Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,soc.history,alt.conspiracy,alt.censorship Subject: The Institute for Historical Review From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 93 16:05:09 GMT Reply-To: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca Followup-To: alt.revisionism Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA Keywords: Carto,Liberty Lobby,IHR,Spotlight,O'Keefe,Weber Summary: (Early Draft) Research guide to Willis Carto's anti-Semitic organization Editor's Note: This document has been taken from a working draft for an upcoming FAQ, and is incomplete. If you have documented information dealing with any of the subjects or issues raised here, I would appreciate seeing them. knm. IHR: A Layman's Guide to The Institute for Historical Review 1.0 Introduction & Editorial Notes............................. 1.1 Copyright Notice......................................... 2.0 Background Information..................................... 2.1 Willis Carto............................................. 3.0 Noontide Press............................................. 4.0 IHR Investigates Conference Attendees...................... 5.0 Journal of Historical Review............................... 5.1 Editorial Staff.......................................... 5.11 Theodore O'Keefe....................................... 5.12 Mark Weber............................................. 1.0 Introduction & Editorial Notes The documents cited in this work which are available from our list server are often noted in the form (Request archive filename). In order to retrieve any document so noted, simply send an email message to listserv@oneb.almanac.bc.ca and include the command GET ARCHIVE FILENAME in your message. Example: You read (Request ihr ihr.faq) and send GET IHR IHR.FAQ to listserv. 1.1 Copyright Notice This post, as a collection of information, is Copyright 1993 Ken McVay, as a work of literature. Distribution by any electronic means is granted with the understanding that the article not be altered in any way. Permission to distribute in printed form must be obtained in writing. The removal of this copyright notice is forbidden. 2.0 Background Information The Institute for Historical Review was founded in 1979 by Lewis Brandon, who also served as the first director. (Lewis Brandon is an alias for William David McCalden, a British neo-fascist who in 1975 had founded Britain's National Party, a break-away from the notorious neo-Nazi National Front.) The Institute for Historical Review is the moving force in the movement to deny the Holocaust. Its initial meeting was opened by Willis Carto, who also funds the organization, and whom some credit with starting it. No matter - with McCalden out of the way (he left the IHR, and has since died), the IHR is Carto's mouthpiece. Among the speakers at the 1980 convention were the Swede Felderer, convicted and institutionalised in his country, and the French Faurisson, convicted in his country of libel and promoting racism and expelled from his University (through he still misrepresents himself as member of its faculty). One participant of the 1982 conference was Issa Nakhleh, head of the Palestine Arab Delegation, an extremist pro-PLO group originally formed by the notorious Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who broadcast from Nazi Germany to the Arabs in the Middle East. In the US, Nakhleh has associated in recent years with Western Front, an antisemitic organisation. 2.1 Willis Carto Carto, born in 1926 in Indiana, had helped edit "Right" (a mid-fifties S.F. newsletter for an information clearinghouse for antisemitic activities), was, inter alia, director of the far right Congress of Freedom and, briefly, organiser for the John Birch Society, from which he was later expelled. What kind of a man, you ask, is Willis Carto? Perhaps he will answer that question himself, through these remarks: There are 600 million Chinese and about 200 million Russians. All united in a determination to destroy the West. And we have been so misled that we live in a dream world - far away from reality. Hitler's defeat was the defeat of Europe. And America. How could we have been so blind? The blame, it seems, must be laid at the door of the international Jews. It was their propaganda, lies and demands which blinded the West as to what Germany was doing. --- from a letter to Norris Holt Who is using who? Who is calling the shots? History supplies the answer to this. History tells us plainly who our Enemy is. Our Enemy today is the same Enemy of 50 years ago and before - and that was before Communism. The Communists are "using" the Jews we are told ... who was "using" the Jews fifty years ago - one hundred or one thousand years ago. History supplies the answer. The Jews came first and remain Public Enemy No. 1. --- a memo to himself In fact, no objective Scholar can deny today that the world would be a far better place to live if Germany had won - even if it had meant the defeat of American arms! Let us first understand who won and who lost the last war. The victors were Soviet Russia, international Communism, Red China, Israel, international Zionism, the international money manipulators (Wall Street-CFR crowd) and rising colored nationalisms the world over. Let us now name the losers: All of the European nations, most certainly including Britain and her now non-existent Empire, the United States, White world-hegemony and the idea of the war-preventing, world-saving philosophy of nationalism and non-interference in the affairs of others. .......... (Hitler