Subject: Re: Mark Weber - Is he really a revisionist publisher?
From: salvadorwriter@cs.com (Salvador Astucia)
Date: 8/4/02 4:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <20020804194101.29547.00001797@mb-mj.news.cs.com>

>>
>> August 3, 2002
>>
>> I thought Usenet readers might be interested in seeing
>> my personal email exchanges with Holocaust revisionist
>> Mark Weber.
>
> [...]
>
>> http://www.jfkmontreal.com/weber.htm


Charles Don Hall replied:
> Ok, that was interesting. Would you like me to explain
> what I think happened?
>
> You basically made three mistakes. I'll quote the relevant
> bits from your website.
>
> 1) You said, "Joe Kennedy Sr. and his sons admired Adolf
> Hitler". Now, maybe that's true and maybe it isn't.
> (Hint: It isn't.)

Hint: IT IS. This is completely verifiable. It is not theory, conspiracy or
otherwise.

Hall:
> But you have to realize that the Kennedys are perceived
> as "liberals" because of their support of Civil Rights
> and so forth.
>
> They're very unpopular among the Nazi/Revisionist/IHR crowd.

Joe Kennedy certainly was not unpopular among the Nazi crowd. President
Roosevelt fired him as British ambassador for his pro-Hitler leanings.

JFK admired conservative Republicans like Robert Taft and Joe McCarthy. Sorry
to offend any modern-day liberals, but it’s true.

Perception is one thing, reality is another. I chose to write about the latter.
Feel free to write your own book about the former. Then I can criticize you.
:-)

Hall:
> So your target audience will reject any book that tries
> to portray the Kennedy's as "good guys". (Maybe "reject"
> is the wrong word. They'll spin their heads back and forth
> in 270-degree arcs, howling at the top of their lungs and
> spraying spittle in all directions like some sort of nightmarish
> lawn sprinklers.)
>
> Rework your thesis if you ever want to see your book published.

I do not claim to be an historian in the conventional sense, but Opium Lords is
a serious book about an historical event, the assassination of President
Kennedy. To write honestly about that sort of subject, a sincere author would
not consider changing the thesis of his/her book simply because a core audience
might be upset by the content. If the writer uncovers information that is
unpopular, the challenge is to present it in a manner that is more acceptable.
But changing an entire thesis for fear of offending readers is not an
acceptable solution. If profit was my only motivation, I would never have
written the book in the first place.

My primary motivation was to tell the truth.

As far as upsetting audiences goes, that cannot be a writer's main concern.
Although most of Opium Lords' content is controversial, it is also written in
an understated style.

For every "liberal" that I offended by stating TRUTHFULLY that the Kennedys
admired Hitler, I'm sure I picked up a few Nixon lovers by praising Nixon and
explaining why he was unfairly driven from office because of his war on heroin
and because he established détente with China and the Soviet Union, not to
mention pulling out of Vietnam and ending the draft.

For every Jew I offended by citing unpleasant parts of the Talmud in Chapter
13, I probably picked up a few agnostics by criticizing Paul the Apostle as
well.

Being balanced is okay. But you’re basically telling me to lie.

more Hall:
> 2) Weber replied, "Regrettably, though, this proposed book is not
> appropriate for our current publishing plans." Letters like this
> are very common in the publishing business.

Yes, that is a standard rejection from a mainstream publisher. I would not
expect it from a revisionist publisher.

more Hall:
> Remember, Holocaust Denial is a niche market.

My point exactly.

more Hall:
> The IHR can't publish 100 different books a year and expect them to
> make money. They need to pick the 2 or 3 "best" titles and concentrate
> on selling those. And if they've already got 2 or 3 "good" books in
> the pipeline, then they can't make plans to acquire any new ones.

According to renowned revisionist Germar Rudolf, IHR runs a pretty shoddy
outfit. And Weber and Raven (the head revisionists in charge at IHR) haven't
done a damn thing since they stole the company from Willis Carto.

Mr. Rudolf was too polite to state the obvious so I will. Mark Weber and Greg
Raven are likely being paid by ADL, Mossad, or some other Israel-friendly group
to destroy IHR. If total destruction was their mission, they could not have
done a better job.

"IHR: Is the Ship Sinking?"
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/IHRCrisis.html

Ted O’Keefe (former IHR editor) wrote that Weber and Raven attempted to sell
Carto's mailing list for the bankrupt Spotlight to ADL. (bankrupted by Weber
and Raven that is)

O’Keefe’s statements about ADL is a smoking gun regarding Weber and Raven's
true agenda.

"Exit the Whistleblower: My Fall from Grace at IHR"
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/TOK/Whistleblower.html

more Hall:
> Some writers submit manuscripts for years on end before they
> finally land a publishing deal. It's not because they're bad
> writers, it's just because they're not in the right place with
> the right manuscript at the right time.

And IHR is certainly not the right place for a revisionist to submit a
manuscript, right?

According to Germar Rudolf and Ted O'Keefe, my chances of publication would be
better if I had submitted Opium Lords to ADL rather than IHR. :-)

> 3) You said, "Obviously you are a select minion for our
> government's intelligence apparatus, or possibly Israel's.
> How much are you being paid?"

Well I was insulted first, after I requested an explanation for the rejection.
But let's not dwell on that.

Weber had the right to reject my submission. But as a matter of common
courtesy, he owed me an explanation when I requested one. He never gave me one.
Instead he insulted me then claimed it was an accident. That’s when I accused
him of being a spook. But let’s not dwell on that. He should have given me an
explanation. I made the request three times. He never gave one.

Bottom line: insulting as it may seem, my assertion was likely correct, based
on Weber's rudeness and on articles by Rudolf and O'Keefe.

more Hall:
> When you insult people like that, sometimes they'll get
> really mad. When a person's mad at you, they won't want
> to do you any favors. So basically you've just forfeited
> your right to get constructive criticism from Weber
> ever again.

All I asked for was an explanation.

more Hall:
> Do you realize how lucky you were to get a personal response
> from an editor? Usually unsolicited manuscripts just get a
> form letter from a junior secretary. That insult was a huge,
> huge, mistake! (And I can't believe you sent it two days
> before Xmas! Where's your holiday spirit?)

But they're Jews, remember????? :-) :-) :-)

(((((((( GOTCHA!!!!!!!!! ))))))))))

This explains why Weber is so close to David Irving.

Read the truth about Irving as well.

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/d_irving_emails.htm

Salvador Astucia

------
Salvador Astucia, author of "Opium Lords" (416 pages), the book that solved the
JFK murder.

View online at http://www.jfkmontreal.com

or purchase book for $29.00 in USA (includes shipping).

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/order_hardcopy.htm