. So what are your options to remove Mark? It doesn’t look like you will be able to shame him into resigning.

  21. Hi Rusty. No, Mark will not resign – he long ago passed the point of feeling any shame, if he ever did. I made some statements about it in my comment to endzog at 3:21pm today. Are you pretty familiar with the IHR? If so, would you like to be on a committee?

  22. Carolyn, where exactly is your 3:21 comment? Is it on a comment page or in one of your shows?

  23. I’m sorry Rusty. I was looking at the “Narrow Road-Wide Avenues” program page. This is what I wrote:

    Thanks endzog,
    You are right on. I intend to first go after those who are giving Mark Weber airtime and treating him as both an “expert” and a fighter for the White race. A panel show would be another first step. I think we should first try to get everyone on board against Mark Weber; that would be a really big step. It seems to me it should not be difficult because once our people know the facts, how can they still think well of him?? He will be pressured to say or do something.

    I have too much going on right now, and I suppose I need to clearly separate the Mark Weber and John Friend issues, too.

    It is really not easy to get Juergen Graf to take the time to do things like you suggest. Life is not simple for him. And I am also busy with the Jan. 27 event. It’s a big investment for me; people don’t exactly line up to help, but it’s hard to figure out HOW people can help too. It can’t be a hodge-podge of multiple ideas, etc. But a radio show with several people on it to talk about Mark Weber can be arranged right now.

    I appreciate your interest, Rusty. I will be on this topic Monday night, Dec. 9. And I will be trying to stay on it for the near future.

© the White network