and Chamberlain, incidentally, and contrary to the massive lies told about "Munich," worked out a sensible and workable agreement at Munich to save Europe from a war. In return for a free hand in the east, Hitler guaranteed Chamberlain that Germany would not contest Britain's dominance on the seas, or covet any of her colonies. The deal was broken by the war-madness stirred up by the British press in obedience to the financial power after Hitler marched on Poland - and also by pressure from Roosevelt.) .......... Israel and Zionism would be unknown - still a crazy dream in the minds of a few fanatics - and the secret international power of the Zionist conspiracy would not be in existence nor the manifold culture distortions which flow from this disease source into all of the western nations. .......... Juvenile delinquency would be uncommon because the youth of America would be filled with patriotism, the natural aftermath of defeat in war, and there would be something to aspire to. Desegregation and the cultural negrification of America would be unknown. .......... What would have been the effect of a German victory inside Germany? It is important to remember that Hitler's ambition stopped in Europe - he would have gone no further. He would have stopped if for no other reason that he yearned to build Germany into an architectural paradise. The result of German victory would have brought a true internationalism of Europe! The United Europe only dreamed of today would have been a certain result of the war. .......... The important thing to note is that a German victory would have assured | that the life-span of the White world would have been extended for many centuries more than now seems likely; indeed, for the "thousand years" promised by Hitler. --- from American Mercury, Summer 1973 By the way, the author of this last article is "E. L. Anderson, Ph.D.", which is an alias for Carto. I think the answer to the question I posed above ("What kind of man is Willis Carto?") is clear, yes? In 1955 Carto founded Liberty Lobby as a right-wing political pressure group in Washington DC, and has been running it ever since. 3.0 Noontide Press The publishing arm of this and other related organisations is Noontide Press, which can boast of such titles as "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion," "The six millions reconsidered" and "Antizion." The treasurer of its holding company is Carto's wife and until 1981 its firm office manager was one Lewis Brandon. 4.0 IHR Investigates Conference Attendees The nature of the IHR can clearly be seen from the appication it used for its 10th. "International Revisionist Conference", which required "Those who have not been an attendee at a previous IHR conference" to provide the names of the conference speakers, if any, "or others you may know will be attending" as personal references. If none of the speakers would vouch for you, you required to provide "two personal references with daytime phone numbers" to permit background investigation before permitting those wishing to attend to do so. Has anyone here ever been to a convention of any scientific, medical, historical or academic organization and been required to have someone "vouch" for you before you could attend? Clearly the IHR's interest in "open debate" isn't genuine, given their obvious reluctance to permit it at their own conventions! (Request ihr ihr.applicant) 5.0 The Journal of Historical Review The IHR publishes a regular newsletter, "The Journal of Historical Review," which serves as its propaganda arm. It is interesting to explore the backgrounds and qualifications of those who edit this "journal," in order to better comprehend the value of the material presented. 5.1 Editorial Staff 5.11 Theodore O'Keefe In an article published to coincide with the official opening of the Washington, B.C. Holocaust Museum, one editor is briefly described as follows: "Theodore J. O'Keefe is an editor with the Institute for Historical Review. Educated at Harvard University, he has studied history and literature on three continents, and has published numerous articles on historical and political subjects." According to the 1990 Harvard Alumni Directory, Mr. O'Keefe failed to graduate. You may decide for yourselves if he was indeed educated anywhere. The above "bio" of Mr. O'Keefe would seem to be simply one more example of how the IHR can be relied upon to mislead its readers. We have written to the IHR and asked for more informative information regarding Mr. O'Keefe's educational background and areas of expertise, but no answer has been forthcoming as of this date. 5.12 Mark Weber Kineahora@cup.portal.com (Chana Braun) provided us with an interesting glance into Mark Weber's intregity when she wrote <59136@cup.portal.com> that "...I excellent evidence that Mark Weber colors the truth (to put it mildly) in regards to debates," and then went on to detail a series of exchanges between a Holocaust denier and others on another computer network. Her article outlined the exchange dealing with Mark Weber's being invited to join in the debate, and Mr. Weber's demand that she (Chana Braun) not "bring in any outside help" in her debate with him. (Mr. Weber, quite clearly, was not the least bit interested in an open and comprehensive debate on a public computer network.) (request ihr webers.feet for the entire text of Chana's article.) As Chana explains: There was absolutely no response to that reply and nothing more was heard concerning the possibility of an open discussion on that network until the February 1992 issue of the IHR Newsletter. Here, then is the way that it was reported (and keep in mind that Mark Weber is the editor of the Newsletter). "In the January Newsletter I told about an IHR activist who had received a challenge to publicly debate the Holocaust on [the network] open forum bulletin board computer service - the largest interactive computer network. ...After we promptly offered Mark Weber to represent that Revisionist [sic] side, XXX suddenly flip-flopped. Deciding that she is not a 'scholar' after all, but merely an 'amateur,' she complined that it would be 'unfair' for her to have to face a professional historian." ----------- The plot in this story thickens. The one opposing the Holocaust Deniers on that network wrote a letter to the editor of the Newsletter (i.e. Mark Weber). Since the IHR is such a staunch champion of Freedom of Speech, it seems strange that 3 months later, that letter has still not received a reply much less been printed in the IHR Newsletter. Here, then, is the letter that the IHR Newsletter refuses to print or even acknowledge: February 27, 1992 Mark Weber, Editor IHR Newsletter Institute of Historical Review 1822 1/2 Newport Blvd. Suite 191 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear Mr.Weber: I read with interest the article in your IHR Newsletter #85 February 1992 concerning [the network] and me. This is truly a work of revisionism (e.g. distorting the facts to fit into your personal view of the world) and, since those connected with the IHR claim that they are eager to be taken seriously, it is surprising that I was not contacted for comment before you went to press. Let's get the facts straight. Your "IHR activist" was posting messages denying the Holocaust. I responded. He claimed that no one was willing to debate the Holocaust. This, of course, is absurd. I told him that he could name his sources and begin. He posted a message about The Leuchter Report. I rebutted his erroneous statements. (By the way, I don't believe he has read the report. You might want to check on that before you encourage his "activism" too much.) He then suddenly claimed on the public board that he didn't have time to debate and he was trying to get someone online from the IHR. I responded by telling him that everyone was welcome. That is when he contacted you and you agreed to come online. What your "IHR activist" presented to me were a set of ridiculous conditions. They included that the debate take place only between you and me and that it be advertized on [the network]. I was told to contact the "Arts Club Leader" to urge her to agree. First, [the Arts Club Leader] doesn't have the authority to grant such requests. Even if she did, as I told your "activist," there are no precedents to such a closed debate on Prodigy and that involving the Arts Club Leader might even be counter-productive. My reasoning was this: "In fact, involving the Arts Club leader might be counter-productive in that it calls attention to this single debate and, if it ever begins, our messages might undergo closer scrutiny by the censors. I don't think either of us wants that." In fact, since you are such a champion for "open debate," I was very surprised that you wished for this one to be closed to others. One of the amusing requirements for your participation in the debate was an agreement by me that I would have no outside help (whatever that means). This amusement I expressed to your "activist" in the following quote: "I am an amateur (i.e. I don't get paid by anyone to research the Holocaust, I am not employed by anyone or any organization that has an interest in the Holocaust and/or Holocaust Denial, etc.). You have presented yourself in the same manner. Mr. Weber, I think you would agree, is a professional. There is no prohibition against him joining the discussion but I do think it odd that you ask that I not ask for any outside help when you are bringing in a professional." If you notice, I claim amateur status because I don't get paid - not because I am not a "scholar" or because it would be "unfair" for me to have to debate a professional. Yet, you are apparently so frightened of debating in a situation where you cannot control all the factors that I heard nothing else from you or your "activist." Please notice, I did not say I wouldn't agree to your terms regarding outside help. I only said that I found it "odd" that a professional would insist on such a term before debating an amateur. However, the greatest part of your article had to be the sub-headline of "Another Anti-Revisionist Gets Cold Feet." I assure you, Mr. Weber, that my feet are toasty warm. In fact, I closed my message to your "activist" with the following: "I guess the main question is: Do you and Mr. Weber desire to have an open discussion or not? If so, post a message (either on your own or one on behalf of Mr. Weber). That is the manner in which all other discussions are initiated on [the network] and I don't see any need to make an exception for this one." I am still waiting for an answer to that question. What temperature are your feet, Mr. Weber? Sincerely, Mr. Weber, to our knowledge, has still not either printed the above letter in the "open" IHR Newsletter or responded privately to Ms. Braun. Given that more than a year has passed, it would seem that Mr. Weber's feet are rather chilly indeed. -- The Old Frog's Almanac - A Salute to That Old Frog Hisse'f, Ryugen Fisher (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Serving Central Vancouver Island with public access UseNet and Internet Mail - home to the Holocaust Almanac