July 2010
Subject: Paul Grubach's 2nd Response to a Defense of Mark Weber
The Defender of Mark Weber writes: "Mark Weber has held, I think, three formal public gatherings this year, not counting the IHR open house. I hope that you have done as much, and have been as effective."
Grubach responds. Mark Weber's "three formal public gatherings" and the "open house" attracted about 25 to 40 people per meeting. This is a very poor record, considering that Weber operated on $1,407,442 in public donations taken in from 2004 to 2008! By way of contrast, our online Revisionist journal, Inconvenient History, which operates on a very miniscule budget has had tens of thousand of viewers. Indeed, many months ago, I was told by the editor that my article on the current Demjanjuk trial had around 4000 hits! That is to say, one article from our Inconvenient History website got over four thousand views. The entire number of people who attended Weber's three meetings and open house was around 200. Directly contradicting what this person writes, this shows how ineffective Mark Weber really is.
Mark Weber's laziness and non-productivity is further highlighted by the success of Inconvenient History (IH). All of us at IH work for free and create our essays in our spare time. By way of contrast, Revisionism is supposed to be Mark Weber's full time job for which he is paid around $46,000 per year. Yet, Weber is just too lazy to even create an online journal. As former IHR employee Ken Usher pointed out, instead of working Weber spends his time on the phone with his wife and friends, pontificates on current history, watches U-Tube, and sends out newspaper clippings--all the while he is took in $1,407,442 in donations and wasted it all.
The defender of Mark Weber writes: "He has also created an online publication with approximately the same daily audience (according to Alexa's rating service) as some medium-size establishment media outlets -- not much less than the Tampa Tribune, for example. He's also quoted and interviewed fairly often by non-revisionist media. That's a creditable accomplishment."
Grubach responds. This is downright misleading. In a past mass email, Weber admitted that he has only around 1000 recipients for "Free News and Information Service." And furthermore, his "online publication" consists mostly of newspaper clippings from other web sites. Unlike the Occidental Quarterly, Barnes Review, and Inconvenient History, Weber is simply too lazy to do the work of creating and editing new and original material, so he simply spends his day sending out or posting articles from other web sites. And furthermore, I would be willing to bet that better than half of his 1000 recipients don't even bother to open his mass emails. Over the years, Weber has created very little original material.
In regard to his web site, Weber relies upon newspaper clippings from other web sites and past issues of the now defunct Journal of Historical Review, a large portion of which was created during the years when Carto was in control of the IHR. Weber's job is too create new and original studies and essays (like the Occidental Quarterly, Barnes Review, and Inconvenient History do). Weber does not do this--he simply spends his time posting articles from other web sites.
The reader should ask himself this question: From 2004 to 2008, Weber has taken in $1,407,442 in patriot/Revisionist donations, and in return he posts articles from other web sites and sends out newspaper clippings to around 1000 people. Is the Revisionist/patriot movement getting a good return on their money?
Finally, it is an exaggeration to say that Weber is "quoted and interviewed fairly often by non-revisionist media." Weber is quoted and interviewed every once in a while, mostly by obscure radio shows and news sources. Furthermore, in the recent past, the mainstream non-Revisonist media has quoted him in order to do damage to the Revisionist movement. This further demonstrates what a liability Weber can be. For example, I remember seeing how USA Today quoted him in order to "discredit" the Holocaust revisionist movement.
Weber's Defender writes: "Engaging in personal attacks on others in the field, in order to scrabble over the really minuscule donation pool that truth-tellers have to work with, isn't increasing that pool or spreading the truth to those who ought to hear it."
Grubach Responds. This is simply blatantly false. I am not "scrabbling over a miniscule donation pool." From 2004 to 2008 Mark Weber took in a whopping $1,407,442. Contrary to what this person writes, this is not a "miniscule donation pool." This is a lot of money that Mark Weber's IHR is wasting. I will continue to encourage people to stop sending the pathetic failure of a leader of the IHR, Mark Weber, their money, and send it to more deserving organizations.
Grubach's Closing Statement. The good people of our Movement have had their money wasted by Mark Weber's IHR. It is high time that we discuss whether or not Weber should receive any more Revisionist/patriot money.
Paul Grubach
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Alfred Strom <kevin.alfred.strom@revilo-oliver.com >
Cc: weber@ihr.org
Sent: Fri, Jul 16, 2010 4:22 pm
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Alfred Strom <kevin.alfred.
Cc: weber@ihr.org
Sent: Fri, Jul 16, 2010 4:22 pm
I do thank you for publicizing my original letter, which might
otherwise have reached a smaller audience. I do not think that your
response vitiates the points I've made, at least for anyone who
bothers to check his facts.
Mark Weber has held, I think, three formal public gatherings this
year, not counting the IHR open house. I hope that you have done as
much, and have been as effective.
He has also created an online publication with approximately the
same daily audience (according to Alexa's rating service) as some
medium-size establishment media outlets -- not much less than the
Tampa Tribune, for example. He's also quoted and interviewed fairly
often by non-revisionist media. That's a creditable accomplishment.
I notice that many other online revisionist publications, including
the ones with which you are most closely associated, are not as
successful -- though of course I wish them all well. In fact, I wish
them and you _every possible_ success.
Engaging in personal attacks on others in the field, in order to
scrabble over the really minuscule donation pool that truth-tellers
have to work with, isn't increasing that pool or spreading the truth
to those who ought to hear it.
With every good wish,
Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/
otherwise have reached a smaller audience. I do not think that your
response vitiates the points I've made, at least for anyone who
bothers to check his facts.
Mark Weber has held, I think, three formal public gatherings this
year, not counting the IHR open house. I hope that you have done as
much, and have been as effective.
He has also created an online publication with approximately the
same daily audience (according to Alexa's rating service) as some
medium-size establishment media outlets -- not much less than the
Tampa Tribune, for example. He's also quoted and interviewed fairly
often by non-revisionist media. That's a creditable accomplishment.
I notice that many other online revisionist publications, including
the ones with which you are most closely associated, are not as
successful -- though of course I wish them all well. In fact, I wish
them and you _every possible_ success.
Engaging in personal attacks on others in the field, in order to
scrabble over the really minuscule donation pool that truth-tellers
have to work with, isn't increasing that pool or spreading the truth
to those who ought to hear it.
With every good wish,
Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://kevinalfreds
--
Dalton's Holocaust Radio Debate on April 24, 2010:
http://www.american
Peace.
Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@
http://www.Debating
Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton
__._,_.___
MARKETPLACE
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment