Institute For Historical Research-------(Debunking Nizkor's Smears)
Michael
Statement of Record and Mission of the IHR (please visit)
http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/pamphlets/v15n5p18_Staff.html
=====================================================
Record and Mission of the Institute for Historical Review
Founded in 1978, the Institute for Historical Review (publisher of
this Journal) is a not-for-profit research, educational and publishing
center devoted to truth and accuracy in history. The IHR continues the
tradition of historical revisionism pioneered by distinguished
historians such as Harry Elmer Barnes, A.J.P. Taylor, Charles Tansill,
Paul Rassinier and William H. Chamberlin.
The Institute's purpose is, in the words of Barnes, to "bring history
into accord with the facts." The IHR is at the center of a worldwide
network of scholars and activists who are working -- sometimes at
great personal sacrifice -- to separate historical fact from
propaganda fiction by researching and publicizing suppressed facts
about key chapters of history, especially twentieth century history,
that have social-political relevance today.
The Institute's offices are located in Orange County, southern
California. Its work is funded through sales of books and cassette
tapes, subscriptions to its Journal of Historical Review, and
donations from supporters around the world. In its day-to-day
operations, the IHR employs its modest financial resources very
cost-effectively. For every dollar it spends, the IHR's adversaries
spend a hundred.
Legally, the Institute operates as an entity of the "Legion for the
Survival of Freedom, Inc." (LSF), a Texas corporation founded in
1952 and controlled by a board of directors.
With growing support from across the United States and many foreign
countries, the IHR works to bring sanity to America's foreign
policy, to liberate people from pseudo-religious intimidation, and for
the First Amendment right of free speech. The IHR also works to
tear down barriers to international peace and understanding by
encouraging greater awareness of the root causes, nature and
consequences of war. Nowhere is this work more important than here in
the United States, where untold billions of dollars have been
squandered in preparation for pointless wars and conflicts.
For Peace And Understanding
Bitter experience has taught us just how little we can trust
politicians and governments, especially during wartime when official
and semi-official propagandists are most busy deceiving the public. As
American historian Harry Elmer Barnes put it: "Truth is always the
first war casualty. The emotional disturbances and distortions in
historical writing are greatest in wartime."
Powerful interests -- including politicians and the major media --
distort the historical record for self-serving reasons. Textbooks,
motion pictures and television routinely present history in a slanted
and partisan way. As George Orwell aptly noted in his classic Nineteen
Eighty-Four: "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls
the present controls the past."
As shrewd observers have long understood, history is written by the
victors. This is particularly true with regard to the history of the
Second World War. Routinely the origins and nature of that
catastrophic conflict are deceitfully portrayed as a simplistic
struggle between good and evil.
Americans have been misled into one costly, devastating, and needless
war after another. During Vietnam War as well as during the
1991 Gulf War, for example, government officials and much of the media
lied to and deceived the American people to justify the
needless slaughter and devastation of those conflicts.
In seeking to replace ideologically-driven and emotion-charged
portrayals with truth and fact, the Institute promotes historical
awareness, understanding and mutual respect among nations.
Artificially maintaining the hatreds and passions of the past prevents
genuine reconciliation and lasting peace. As Barnes emphasized,
historical revisionism is the key to just and lasting peace.
An awareness of real history provides understanding about the great
issues of the present and the future. The work of the IHR in
"blasting the historical blackout" (Barnes) is all the more relevant
in this final decade of the twentieth century, as the
political-economic order imposed by the victorious powers of the
Second World War breaks apart -- and along with it a distorted and
one-sided historical perspective.
In a world often saturated with historical lies and self-serving
propaganda, the Institute for Historical Review stands as a precious
beacon.
Growing Impact
Defying powerful adversaries, the Institute's impact continues to
grow. While media coverage of the IHR is still overwhelmingly hostile,
the Institute and its work have been receiving more widespread and
respectful attention. The IHR is now grudgingly accepted as an
established part of the American social-cultural landscape.
For example, millions of Americans were introduced to the Institute
through the March 20, 1994, broadcast of CBS's "60 Minutes," one
of the country's most widely viewed television shows. The IHR Journal
was also introduced, and the front cover of the Nov.計;Dec.
1993 issue was shown on screen. The IHR is frequently cited in
newspapers and magazines, including Time, Vanity Fair, The New
Yorker, The Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times. Institute
spokesmen have been heard and seen on numerous radio and
television appearances.
Moreover, steadily growing numbers of scholars and educated lay
persons -- across the United States, throughout Europe, and in Asia,
Latin America and northern Africa -- support the work of the IHR.
The Holocaust Issue
Even though IHR books and IHR Journal articles have consistently dealt
with a broad range of historical topics, certainly the
best-known and most controversial aspect of the Institute's work has
been its treatment of the Holocaust issue. For example, the Los
Angeles Times (May 15, 1994) describes the IHR as a "revisionist think
tank that critics call the 'spine of the international Holocaust
denial movement'."
Although the Institute does not "deny the Holocaust," over the years
it has published detailed books and numerous probing essays that
call into question aspects of the orthodox Holocaust extermination
story. IHR publications have devoted considerable attention to this
issue because it plays such an enormously significant role in the
cultural and political life of America and much of the world.
The seemingly perpetual Holocaust media campaign, which Jewish
historian Alfred Lilienthal aptly calls "Holocaustomania," portrays
the fate of the Jews during the Second World War as virtually the
central event of history. Even after 50 years, there seems to be no
end to the heavy-handed motion pictures, the simplistic television
specials, the one-sided "educational courses," and the self-righteous
appearances by politicians and celebrities at Holocaust memorial
services.
Britain's chief Rabbi, Immanuel Jakobovits, in a 1987 speech described
the Holocaust campaign as "an entire industry, with handsome
profits for writers, researchers, filmmakers, monument builders,
museum planners and even politicians." Some rabbis and theologians,
he added, are "partners in this big business."
Implicit in much of the Holocaust campaign is an indictment against
Germany and other European nations, Western and European
traditions, and Christianity (particularly the Roman Catholic church).
Virtually the entire non-Jewish world, so the thinking goes, bears a
kind of collective guilt for what is regarded as the greatest crime in
history. In American society, the Holocaust story has attained an
almost sacred, quasi-religious status. To "deny the Holocaust" is
widely regarded as intolerable blasphemy.
'Holocaust Denial'
In their efforts to discredit and marginalize it, opponents routinely
mischaracterize the Institute as a "Holocaust denial" organization.
This smear is completely at variance with the facts.
Revisionist scholars such as French professor Robert Faurisson, Dr.
Arthur Butz of Northwestern University and bestselling British
historian David Irving acknowledge that hundreds of thousands of Jews
were killed and otherwise perished during the Second World
War as direct and indirect result of the harsh anti-Jewish policies of
Germany and its allies.
At the same time, revisionists point out, for example, that numerous
specific Holocaust claims have, over the years, been quietly
abandoned as untrue. For instance, apparently persuasive evidence
presented at the Nuremberg Trial of 1945計;46 "proving" that
prisoners were gassed at the Dachau and Buchenwald concentration camps
is now universally recognized as worthless. Revisionists cite
a growing body of documentary, forensic and other evidence -- much of
it published by the IHR -- to show that much of what we're
told about the "Holocaust" is exaggerated or simply not true.
If the revisionist view of the Holocaust were really as simplistic and
indefensible as some insist, it would not have gained the support of
university professors such as Arthur Butz and Robert Faurisson,
historians such as David Irving and Harry Elmer Barnes, former
concentration camp inmates such as Paul Rassinier, and American gas
chamber specialist Fred Leuchter. These individuals did not
decide publicly to reject the orthodox Holocaust story -- thereby
risking public censure, and worse -- because they are fools, or
because their motives are evil, but rather on the basis of a sincere
and thoughtful evaluation of the evidence.
Rather than deal with their arguments and evidence, defenders of
Holocaust orthodoxy attack the character and motives of revisionist
scholars. Enemies of the IHR routinely resort to name-calling,
misrepresentation, threats, boycott campaigns, legal measures and even
violence. So grotesque has this international campaign become that in
some countries "Holocaust denial" is a crime. In Austria, France,
Germany and a few other countries, those who publicly dispute the
official Holocaust story are fined and imprisoned.
Bigoted Attacks
Occasionally the Institute is denounced as a racist or fascist "hate
group." This too is a baseless smear.
Since its founding the IHR has steadfastly opposed bigotry of all
kinds in its efforts to promote greater public understanding of
history.
It does not seek to whitewash any past regime or rehabilitate any
ideology. The IHR is proud of the backing it has earned from people
of the most diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds.
Far from being a fomenter of hate, the Institute has been a target of
hate groups. During the 1980s, the Jewish Defense League --
identified by the FBI in 1985 as the second most active terrorist
group in the United States -- repeatedly assaulted Institute offices
and staff members.
Following numerous death threats by telephone and mail, extensive
property damage, five relatively minor fire bombings, one drive-by
shooting and two physical assaults, the Institute's office-warehouse
was destroyed in an arson attack on July 4, 1984. Estimated
property loss was more than $400,000, including tens of thousands of
books, rare documents, irreplaceable files and expensive office
equipment.
In addition, well-financed special interest groups seeking to curtail
open discussion of vital historical issues have for years targeted the
Institute, grossly misrepresenting its work and purpose. Prominent
among these are the Simon Wiesenthal Center (Los Angeles) and the
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith (New York) -- stridently
partisan organizations with well documented records as staunch
apologists for narrow Zionist-Jewish interests.
Along with the Institute's growing impact has come, inevitably, ever
more frantic attacks from intolerant enemies. As the IHR's
influence grows, and as the great social-cultural struggle of the
Western world intensifies, so also does the fury and desperation of
its adversaries.
Books
A major task of the Institute is the publication of solid works of
history. It brings long-neglected revisionist classics back into
print, and breaks fresh ground with professionally edited and
attractively designed first editions of important new works.
Numerous college and university educators have assigned IHR books as
required reading in their courses. Most IHR books can be
found in major libraries around the world. One title alone has sold
more than 50,000 copies worldwide. Several IHR titles have been
published in foreign-language editions.
In addition to its own titles, the IHR distributes scores of
worthwhile books issued by other publishers. More than a hundred
solidly researched books and dozens of compelling audio and video
tapes are listed in the IHR annual catalog.
The Journal of Historical Review
The Institute's Journal of Historical Review, says bestselling British
historian David Irving, "has an astounding record of fearlessly
shattering the icons of those vested interests who hate and fear the
truth. That is why I strongly endorse it, and suggest that every
intelligent man and woman in America, Britain and the dominions
subscribe."
The Journal of Historical Review -- the leading periodical of its kind
in the world -- appears six times yearly in an attractive,
handsomely illustrated 48-page magazine format. (Until January 1993,
it was published four times yearly in a smaller size format.) More
than 60 issues have appeared since it first began publication in 1980.
In addition to individual scholars and discerning lay readers,
libraries of leading university and academic centers around the world
subscribe, including the libraries of Harvard University, Princeton
University, Yale University, Penn State University, Howard
University, and the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich.
More than 20 distinguished historians, educators and other scholars
are members of the Journal's Editorial Advisory Committee. Journal
contributors have included respected scholars from around the world.
Journal articles are frequently reprinted, translated and circulated
in many foreign countries. Selected Journal articles (along with IHR
leaflets and other IHR materials) are disseminated through the
Internet to many tens of thousands around the world.
A Journal reader typically has a keen interest in understanding how
and why the world has become what it is today. He is fed up with
the recycled wartime propaganda that is passed off as "history." He
detests socially destructive lies and bigotry. He wants a sane and
healthy future for himself, his family and his country, indeed for all
humanity, and realizes that it can only be achieved through an
understanding of history based on truth and reality.
Conferences
Since 1979, the IHR has held twelve conferences, presenting speakers
from Europe, Asia, and Australia, as well as the United States.
IHR conference speakers have included:
Pulitzer prize-winning American historian John Toland, author of
several bestselling works of history.
Dr. James J. Martin, an American historian with a 25-year career
as an educator. Author of several meticulously researched historical
studies. Contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
British historian David Irving, perhaps the most widely read
historian in the English-speaking world. Author of numerous
bestselling works.
Fred Leuchter, America's foremost expert on execution hardware.
Author of a widely discussed forensic report on the alleged
extermination "gas chambers" at Auschwitz.
Hideo Miki, retired professor at Japan's National Defense Academy
and retired Lieutenant General of Japan's Self-Defense Forces.
John Bennett, noted Australian civil liberties attorney and
activist, and president of the Australian Civil Liberties Union.
IHR Conference addresses are recorded and made available on audio and
video cassette.
Other Activities
The educational work of the IHR also includes outreach through its
Media Project. Project director Bradley Smith has appeared on
more than 400 radio talk shows, reaching an audience estimated in the
millions.
Hundreds of thousands of leaflets from our popular introductory series
have been sold and distributed. A speakers' bureau makes IHR
speakers available for meetings. Depending on availability of
financial resources, the IHR also helps fund primary scholarly
research of critical historical issues.
For the current IHR catalog, with a complete listing of books and
audio and video tapes, send two dollars to:
Institute For Historical Review
Post Office Box 2739
Newport Beach, California 92659
Send all questions and comments to ihr...@kaiwan.com
Last modified on: 1/12/97
URL: http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/pamphlets/v15n5p18_Staff.html
===========================================================
natio...@juno.com
Michael
"http://www.natall.com"
National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946
"No man has come to true greatness who has not felt
in some degree that his life belongs to his race."
----Phillips Brooks
Yale F. Edeiken
> natio...@juno.com (Michael) writes:
> Statement of Record and Mission of the IHR (please visit)
> http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/pamphlets/v15n5p18_Staff.html
> Record and Mission of the Institute for Historical Review
> Founded in 1978, the Institute for Historical Review (publisher of
> this Journal) is a not-for-profit research, educational and publishing
> center devoted to truth and accuracy in history. The IHR continues the
> tradition of historical revisionism pioneered by distinguished
> historians such as Harry Elmer Barnes, A.J.P. Taylor, Charles Tansill,
> Paul Rassinier and William H. Chamberlin.
This omits the fact that the IHR was founded by Willis Carto for the
specific purpose of providing a front for his anti-Semitic propaganda.
> The Institute's purpose is, in the words of Barnes, to "bring history
> into accord with the facts." The IHR is at the center of a worldwide
> network of scholars and activists who are working -- sometimes at
> great personal sacrifice -- to separate historical fact from
> propaganda fiction by researching and publicizing suppressed facts
> about key chapters of history, especially twentieth century history,
> that have social-political relevance today.
This omite the fact that the the purpose of the IHR was to publish
anti-Semitic propaganda.
> The Institute's offices are located in Orange County, southern
> California. Its work is funded through sales of books and cassette
> tapes, subscriptions to its Journal of Historical Review, and
> donations from supporters around the world. In its day-to-day
> operations, the IHR employs its modest financial resources very
> cost-effectively. For every dollar it spends, the IHR's adversaries
> spend a hundred.
This omits the fact that the "bread and butter" of the IHR -- according
to 'revisionist" David Cole -- is the sale of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"
well-known as fraud and Ford's "The Eternal Jew" -- well-known for its patent
inaccuracies and which was, in fact, withdrawn by the proported author.
> Britain's chief Rabbi, Immanuel Jakobovits, in a 1987 speech described
> the Holocaust campaign as "an entire industry, with handsome
> profits for writers, researchers, filmmakers, monument builders,
> museum planners and even politicians." Some rabbis and theologians,
> he added, are "partners in this big business."
This is an outright lie.
> In their efforts to discredit and marginalize it, opponents routinely
> mischaracterize the Institute as a "Holocaust denial" organization.
> This smear is completely at variance with the facts.
It's quite accurate.
> Occasionally the Institute is denounced as a racist or fascist "hate
> group." This too is a baseless smear.
Unfortunately Willis Carto made the mistake of filing lawsuits. It's
anti-Semitism was proved in court after court.
The decisions of various courts -- including a thorough discussion by
Robert Bork -- are available on the Nizkor web-page. I suggest that anyone
tempted to take the disinformation here presented read what impartial courts have
to say about the IHR.
It should be noted as well that Willis Carto is no longer the directig force
of the IHR, although persons he recruited and trained are still in charge. Further
there is some acrimonious litigation between Carto and the IHR which, to my
knowledge, still continues although the IHR was successful in the first part of the
litigation to come to court. This, however, is small solace for those wishing to
present the IHR as an academic enterprise. One of the contentions of the IHR in
this litigation is that the IHR under Carto was anything but a body controlled by a
board of directors and committed to historic research. Instead they have
contended that the Board was a sham and that all activities of the IHR were done
at Carto's direction and at Carto's whim.
You really are a brain-washed little bugger, aren't you?
--YFE
Dene Bebbington
Michael <natio...@juno.com> wrote:
>Statement of Record and Mission of the IHR (please visit)
>http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/pamphlets/v15n5p18_Staff.html
>
>'Holocaust Denial'
>
>In their efforts to discredit and marginalize it, opponents routinely
>mischaracterize the Institute as a "Holocaust denial" organization.
>This smear is completely at variance with the facts.
Hardly.
>Revisionist scholars such as French professor Robert Faurisson, Dr.
>Arthur Butz of Northwestern University and bestselling British
>historian David Irving acknowledge that hundreds of thousands of Jews
>were killed and otherwise perished during the Second World
>War as direct and indirect result of the harsh anti-Jewish policies of
>Germany and its allies.
Well, Robert Faurisson says something along the lines of "No holes, No
Holocaust", so unless he accepts that these holes existed then he's a
Holocaust denier. No amount of verbal contortions or bluster by Mr Raven
will make it otherwise, in fact back in 1994 he said the following:
<begin quote>
First, I do not deny the Holocaust happened. Let me repeat that. I do
not deny the Holocaust happened. For the purposes of this discussion, I
am using a fairly generic definition of the word "Holocaust," which is
"the murder of six million Jews as a central act of state by the Nazis
during the Second World War, many in gas chambers." If anyone has a
problem with this definition, I invite you to provide your version.
Second, here is what Holocaust revisionists REALLY say: The Jews of
Europe suffered a great tragedy before and during the Second World War.
Many were mistreated, and many died under horrific conditions. However,
a) there is no evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy of
exterminating the Jews, b) there is no evidence that there were
homicidal gas chambers for murder [sic] Jews, and c) the figure of six
million Jewish victims is an exaggeration.
<end quote>
Anyone can see that he gives a definition of the Holocaust, and then
denies that the event so defined happened - that is why he is a
Holocaust denier. If he thinks that the term carries negative
connotations then he'll just have to live with it.
The only way out of this quandry is for Mr Raven and his "revisionist"
cohorts to do a "humpty dumpty" and redefine the word Holocaust - not
surprisingly this is something he has done.
[rest snipped]
--
Dene Bebbington
"I mean, who would have noticed | "It is impossible to enjoy idling
another madman around here?!" | thoroughly unless one has plenty
- Blackadder | of work to do." - Jerome K Jerome
Dene Bebbington
Michael <natio...@juno.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 May 1997 17:54:11 +0100, Dene Bebbington
><de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Michael <natio...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>Statement of Record and Mission of the IHR (please visit)
>>>http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/pamphlets/v15n5p18_Staff.html
>>>
>>
>>>'Holocaust Denial'
>>>
>>>In their efforts to discredit and marginalize it, opponents routinely
>>>mischaracterize the Institute as a "Holocaust denial" organization.
>>>This smear is completely at variance with the facts.
>>
>
>Hardly, who?
>>>Revisionist scholars such as French professor Robert Faurisson, Dr.
>>>Arthur Butz of Northwestern University and bestselling British
>>>historian David Irving acknowledge that hundreds of thousands of Jews
>>>were killed and otherwise perished during the Second World
>>>War as direct and indirect result of the harsh anti-Jewish policies of
>>>Germany and its allies.
>>
>>Holocaust", so unless he accepts that these holes existed then he's a
>>Holocaust denier. No amount of verbal contortions or bluster by Mr Raven
>>will make it otherwise, in fact back in 1994 he said the following:
>
It's a term that describes a person who denies that the Holocaust
occurred.
> You seem unable to
>adjust to the fact that revisionist's have differing views. Makes it
>very untidy and difficult to smear them as a group, if you acknowledge
>the differences, doesn't it bebbs?
I know that "revisionists" have differing views, but in my experience on
a.r the common factor amongst most of them is that they actually deny
the historical event known as the Holocaust.
>><begin quote>
>>First, I do not deny the Holocaust happened. Let me repeat that. I do
>>not deny the Holocaust happened. For the purposes of this discussion, I
>>am using a fairly generic definition of the word "Holocaust," which is
>>"the murder of six million Jews as a central act of state by the Nazis
>>during the Second World War, many in gas chambers." If anyone has a
>>problem with this definition, I invite you to provide your version.
>>
>>Second, here is what Holocaust revisionists REALLY say: The Jews of
>>Europe suffered a great tragedy before and during the Second World War.
>>Many were mistreated, and many died under horrific conditions. However,
>>a) there is no evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy of
>>exterminating the Jews, b) there is no evidence that there were
>>homicidal gas chambers for murder [sic] Jews, and c) the figure of six
>>million Jewish victims is an exaggeration.
>><end quote>
>>
>>Anyone can see that he gives a definition of the Holocaust, and then
>>denies that the event so defined happened - that is why he is a
>>Holocaust denier. If he thinks that the term carries negative
>>connotations then he'll just have to live with it.
>
>No inconsistency there bebbs. Your doing the Nizkor Tap Dance, again.
Nope, just pointing out that Mr Raven was denying that the Holocaust
occurred, based on his own definition of it. If there's any dancing
going on around here then it must be you doing the NA polka rather than
answering my comments in any reasoned way.
>>The only way out of this quandry is for Mr Raven and his "revisionist"
>>cohorts to do a "humpty dumpty" and redefine the word Holocaust - not
>>surprisingly this is something he has done.
>
>The quandary is in your own mind, bebbs.
Nope, Mr Raven wrote an article in which he specifically whined about
the term "Holocaust denier" and then proceeded to do a humpty dumpty.
Michael
On 27 May 1997 17:10:12 GMT, ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>> natio...@juno.com (Michael) writes:
>> Statement of Record and Mission of the IHR (please visit)
>> http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/pamphlets/v15n5p18_Staff.html
>
>> Record and Mission of the Institute for Historical Review
>
>> Founded in 1978, the Institute for Historical Review (publisher of
>> this Journal) is a not-for-profit research, educational and publishing
>> center devoted to truth and accuracy in history. The IHR continues the
>> tradition of historical revisionism pioneered by distinguished
>> historians such as Harry Elmer Barnes, A.J.P. Taylor, Charles Tansill,
>> Paul Rassinier and William H. Chamberlin.
>
> This omits the fact that the IHR was founded by Willis Carto for the
>specific purpose of providing a front for his anti-Semitic propaganda.
Founded by Carto agreed. Motives unknown. The riff-raff Carto is
gone. And You left that out.
>> The Institute's purpose is, in the words of Barnes, to "bring history
>> into accord with the facts." The IHR is at the center of a worldwide
>> network of scholars and activists who are working -- sometimes at
>> great personal sacrifice -- to separate historical fact from
>> propaganda fiction by researching and publicizing suppressed facts
>> about key chapters of history, especially twentieth century history,
>> that have social-political relevance today.
