The Institute for Historical Review (IHR) censors THE MAD REVISIONIST

"... with your journal's history of defending the free speech... I am certain, Mr. O'Keefe, that you will not allow similar, shall we say, partisan considerations interfere with your genuine desire to further the goals of historical truth..."

Subject: Re: I can't prove...
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 16:34:48 -0500
From: The Mad Revisionist <>
Organization: Serious Research Inc.

Ted O'Keefe wrote:

> The Mad Revisionist wrote:
> > I have uncovered
> > startling evidence that the numbers alleged to have been killed in the event
> > known as the "Great Hunger" or "Potato Famine" of Ireland in the 1840's
> > have been grossly exaggerated by historians.  Further, I examine the dire
> > political consequences of this fraud.  A summary of my conclusions can be
> > found on my website at
> .
> >
> > However, as usual, my research has been suppressed and persecuted by the
> > mainstream controlled media.  It appears that contrary to the reputation they
> > seek to cultivate as forums for the discussion of controversial issues,
> > mainstream educational institutions and academic publications have certain
> > "sacred cows", such as the 1.5 million number alleged to have been killed in
> > the Great Famine, which are considered to be above debate.  I am hoping,
> > therefore, that with your institute's proud reputation of supporting dissident
> > historians, you would consider giving me an opportunity to reach your
> > readership with some of the startling truths that I have uncovered.
> I'm somewhat familiar with the issue. There seems to be room in the journals for a
> considerable range of discussion, from British policy to the actual number of
> deaths from starvation and related causes. Perhaps if you could dredge up--or
> hypothesize--a secret order to blight the Hibernian potato crop from Robert Peel,

My point exactly.  No such order has ever been found.  Yet establishment historians
continue to insist that that millions of people starved to death without the knowledge
of the British, who were the ruling power in Ireland at the time.

> and a clandestine action--always described in code words--to carry out that order,
> with a resultant killing of some six million Irishmen, then you'd have an article
> that fell well outside the present range--at least in Irish historiographical
> circles. Not up our alley, either, as you might guess--but why not submit it to the
> Journal of Genocide and Holocaust Studies?

As a matter of fact, I have already attempted to break into the mainstream academic
media with the submission of a brief article on the Irish Potato Hoax to the Journal
of Holocaust and Genocide Studies.  My submission was rejected largely, I am certain,
because of the ethnic background of the reviewer, a Dr. L. Edward Day of the Dept. of
Sociology at Pennsylvania State University, whose own Hibernian background was no
doubt offended by the severe political implications of my research.

However, with your journal's history of defending the free speech of those who choose
to research sensitive areas of history, I am certain, Mr. O'Keefe, that you will not
allow similar, shall we say, partisan considerations interfere with your genuine
desire to further the goals of historical truth.

> > 1) Is the Holocaust really the only issue that concerns your publication?  With
> > all due respect, my research is predicated on the assumption that all human
> > life is sacred, and therefore the deaths of Jews is no more or less tragic or
> > worthy of attention than, say, the millions killed by Stalin or Mao, by Allied
> > bombings of Germany or Japan, or, for that matter, the millions of Irish who
> > allegedly perished in the Great Hunger.  Would the editors of your journal not
> > agree that all of these tragedies are equally worthy of the attentions of
> > revisionist scholarship?
> Reading nearly any issue of the Journal of Historical Review would suffice to
> show that its ambit is and has been larger than the alleged Jewish Holocaust.
> There has been some work in comparable areas (concentration camps in the
> Boer War, detention and prison camps in the Civil War, the lot of the West
> Coast Japanese Americans in WWII, and so forth), but the context has
> always been primarily revisionism of the diplomatic, military, etc. history of
> the two world wars of the twentieth century.

I think you will find that my research is very relevant to your area of focus.  For I
have proven that documentary and physical evidence contemporary to the period of the
Irish Potato Famine prove only a minuscule fraction of the number of deaths attributed
to this tragedy, just as in the case of the Jewish Holocaust.  Other parallels can be
found as well, such as the drastic political and demographic changes rendered
explicable and acceptable by belief in these events, which otherwise would have
generated a great deal of alarm and opposition - namely, the Irish takeover of America
and the Jewish takeover of Israel.

The ultimate point being, if other genocides which are far less contentious than the
Holocaust have been successfully falsified and exaggerated, why we should we doubt
that the Holocaust has also been falsified and exaggerated?  A point which I think
your institute would consider very relevant.

> > 2) By whom, and by what criteria would a submission such as my piece on
> > the Irish Potato Hoax judged in terms of its appropriateness for inclusion in
> > your journal?
> Chiefly by the editor, Mark Weber, by reference to the program sketched above and
> with regard to considerations of fact, probability, logic, and so on.

I'm unfamiliar with the name.  The only Mark Weber I've heard of was the one
whose connections to the German neo-Nazi movement were exposed by the
Wiesenthal Center in 1993. :-)

> > 4)  Since I would be including your publication in my CV, I will need to know
> > whether, and by what means and authority, your journal is peer reviewed in
> > order to ensure academic standards.
> Peer review is informal.

I must apologize for my lack of familiarity with academic terminology.  What is the
nature of an informal peer review procedure?

> > 5) You have implied that revisionists associated with your institute have been
> > prosecuted as criminals for their work in the past.  As I am an American
> > citizen, and yours is an American publication, I would like to request that you
> > draw my attention to exactly which sections of American federal or state law
> > you suspect I might run the risk of violating, so that I may review and edit my
> > own work accordingly.
> Not to worry--revisionism is not against any American law. A number of our
> advisers and associates, however, have been arrested, tried, convicted, and
> imprisoned in various European nations for "denying the Holocaust." Various
> persons associated with the IHR have lost their jobs in the U.S., however, and the
> advertising manager of an academic journal was once fired for accepting an IHR ad
> for publication--so that it might be prudent to maintain your alias.

Thank you for your advice.  I have had a similar experience, as several of my
associates have been refused positions on scientific faculties solely for their
unorthodox opinions about the moon.  It is indeed proof that the establishment fears
us when we are excluded from institutions that claim to serve as forums for the debate
of controversial issues.  These are trying times.

We do not recruit, we convince
Truth has no need for coercion

Next>>       Home

DISCLAIMER: All editorial content on this website is strictly not the writerís/authorís opinion. THE MAD REVISIONIST, located on the moon, is owned and operated by accident. The content of this page is the copyrighted property of THE MAD REVISIONIST. Any illegal copying or circulating of this page, in whole or in part, without the expressed permission of THE MAD REVISIONIST will be taken as a compliment.  In Association with