The full shocking story behind a dissident publication's sell-out to the Politically Correct establishment
Recently, THE MAD REVISIONIST was contacted by a Mr. Theodore O'Keefe, one of the senior directors of the Institute for Historical Review. Pleased by the attention of a representative from a revisionist organization that was so inspirational to our own work, we inquired as to the possibility of our breaking into the print media through a submission to their illustrious periodical - the Journal for Historical Review. We were encouraged by the JHR's reputation for supporting dissident historians with challenging and controversial opinions, and by the fact that their methods, approaches to evidence, and conclusions tended to be so similar to ours.
The response was shocking and disillusioning. While at first supporting THE MAD REVISIONIST's right to freedom of opinion, Mr. O'Keefe's tone swiftly changed when he learned the nature of the conclusions drawn by our revisionist research. In the end, he did not simply reject our submission, but refused to even consider it - even voicing support for the persecution and exclusion of our views. No explanation was given as to why our theories warranted such exceptional behaviour, even when an explanation was requested.
Click the links below to trace the complete correspondence, and judge for yourself in the free and unbiased forum of the Internet, whether the IHR employs a double standard in its arbitrary decisions as to what research is Politically Correct enough for inclusion in their journal.
THE MAD REVISIONIST requests the help of everyone committed to free speech who abhors the persecution and ridicule that historians such as ourselves have been made to suffer by establishment lackeys like Ted O'Keefe. Write to Mr. O'Keefe at firstname.lastname@example.org and ask him why he refused to even consider a submission by THE MAD REVISIONIST - why he rejected it sight unseen, when he had not even reviewed the evidence and arguments it presented; when all that he knew of it was the controversial nature of it's conclusions. Is this appropriate behaviour for the director of a historical institute? Is this the sign of an organization dedicated to the unbiased search for truth?Feedback:
Ask Mr. O'Keefe to at least explain the differences between his theory about the Holocaust, and ours about the Irish Potato Famine. Where is the flaw in our methodology in comparison to his? Why is his theory is worthy of debate, and ours only of ridicule? Tell him that he should rise above his loyalty to his Irish ancestry, and overcome his emotions in the name of the quest for truth. It is because of such complicity by Irish people like himself who control the media that the Potato Hoax has remained unchallenged for this long.
Indeed, it would take courage for Mr. O'Keefe to admit the possibility that his ancestors were liars, and that those who share his ethnic background are engaged in a sinister and elaborate plot against the interests of America and the world. But if any publication is capable of such courage, it should be the Journal for Historical Review!
An alt.revisionism discussion on "informal peer review"
A letter of support from a former ZOG conspirator
For the Establishment view of
Revisionism and the Holocaust, look for:
The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory
by Deborah Lipstadt
Back to THE MAD REVISIONIST