>
> This omite the fact that the the purpose of the IHR was to publish
>anti-Semitic propaganda.
An extension of the above on the conjecture of Carto's motives. IHR
does not provide anti-semitic propaganda. And You left that out.
>> The Institute's offices are located in Orange County, southern
>> California. Its work is funded through sales of books and cassette
>> tapes, subscriptions to its Journal of Historical Review, and
>> donations from supporters around the world. In its day-to-day
>> operations, the IHR employs its modest financial resources very
>> cost-effectively. For every dollar it spends, the IHR's adversaries
>> spend a hundred.
>
> This omits the fact that the "bread and butter" of the IHR -- according
>to 'revisionist" David Cole -- is the sale of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"
>well-known as fraud and Ford's "The Eternal Jew" -- well-known for its patent
>inaccuracies and which was, in fact, withdrawn by the proported author.
To my knowledge Mr. Cole is not privy to the information you claim.
It may have been true at one time(giving you the benefit of the doubt,
which you don't deserve) but certainly no longer.
The "Protocols" while fishy are only 'well-known' to be a fraud among
Jews and their ilk.
The Eternal Jew was withdrawn only because of an economic and
political gun pointed at the head of the publisher. What are 'patent'
inaccuracies? And who said so?
>> Britain's chief Rabbi, Immanuel Jakobovits, in a 1987 speech described
>> the Holocaust campaign as "an entire industry, with handsome
>> profits for writers, researchers, filmmakers, monument builders,
>> museum planners and even politicians." Some rabbis and theologians,
>> he added, are "partners in this big business."
>
> This is an outright lie.
Bull
>> In their efforts to discredit and marginalize it, opponents routinely
>> mischaracterize the Institute as a "Holocaust denial" organization.
>> This smear is completely at variance with the facts.
>
> It's quite accurate.
Your post is proof of the misrepresentations of the IHR (1997)
>> Occasionally the Institute is denounced as a racist or fascist "hate
>> group." This too is a baseless smear.
>
> Unfortunately Willis Carto made the mistake of filing lawsuits. It's
>anti-Semitism was proved in court after court.
The riff-raff Carto is gone (as above). Changes don't seem to mean
anything to you.
> The decisions of various courts -- including a thorough discussion by
>Robert Bork -- are available on the Nizkor web-page. I suggest that anyone
>tempted to take the disinformation here presented read what impartial courts have
>to say about the IHR.
Slick Trick ala Nizkor. Misrepresent a statement about the 'enemy'
and then invite the ignorant to the Nizkook site(presumably for the
facts).
> It should be noted as well that Willis Carto is no longer the directig force
>of the IHR, although persons he recruited and trained are still in charge. Further
>there is some acrimonious litigation between Carto and the IHR which, to my
>knowledge, still continues although the IHR was successful in the first part of the
>litigation to come to court. This, however, is small solace for those wishing to
>present the IHR as an academic enterprise. One of the contentions of the IHR in
>this litigation is that the IHR under Carto was anything but a body controlled by a
>board of directors and committed to historic research. Instead they have
>contended that the Board was a sham and that all activities of the IHR were done
>at Carto's direction and at Carto's whim.
Oh, you got around to the disclaimer, you ol' Officer of the Court,
you. Since we know about your ability to misrepresent we will discard
your comments and get around to this observation:
IHR has done what was necessary to ensure it's integrity. That
integrity is evident in the Statement.
Most certainly the same cannot be said of the Bnai
Brith-ADL-Nizkor-(Mossad?)Zikaron-San Antonio Area Foundation
connection. Talk about shell games.
IHR doesn't spy on people in newsgroups and at their website
and archive the information ala Mossad for future smears against
political enemies like Nizkor.
IHR isn't trying to 'suck bucks' from government agencies to provide
funding for increased spy capabilities and operations like Nizkor.
IHR's website doesn't provide 10,000's of encoded files which you are
supposed to search through to get an answer to a question like Nizkor.
IHR doesn't publish the names and details of selected statements from
private individuals in discussions on Usenet newsgroups as part of a
smear campaign like Nizkor.
IHR only publish's the public views of Historians and articles of
interest concerning revisionist viewpoints. Publications that are
INTENDED for publication to the general public and experts.
Anyone can visit both sites and see if what I am saying is true or
not.
> You really are a brain-washed little bugger, aren't you?
Neanderthal level 'shot' ignored.
"I'm just an ordinary businessman"---Al Capone
> --YFE
Hilarious word combinations using those initials omitted.
Michael
>Michael <natio...@juno.com> wrote:
>>Statement of Record and Mission of the IHR (please visit)
>>http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/pamphlets/v15n5p18_Staff.html
>>
>[snips]
>
>>'Holocaust Denial'
>>
>>In their efforts to discredit and marginalize it, opponents routinely
>>mischaracterize the Institute as a "Holocaust denial" organization.
>>This smear is completely at variance with the facts.
>
>Hardly.
Hardly, who?
>>Revisionist scholars such as French professor Robert Faurisson, Dr.
>>Arthur Butz of Northwestern University and bestselling British
>>historian David Irving acknowledge that hundreds of thousands of Jews
>>were killed and otherwise perished during the Second World
>>War as direct and indirect result of the harsh anti-Jewish policies of
>>Germany and its allies.
>
>Well, Robert Faurisson says something along the lines of "No holes, No
>Holocaust", so unless he accepts that these holes existed then he's a
>Holocaust denier. No amount of verbal contortions or bluster by Mr Raven
>will make it otherwise, in fact back in 1994 he said the following:
Holocaust(tm) denier is a label, not a term. You seem unable to
adjust to the fact that revisionist's have differing views. Makes it
very untidy and difficult to smear them as a group, if you acknowledge
the differences, doesn't it bebbs?
