I am totally opposed to any level of acceptance for Holocaust denial in this movement. I am also completely and adamantly for free speech and inquiry. There is no contradiction between these two positions.

Being for free speech doesn't mean that I have to tolerate lying. Holocaust deniers don't merely ask questions they purposively mislead people. What's very frustrating to me is that by associating the legitimate question regarding 911 with the very old disinfo techniques of the Holocaust deniers we are doing the movement and really the world a great harm.

It is, however, useful to study Holocaust denial and how it works because you can find similar rhetorical tricks, the same methods of falsification, in the 9/11 disinfo movement (ie no-planes hit WTC=no gas chambers)

Please take a look at this website:
http://www.oilempire.us/holocaust-denial.html

Sure, as I said in introducing Heiner's letter: I don't agree with the dichotomy he poses at the end. I do like Heiner.

You're free to question anything you like. You're also free to falsify, twist, misinterpret and bullshit to arrive at any conclusion you like. And if you do, you will get this treatment: to be rightly condemned. In words. (I don't support German anti-speech law, but I do understand why after the experience of WW2 Germans might want to rein in Nazis!)

The excuse for advancing any propaganda can always be, well golly we're just engaging in free inquiry. Bullshit. The historical record on the Nazi holocaust is open (it's not like 9/11, where evidence is withheld from us). So state your premises, facts and findings and put them up to scrutiny or begone.

Williams's book is not courageous for asking taboo questions. It's merely false in content and methodology.

In the case of Hufschmid, AFP and the German neo-Nazi party leader Horst Mahler, historical falsification is pursued in the service of an explicitly Naziist ideology (under whatever name). These are declared racial supremacists who exploit hatred and a Jewish "global conspiracy" theory. In stating falsehoods so as to conclude that the Nazi holocaust did not happen, they have an ulterior motive.

I don't know what Williams's motive is and I don't care. At best he is an unutterable fool.

Holocaust and 9/11 truth are two completely different entities. The only people trying to link them are our enemies. Thus Eric Williams should have been fired, correctly, but that's really all we need to do about it. Making it news just baits more trouble. Just putting it in the title of your blog is problematic.

When does asking questions cross over into 'lobbying'?

I am all for freedom of speech and freedom to pursue controversial research. much of science is predicated on this freedom.

but - when honest questions give way to lobbying campaigns (under the thinly veiled guise of legitimate research) in order to forward personal interests and political agendas - i think it is only appropriate to call it propaganda.

not all research is created equal. and when certain avenues of research insist on forwarding ideas and facts that are demonstrably inaccurate or debunked - yet systematically inserted into the pubilic vernacular anyway - this is more propaganda than science or research.

One example would be the phrase "aluminum planes cannot slice through steel." it is inherently dishonest in that the planes that struck the towers hit prefabricated sections that simply broke away at their weakest points - where they were bolted together.

Now - if this is communicated to a researcher - yet he persists in claiming "aluminum planes cannot slice through steel" - this person is no longer raising legitimate questions - instead opting to lobby the community to believe inherently false assertions.

this movement has seen much of this. taking the "no planes" theory as an example, we have seen this 'research' pushed to the front of the line through persistent and the insistence of certain activists. but - unfortunately - VOLUME is not a suitable substitute for TRUTH. swamping and spamming the internet with material based on fallacious ideas that ostensibly ignores any evidence that serves to debunk or contradicts the premise of their ideas is NOT intellectually honest "QUESTIONING" - it is propaganda.

all the rightiously indignant insistence over the 'legitimacy' of research will not make it legitimate. you cannot LOBBY lies into being the truth.

much of holocaust denial-based research is inherently inaccurate science - and comes disturbingly close to revealing ulterior political agendas based on hate. It is no coicidence that David Duke advocates Holocaust denial.

in my opinion it is beneath our dignity to even discuss.

While I don't see the whole conference as being compromised, I agree it was a good tactical move for the LC crew to withdraw considering their history as targets.

That said, I'd feel ambivilant about going. For those who are, beware drama...someone wanted Williams placed; it's doubtful they'll just give up on using him JUST because he's been forced out as a speaker.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.