Part 2 of "Mark Weber: Squishy Semi-Revisionist Shirker" now at CODOH

Published by carolyn on Tue, 2016-03-08 17:31

Weber: "My view about the gas-chambers or gassings is the same essentially as David Irving. And I believe that Jews were gassed. Yes."

An aid to comprehension for viewers of Jim Rizoli's interview of Mark Weber (10 February 2016)

By Hadding Scott

In the first part, I showed that Mark Weber, in his interview with Jim Rizoli (10 February 2016), consistently tried to avoid acknowledging any findings of Holocaust Revisionism, and also tried to conceal his past acknowledgment of such findings. In this part, the focus is on Weber's attempts to justify his retreat from Holocaust Revisionism.

Mark Weber gives several arguments to justify his current refusal to support the revisionist findings that he once supported in regard to the Holocaust. I was able to discern the following, somewhat contradictory arguments, listed here in ascending order of absurdity:

1. The question of whether the Holocaust-story is true or false is no longer relevant.

2. Although the truth about the Holocaust is relevant (contradicting the previous point) it should not be relevant!

3. There is no point in disputing the Holocaust because Jews really were gassed. 

Please continue reading at CODOH


I'm a fan of David Irving but you've shed some light on this for me. Thank you

Thanks, Roger Wiggins. I like to get comments. The only negative comments that I've had so far were from people who didn't even read what I wrote.
Jim Rizoli relayed to me that Faurisson says, "Great job!" which really means a lot. Faurisson was an influence for me in writing this. I still recall the five hours that my girlfriend and I spent with him in Vichy on 5 August 2000. We went out behind his house and sat at a table on the patio and he spent a good bit of the time complaining about Mark Weber as editor of the JHR, and also about David Irving. It has taken years for me to appreciate the full importance of what he said.

I've met David Irving a few times and admire him quite a bit. It seems with the beginning of the Lipstadt trial he began to make and have some break along with poor choices possibly.
I can relate. However he came out with a video a few years ago promoting his Himmler book in which he states that there was a Holocaust by bullets. All based upon some designated letter, on some daily report from the Camps, that the British intercepted.
His Himmler book should be very interesting and I hope he stays true to himself. He's getting up there in years and what's he going to say to Adolf if he doesn't remain the British historian Hitler said would write the truth about him.
Also Hadding, I have to thank you because a while back I was listening to The Heritics Hour and you mentioned the Bellamy Salute. I looked it up and now tell everybody about it. Thanks

Weber tried to pretend in the interview with Rizoli that his conflicts with revisionists were no greater than the conflicts that those others have among themselves, but Robert Faurisson and Fritz Berg agree about Mark Weber. 

I guess my "review" turned lemons into lemonade for you, Carolyn, since you weren't very happy about Weber's being interviewed. I hope that Fritz Berg gets that benefit too.

I do not want to talk about Fritz Berg on this page about Mark Weber at all. But yes, your review said what needed to be said about Weber, and said it very well. You provided what Jim Rizoli should have provided, but didn't (is not capable of).

I have wanted to express some critique of Rizoli, in spite of the fact that most people will think it's mean.  Jim is a good person who is certainly likeable, but he is not prepared for these interviews, does a haphazard job and barges into problems between individuals he didn't even know existed ... and yet gives his series the grandiose title "League of Extraordinary Revisionists."

I really wonder if it is a net benefit or not. I wonder how far he will go with it. It doesn't seem like there is going to be an end. Do you have any thoughts you care to express?

I think that the main problem that some people have with the interview, apart from the fact that Weber is not an "Extraordinary Revisionist," is that Rizoli was too nice to him. But Weber nonetheless had some embarrassing moments.
I think that the interview supplied good material for exposing Mark Weber as the dishonest character that he is. Rizoli seemed to go into it rather naive, but if he hadn't been naive and overly friendly to Weber, it's doubtful that he would have gotten the interview.
Rizoli has reacted well to my comments.
Since Weber does not respond to my inquiries, Rizoli forwarded to him a question of mine that showed the meaninglessness of Weber's claim that we have actual pages from the "Goebbels Diaries." (It's meaningless because they are typed pages, and we already had them in 1988 when Weber testified that the Goebbels Diaries were of doubtful authenticity.) That was last week. Weber apparently isn't answering Rizoli either now.

Jim Rizoli reacts well to everyone. I said he was a nice guy and totally well-meaning. But a whole lot more people will watch that interview on Youtube than will read your critical review of it. And they will think well of Weber. That's my point.

It is true to form that Weber will not respond to anything critical. He doesn't have the courage of [expressing] any convictions. He hides behind the label of an "objective historian" who "has no opinions" of his own. But what is his belief that two to four million (it keeps growing) Jews were killed but an opinion?

I did a radio program on Mark Weber/IHR a little over two years ago  (sure doesn't seem that long) with Germar Rudolf and Fritz Berg

We covered the same ground. But even though all the facts of the matter are available, most people don't care enough or don't know enough to distinguish the general, soft-pedaled critique of "the holocaust" from the real deal that intends to undo the fraud entirely. I'd say Jim Rizoli falls into that camp. Will he interview David Cole-Stein next?

In 1995 Mark Weber debated the politically correct skeptic Michael Shermer.  It is easy to see that the Mark Weber of today is a different person -