><begin quote>
>First, I do not deny the Holocaust happened. Let me repeat that. I do
>not deny the Holocaust happened. For the purposes of this discussion, I
>am using a fairly generic definition of the word "Holocaust," which is
>"the murder of six million Jews as a central act of state by the Nazis
>during the Second World War, many in gas chambers." If anyone has a
>problem with this definition, I invite you to provide your version.
>
>Second, here is what Holocaust revisionists REALLY say: The Jews of
>Europe suffered a great tragedy before and during the Second World War.
>Many were mistreated, and many died under horrific conditions. However,
>a) there is no evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy of
>exterminating the Jews, b) there is no evidence that there were
>homicidal gas chambers for murder [sic] Jews, and c) the figure of six
>million Jewish victims is an exaggeration.
><end quote>
>
>Anyone can see that he gives a definition of the Holocaust, and then
>denies that the event so defined happened - that is why he is a
>Holocaust denier. If he thinks that the term carries negative
>connotations then he'll just have to live with it.
No inconsistency there bebbs. Your doing the Nizkor Tap Dance, again.
Get it right. "as an act of State"(1) and "no evidence of a plan or
policy"(2)
Holocaust(tm) is a label, not a term.
>The only way out of this quandry is for Mr Raven and his "revisionist"
>cohorts to do a "humpty dumpty" and redefine the word Holocaust - not
>surprisingly this is something he has done.
The quandary is in your own mind, bebbs.
>[rest snipped]
>
"I am not a crook"-----Richard Nixon
>Dene Bebbington
>
>"I mean, who would have noticed | "It is impossible to enjoy idling
> another madman around here?!" | thoroughly unless one has plenty
>- Blackadder | of work to do." - Jerome K Jerome
You need to straighten out your sig.
Michael P. Stein
In article <338c2ba6...@news.pnet.net>,
Michael <natio...@juno.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 May 1997 17:54:11 +0100, Dene Bebbington
><de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Michael <natio...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/pamphlets/v15n5p18_Staff.html
>>>
>>
>>>'Holocaust Denial'
>>>
>>>In their efforts to discredit and marginalize it, opponents routinely
>>>mischaracterize the Institute as a "Holocaust denial" organization.
>>>This smear is completely at variance with the facts.
>>
>
>Hardly, who?
>
>>>Revisionist scholars such as French professor Robert Faurisson, Dr.
>>>Arthur Butz of Northwestern University and bestselling British
>>>historian David Irving acknowledge that hundreds of thousands of Jews
>>>were killed and otherwise perished during the Second World
>>>War as direct and indirect result of the harsh anti-Jewish policies of
>>>Germany and its allies.
>>
>>Holocaust", so unless he accepts that these holes existed then he's a
>>Holocaust denier. No amount of verbal contortions or bluster by Mr Raven
>>will make it otherwise, in fact back in 1994 he said the following:
>
>Holocaust(tm) denier is a label, not a term.
Just for clarity, would you please define the difference between
"label" and "term" as you use them in the above sentence? If I understand
you correctly, as self-styled Holocaust revisionists use the word, it is
also a label and not a term. "Revisionist" has a previously established
meaning in the historical profession. The IHR revisionists do not merely
re-interpret existing evidence or come to new interpretations based on
previously-unavailable evidence; they also redefine the whole notion of
what evidence is, and rule much of it out of existence by fiat. Either
they are ignorant of the true meaning of the term, or they are
deliberately misusing it in order to obfuscate the very large and very
real difference between traditional historical methodology and their own
methods.
Greg Raven came up with a novel method of historical reasoning: look
at each piece of evidence one at a time, raising objections if the piece
does not simultaneously prove all facets of a large and complex event.
Now, he claimed he was just trying to focus, that he was not seeking one
piece of evidence which would prove everything all by itself. But the way
he raised objections to pieces of evidence which did not cover all parts
of his multipart definition of the term "Holocaust" indicated otherwise.
Furthermore, the rhetorical form of many of their arguments are
patterned not after those of a historian trying to form a positive theory
of what really happened which best fits the available evidence, but those
of a defense attorney trying to establish reasonable doubt in a jury's
mind as a negative formulation - since it is possible that A, B, or C
happened, there is a reasonable doubt that X happened.
>You seem unable to
>adjust to the fact that revisionist's have differing views. Makes it
>very untidy and difficult to smear them as a group, if you acknowledge
>the differences, doesn't it bebbs?
If all of them say, "I deny X," then they are deniers of X regardless
of whether they claim that what really happened was A, B, or C. You seem
to be unable to grasp this simple point.
What they are nearly monolithic on is their rejection of normal
standards of historical evidence and reasoning. Unique among all events
of modern history, it would seem, any eyewitness account - even ones
corroborated by documents - must be discounted if and only if they would
support gassing claims. And documents - even if corroborated by testimony
- must be discounted as Soviet forgeries. Of the major figures, David
Irving now seems to escape this trap; he appears to accept the existence
of the gassing vans.
My own use of the term "denier" is predicated not on the conclusion
reached but the methods used to reach it. I am willing to refer to
someone reaching the exact same conclusion as a revisionist who respects
the normal rules of historical reasoning and evidence and intellectual
consistency and honesty - that is, who fits the standard definition of the
term.
Also, I will note in passing that you are being very hypocritical in
your objection; you seem quite content to make generalizations about both
Jews and Nizkor despite the fact that members of both groups have quite a
range of opinions.
>><begin quote>
>>First, I do not deny the Holocaust happened. Let me repeat that. I do
>>not deny the Holocaust happened. For the purposes of this discussion, I
>>am using a fairly generic definition of the word "Holocaust," which is
>>"the murder of six million Jews as a central act of state by the Nazis
>>during the Second World War, many in gas chambers." If anyone has a
>>problem with this definition, I invite you to provide your version.
>>
>>Second, here is what Holocaust revisionists REALLY say: The Jews of
>>Europe suffered a great tragedy before and during the Second World War.
>>Many were mistreated, and many died under horrific conditions. However,
>>a) there is no evidence that the Nazis had a plan or policy of
>>exterminating the Jews, b) there is no evidence that there were
>>homicidal gas chambers for murder [sic] Jews, and c) the figure of six
>>million Jewish victims is an exaggeration.
>><end quote>
>>
>>Anyone can see that he gives a definition of the Holocaust, and then
>>denies that the event so defined happened - that is why he is a
>>Holocaust denier. If he thinks that the term carries negative
>>connotations then he'll just have to live with it.
>
>No inconsistency there bebbs. Your doing the Nizkor Tap Dance, again.
>
>Get it right. "as an act of State"(1) and "no evidence of a plan or
>policy"(2)
You forgot "central," but I think it's pretty obvious that "act of
State" is implicit in the first part of his denial. Nevertheless, if he
defines Holocaust in a certain way, then denies the reality of something
which is an essential part of the definition of the larger concept or
event, then by the ordinary rules of language he denies the reality of the
larger concept or event.
[...]
Posted/emailed.
--
Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer.
Anthony Sabatini
Michael P. Stein <mst...@access5.digex.net> wrote in article
<5mfl05$c...@access5.digex.net>...
> In article <338c2ba6...@news.pnet.net>,
> Michael <natio...@juno.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 27 May 1997 17:54:11 +0100, Dene Bebbington
> ><de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>Michael <natio...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>Statement of Record and Mission of the IHR (please visit)
> >>>http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/pamphlets/v15n5p18_Staff.html
> >>>
> >>[snips]
> >>
> >>>'Holocaust Denial'
> >>>
> >>>In their efforts to discredit and marginalize it, opponents routinely
> >>>mischaracterize the Institute as a "Holocaust denial" organization.
> >>>This smear is completely at variance with the facts.
[snip]
> >Holocaust(tm) denier is a label, not a term.
>
> Just for clarity, would you please define the difference between
> "label" and "term" as you use them in the above sentence? If I understand
> you correctly, as self-styled Holocaust revisionists use the word, it is
> also a label and not a term. "Revisionist" has a previously established
> meaning in the historical profession. The IHR revisionists do not merely
> re-interpret existing evidence or come to new interpretations based on
> previously-unavailable evidence; they also redefine the whole notion of
> what evidence is, and rule much of it out of existence by fiat. Either
> they are ignorant of the true meaning of the term, or they are
> deliberately misusing it in order to obfuscate the very large and very
> real difference between traditional historical methodology and their own
> methods.
Mike Stein attempts to explain how the term "denier" is _not_ a smear word. Oh,
Mike! Truly, I expected better from you... :-(
[snip]
> >You seem unable to
> >adjust to the fact that revisionist's have differing views. Makes it
> >very untidy and difficult to smear them as a group, if you acknowledge
> >the differences, doesn't it bebbs?
>
> If all of them say, "I deny X," then they are deniers of X regardless
> of whether they claim that what really happened was A, B, or C. You seem
> to be unable to grasp this simple point.
Back to this, eh? Very well. Since you "deny" Christ as our Lord and Savior,
you will henceforth be referred to as 'the heretic Mike Stein'. Is that fine by
you? I hope so, because we all know what you say about "intellectual
consistency"...
[snip]
Michael P. Stein
In article <01bc6bb5$0d145460$55b113cc@odin>,
Anthony Sabatini <anth...@infobahnos.com> wrote:
>Michael P. Stein <mst...@access5.digex.net> wrote in article
><5mfl05$c...@access5.digex.net>...
>> Michael <natio...@juno.com> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 27 May 1997 17:54:11 +0100, Dene Bebbington
>> ><de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Michael <natio...@juno.com> wrote:
>> >>>Statement of Record and Mission of the IHR (please visit)
>> >>>http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/pamphlets/v15n5p18_Staff.html
>> >>>
>> >>[snips]
>> >>
>> >>>'Holocaust Denial'
>> >>>
>> >>>In their efforts to discredit and marginalize it, opponents routinely
>> >>>mischaracterize the Institute as a "Holocaust denial" organization.
>> >>>This smear is completely at variance with the facts.
>
>
>> >Holocaust(tm) denier is a label, not a term.
>>
>> Just for clarity, would you please define the difference between
>> "label" and "term" as you use them in the above sentence? If I understand
>> you correctly, as self-styled Holocaust revisionists use the word, it is
>> also a label and not a term. "Revisionist" has a previously established
>> meaning in the historical profession. The IHR revisionists do not merely
>> re-interpret existing evidence or come to new interpretations based on
>> previously-unavailable evidence; they also redefine the whole notion of
>> what evidence is, and rule much of it out of existence by fiat. Either
>> they are ignorant of the true meaning of the term, or they are
>> deliberately misusing it in order to obfuscate the very large and very
>> real difference between traditional historical methodology and their own
>> methods.
>
>word. Oh, Mike! Truly, I expected better from you... :-(
Gee, you're even more illiterate than usual. The quoted paragraph
attempts to explain how "revisionist" was illicitly borrowed and distorted
for use as - to coin a term - a bless word. The thrust of the above
paragraph is that whatever word is used to describe them, "revisionist" is
not appropriate.
However, I did not expect better reading skills and honesty from you.
In the paragraph below, the objection would have been cogent if
instead of talking about the word "denier" he had talked about
"antisemite." I recognize that while there is a high correlation between
deniers and antisemitism - regardless of your wilful blindness on the
point - the two are not identical. (Now, let's see if the intellectually
inconsistent Mr. Sabatini, who insists he speaks for himself, will go into
one of his frequent "But your allies...." routines, hypocritically denying
me the right to speak for myself.)
The mission 'nationalist' is on (and you are supporting him in it, it
would seem) is to try to regain for the IHR "revisionists" the
unchallenged right to use "revisionist" as a bless word to sneak across
the idea that they are historians like any other. I suspect whatever word
I would use to make that distinction, you'd claim it was a "smear" word.
By the way, in the abortion debate, assuming that you follow Catholic
doctrine on that matter, do you call your opponents pro-choice or
pro-abortion?
Of the major names, David Irving is on the borderline; he has a much
higher commitment to the citation of primary evidence than the rest. It's
just that at the very kindest interpretation, he has on at least one
occasion very badly misjudged the importance of some context on
interpreting a line (the Himmler phone log), and ignored important
evidence when interpreting some things - or at least, failed to
acknowledge that evidence and deal with it in his argument. But on
reflection I would say that if Arno Mayer is entitled to be called a
legitimate revisionist despite his many dubious conclusions and practices
(i.e., failing to footnote or justify his conclusions in the face of
opposing evidence) in "Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?," Irving probably
can claim the same title - it's just that (like Mayer) he seems to have a
relatively high rate of problems.
>[snip]
>
>> >You seem unable to
>> >adjust to the fact that revisionist's have differing views. Makes it
>> >very untidy and difficult to smear them as a group, if you acknowledge
>> >the differences, doesn't it bebbs?
>>
>> If all of them say, "I deny X," then they are deniers of X regardless
>> of whether they claim that what really happened was A, B, or C. You seem
>> to be unable to grasp this simple point.
>
>Back to this, eh? Very well. Since you "deny" Christ as our Lord and
>Savior, you will henceforth be referred to as 'the heretic Mike Stein'.
>Is that fine by you? I hope so, because we all know what you say about
>"intellectual consistency"...
You have my permission to continue making an ass of yourself.
It appears that all you can do is attack people for form; I have yet
to see you contribute one point of substance to any discussion on the
Holocaust. Even for this discussion, which is about historical
methodology, all you can do is attack me - you apparently cannot address
the very real and substantive point that whatever you do call them, the
IHR people are misusing the term "revisionist."
>[snip]
schreiber
> The mission 'nationalist' is on (and you are supporting him in it, it
> would seem) is to try to regain for the IHR "revisionists" the
> unchallenged right to use "revisionist" as a bless word to sneak across
> the idea that they are historians like any other. I suspect whatever word
> I would use to make that distinction, you'd claim it was a "smear" word.
> By the way, in the abortion debate, assuming that you follow Catholic
> doctrine on that matter, do you call your opponents pro-choice or
> pro-abortion?
>
> >> If all of them say, "I deny X," then they are deniers of X regardless
> >> of whether they claim that what really happened was A, B, or C. You seem
> >> to be unable to grasp this simple point.
A curious point. Thus, you are saying that to deny programatic gassings
of Jews is to indeed "deny" the Holocaust (as opposed to revising
certain facts concerning the Holocaust)? The Websters 1979
Unabridged Dictionary supports this contention, at least in part:
"the Holocaust: the systematic destruction of over 6 million European
Jews by the Nazis before and during World War II." (This is found
following "holocaust" and it is not listed separately.)
Interesting. "before?" I have yet to hear anyone claim that in this
newsgroup (doesn't even Lipstadt claim that the gassings started in
1942?). It seems that your assistants at Webster's are bit too
enthusiastic.
My 1968 Webster's collegiate contains no reference to "the Holocaust,"
but merely provides a definition for "holocaust," presumably its
genesis:
"1. an offering the whole of which is burned; burnt offering. 2.
complete destruction of people or animals by fire. 3. great or
widespread destruction."
Of these, only the third can properly be viewed as the origin of "the
Holocaust." Assuming the Holocaust as you describe it is true on all
counts, surely you would not contend that the Germans viewed cremation
of Jewish corpses as "burnt offerings." Likewise, these Jews were not
destroyed by fire; instead they were destroyed by gassings with the
burning of the corpses merely being the preferred method for disposing
of them.
So then the question: Could not one merely deny gassings without
without denying "the Holocaust" per the genesis of the
label? Would that not make anyone who questions the systematic nature
of the "widespread destruction" merely a "revisionist" rather than a
"denier?" (Bear in mind, denial of gassings does not necessarily imply
denial of "widespread destruction.")
"The Holocaust" as a label is of fairly recent vintage. I do not even
recall hearing the concentration camps and gassings referred to as "the
Holocaust" before sometime in the 1970s, fully 30 years after the
supposed event. (That a cabal of Jewish writers may have used it earlier
is of no consequence; we are talking about it as a word in popular
usage, and which is necessarily tied to its progenitor, "holocaust," in
the minds of the public.)
What say you?
Kurt
Michael
#On Wed, 28 May 1997 22:37:36 +0000, Steve Mock
<sm...@veritas.nizkor.org> wrote:
>Michael wrote:
>
>> IHR doesn't spy on people in newsgroups and at their website
>> and archive the information ala Mossad for future smears against
>> political enemies like Nizkor.
>
>#Why not? Nizkor has nothing to hide.
You want to know why the IHR doesn't spy on people? Bill and Hillary
Clinton don't have anything to hide, either. Just ask 'em.
>> IHR's website doesn't provide 10,000's of encoded files which you are
>> supposed to search through to get an answer to a question like Nizkor.
>
>#Yes. IHR would rather pretend that the vast amounts of evidence
>contained in such files simply does not exist. It makes historical
>inquiry so much simpler if you can just skip having do deal with petty
>annoyances like documentary evidence.
References are contained within the document. You don't have to
explore a Black Hole like Nizkor in order to find them.
>> IHR only publish's the public views of Historians and articles of
>> interest concerning revisionist viewpoints. Publications that are
>> INTENDED for publication to the general public and experts.
>
>#Name one publication of the IHR written by a qualified historian, and
>describe said historian's credentails (without lying).
I detest dealing with people who don't define their terms like
'qualified' and then add 'without lying' to their question.
Paul Rassinier---passed the necessary examinations in France that
allowed him to teach history (which he did at the secondary level) and
was qualified to have conferred on him the title 'Professor'. (Wow).
>Steve Mock
Now be a good little goy and go home while you can.