Mark Weber’s Dereliction of Duty as Director of the IHR

Mark Weber: Squishy Semi-Revisionist Shirker
An aid to comprehension for viewers of Jim Rizoli’s interview of Mark Weber (10 February 2016) 

Part One

Anybody who has not taken a particular interest in Historical Revisionism is likely to find little to criticize in Mark Weber’s statements to Jim Rizoli in this interview. Such a viewer will likely be impressed that Weber speaks well of Holocaust Revisionists and defends their right to raise “questions.”

If Mark Weber were a professor at a university or a mainstream public figure, that would be a net benefit. The problem is that Mark Weber does not occupy any such position but is the director of the Institute for Historical Review. He is supposed to be a leader in Holocaust Revisionism, not a spectator benevolently defending that movement’s free-speech rights.

As an historian and as the director of the Institute, Mark Weber is supposed to be dealing in hard facts and logic and reaching conclusions about history. The motto of the Institute for Historical Review is: “to bring history into accord with the facts,” and from its founding in 1978 the Institute was to be focused especially on dissecting and debunking what almost nobody else wanted to touch, that great body of destructive legends known as the Holocaust of the Jews. That was why the Institute for Historical Review was needed. The Institute was thus always intended to be radical, uncompromising, and at the vanguard of controversy. At one time it was. You will notice however that in this interview, uncompromising conclusions about the Holocaust are something that Mark Weber prefers to avoid. 

Read more.


Part Two
In the first part, I showed that Mark Weber, in his interview with Jim Rizoli, 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!

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *