Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
while i have appreciated mark weber's writings, i must say his performance here is lamentable. he came over as shifty and defensive when he should have been on the attack.
why the hell didn't he express the revisionist case re. the fictitious gas chambers?
and why did he let them get away with producing a picture of a crematory oven as evidence of gassing?
why didn't he pick them up more forcefully on their usages "deniers", "deniers conference" and their repeated misrepresentations of Ahmadinejad?
"do you deny 6 million jews died in nazi germany, sir?" he was asked. his reply "no" (followed by a lot of waffle) !!!!!!!
"what was the purpose of the conference?" his reply "you'll have to ask the organisers"
i hope for his sake that he was just having a bad day but i can't help thinking that he badly fluffed a golden opportunity here to get the message across to a mainstream audience.
-The establishment can't control the web, and the control of information through all means but one, is no control at all.
And yes, how he let an oven serve as evidence of gassing is beyond me. As far as I know, nobody denies the ovens.
Its too bad Galloway isn't a revisionist.
It's clear, in retrospect, that I could have handled myself more effectively during my appearance on the Hannity and Colmes show. It was not my best moment. As you may have observed, I was hardly permitted to finish a sentence before being cut off.
When asked if I "deny" the "six million," I said No. That's because I regard the question as stupid and insulting. Revisionists do not "deny." They affirm. Looking back, I agree that a different response would have been better, although it's doubtful that I would have been permitted to get it out.
During the broadcast I was not able to see what was being shown to viewers. I could not see who was speaking to me, and I was not able to see the crematory oven image. Of course, it would have been good to point out the absurdity of trying to "prove" gas chamber killings by displaying a photo of a crematory oven.
As for the Iran conference: I don't think that even the organizers had (or have) a clear idea of its purpose. It was billed as an scholarly conference. It was not. It was essentially a political event. Apparently few, if any, of the speakers dealt with the history of "the Holocaust."
During my appearance with Hannity and Colmes I repeatedly mentioned that their characterization of the Iran conference as a gathering of "deniers" was untrue. But they were utterly uninterested.
Institute for Historical Review
When he was asked "do you deny 6 million jews died in nazi germany, sir?" he should have said:
"Yes. Nobody has ever asserted that 6 million jews died in Nazi Germany".
As you all probably know, it's asserted that most of them died in Poland.
I'm not being flip. Lack of precision in questioning revisionists is a common tactic in confusing the issue. It's like when somebody claims they were at Auschwitz, that tells you nothing, Auschwitz consisted of 3 major camps and some 70 smaller camps spread out over 43 square miles. When they ask "Do you believe their were gas chambers?", it's not out of line to demand that they specify where it is that gas chambers supposedly were.
Demanding that questions be specific is not only fair, but also good for accuracy. Sweeping statements in vague terms proves nothing. Also, if they CAN'T be specific, it's a way of demonstrating their ignorance. If pressed about their knowledge of the Operation Reinhardt camps, I'm guessing that Hannity and company would have been caught out in their lack of knowledge about what exactly the allegations are supposed to be.
First, he wasn't prepared. He should have known that they were looking for sound bites, and they were looking for "have you stopped beating your wife" type questions.
Therefore, he should have had a few brief comments to interject while they took breath, and he should have retreated them over and over:
So, to the question "Do you endorse?, etc." He should have said:
"People have more freedom in Iran than they do in Europe"
"If this was held in Europe these people would be jail"
"This is about freedom of speech"
To Holocaust related questions, he should have said, "In Europe, I would be put in jail for answering that question"
To race related questions, he should have said, "Why do you keep asking me that question? Are my views of race more important than freedom of speech?" And so on.
In short, he should have sound bited them back.
The other problem is that in remote interviews you have to pick a point and focus on it: that point is your audience. By looking around all the time, you don't look good.
But better luck next time.
I thought it was interesting that O'Reilly accused Duke of denying the existence of concentration camps and Hannity and Colmes accused Weber of denying cremation ovens. How ignorant can they be .....
- Valuable asset
- Posts: 2362
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
- Location: Northern California
Also, when he was cut off and if his mike volume wasn't turned down (I don't think it was) he should have just kept talking. If someone cuts you off, just listen to yourself inside your head and keep talking. Just practice with a friend. Have the friend interrupt you and see if you can keep talking.
Weber could have also said, "could I complete a sentence?" I heard Chomsky say that once and it was effective. Chomsky did it in this sweet Woody Allen way, and it was effective.
With the 6 million question, I would have said "yes I do and so does Raul Hilberg." Since Raul Hilberg believes it was 5 million.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests