Feb. 1, 2009
By Bill Guru
A number of years ago Guillermo Colletti wrote an essay highly praised by Professor Robert Faurrison, "The Taming of Holocaust Revisionism". He described it as the most significant piece of revisionist analysis of the past ten years. The thesis of Mr. Colleti's famous essay was that revisionism had become milquetoast. It was no longer on the attack. As if to confirm Colleti's thesis, Mark Weber has abandoned any pretense of revisionism. He grandiloquently proclaims that Holocaust Revisionism is not merely unnecessary but counterproductive. Revisionism is actually hurting the cause of anti-Zionism. This is, of course, the same Mark Weber who in years past was fond of quoting, again and again, the Israeli professor who stated that "were the Holocaust shown to be a hoax, Israel's strongest propaganda weapon would be destroyed".
Mark Weber also has the strange notion that the purpose of Holocaust Revisionism is to attack Zionism. Although it is certainly true that exposing the Holocaust Hoax hurts Zionism, it simply is not true that Revisionism was designed to attack the basis of Zionist ideology. That would be as untrue as claiming that the purpose of revisionism was to expose the Jewish roots of communism. Mark Weber has the notion that Zionist power is vulnerable to attack in a way that the Holocaust myth is not. This is a very strange notion indeed. Although Israel is coming in for increased criticism because of her brutal invasion of Gaza and other abuses, there is little evidence that Zionism is about to fall. The Zionist strangle hold on the U.S. Congress is as great as ever. If Mark Weber really thinks that he can distance himself from his past as a Holocaust Denier, he greatly underestimates the nature of his adversary and the lessons of his own research. Mark Weber has, in a certain sense, "come out of the closet". He has confessed that his revisionism has been superficial at best and a cover for ulterior motives at worst. He will be accused once again, of being a Scientology agent by the Willis Carto crowd. Weber can be acquitted of that charge. Carto accuses everyone who opposes him of being an agent of someone. That libel bears no credibility at all. The real charge against Mark Weber is his mediocrity and pusillanimity. In the seventeen plus years he has worked at the IHR, Mark has distinguished himself only by his inability to put out a product. The decline in the readership of the IHR Journal over this same period is a reflection of Mark's incompetence. Another intolerable deficiency of Mark is his unwillingness to draw a firm position and adhere to it. Mark has never been willing to say whether he does, or does not, believe in "gas chambers" or even whether millions of Jews were, or were not, killed by the Germans. Mark's problem, in a nutshell, is that he wants to "mainstream" a position that is, by definition, outside the mainstream. Since he has been unable to do this with Holocaust Revisionism he therefore intends to ditch Revisionism in the name of acceptable anti-Zionism.
It is time to deal with Mark Weber as he is. He was given a job for which he was entirely unsuited. His unfitness for the job was transparent from the first issue of his "New Journal". Purging Mark from the Institute For Historical Review is, in a sense, an irrelevancy. The Institute is finished and can no longer be saved under anyone's leadership. However, formal justice requires that Mark Weber be removed from a position in which, by his own admission, he no longer believes.