Conspiraloon 9/11- 7/7 Truther outed as Holocaust denier

[cesare]

We've been reproducing these 'alternative viewpoints' all over the thread, fela. Links, copy & pastes, the works. Now we're discussing them. Get a grip.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Another blogger on the subject.

Hysterically, Kollerstrom is now threatening legal action against me and Blairwatch, ostensibly becase of this comment I made on my website

'd say Kollerstrom is

'not just irritating, but horrid, hateful, a defender of genocide, a holocaust-denier and a whining front for those who kill. Nazis defended genocide didn't they? Who stands with the defenders of genocide then, hmmm? Who thinks genocide is OK, hmmm? Who only goes on about themselves when millions suffer because of us, hmmmm???? Scum. Pondlife. That's who.'

I'd say that anyone with such views as Kollerstrom is 'worthy of contempt and ridicule, or maybe they're worth no emotion wasted at all.'

I'd say it 'makes me sick to the back teeth when some overbearing, sanctimonious, jumped-up, pumped-up, self-absorbed attention seeker makes themselves out to be so damned important that they seek to silence others, no matter what THEIR personal story, with smears, lies, hatred, ridicule, abuse and sometimes worse.'

I'd say that. Funny though, the '7/7 truth/9/11 Truth' people aren't saying that about kollerstrom, despite the outing of his sickening views.

They're saying it about me on the J7 website instead. Why? Because I criticise conspiracy theories and liars and twisters of truth and history. People who deny the Holocaust. People who deny the London bombings.

Tells me all I need to know.

And they're currently complaining about being 'smeared'.

Sorry - no sympathy here at all.

The End.

 

[butchersapron]

The legal action thing is just a transparent shot across the bows. However, traditonally these were used by people with the firepower to back it up. He hasn't. He knows it, you know it. I'd just ignore that bit lest it become the bone of contention.

 

[Red O]

*ww.911action.org/911-and-zion/

Jazzz, do you still maintain your "strong belief that he is no anti-semite"?

 

[Badger Kitten]

No, i'm not suggesting that.

I'm supporting the right to have 'wrong' opinions without being witchhunted.

And so he should continue to publish his articles, and to be able to. The best way to see something is not good, is wrong, is not for the general public interest, is to see it in print, give them a chance to digest what is being said. There is no finer way to rubbish something that is clearly unacceptable for the majority.

To close down this minority view is to block the chance for the majority to reject it.

That is precisely why we should have total freedom of speech.

And i mean the word 'total'.

Give the hearers and readers the chance to decide for themselves what is drivel or what is dangerous drivel.

This thread has done its best to shut down this alternative viewpoint. It has gone emotionally overboard.

Oh pur-lease.
I have found out his address. Have I published it? Nope.
Did the 9/11 conspiracy theory board try to publish my home address, and state that my husband was a Zionist Israeli, along with a threat to 'pop round'? Yep.
Did Nick Kollerstrom call my book a 'work of fiction'. Yep.
Did the 9/11 board edit this only when I pointed out it was libellous. Yes.
( Because it was, and my publisher went mad)
Have the conspiraloons on the 7/7 board made any attempt to remove the stuff they said about me, which I then quoted and said I thought they were better applied to Kollerstrom? Nope.

Did they go emotionally overboard about me last week in a vicious personal attack? Yep. Have I tried to get them jailed or shut down or spoken to a lawyer? Nope.

Do I think Kollerstrom is a liar and a disseminator of lies and a Holocaust denier? Yes. Because he is.

Has Kollerstrom himself gone on about writing to academic institutions when you do not agree with views espoused there ( in his case, writing to a school about teaching children about the Holocaust)? Yep.

Kollerstrom is indicative of what is going on with these self-styled Truthers.
He is stupid enough to write under his own name and cite his PhD.

Others are less stupid. But no less bullying, no less foul in their views.

Can we have a discussion about this? Absolutely.
Is it a witch hunt? No, it is people freely expressing an opinion about a man who has freely expressed a lie.

And as I said, the reaction of his fellow travellers has been
a) Personal abuse and threats
b) Removal/hiding of threads in which antisemitism and holocaust denial are expressed
c)Threats of legal action
d) Complaints of being smears

As to people's emotional reaction to lies about millions being exterminated, would you like them to censor it? Ignore the lies? Not discuss it at all?

 

[Badger Kitten]

The legal action thing is just a transparent shot across the bows. However, traditonally these were used by people with the firepower to back it up. He hasn't. He knows it, you know it. I'd just ignore that bit lest it become the bone of contention.

Oh, he can try. It won't get anywhere. For obvious reasons. It's laughable.

 

[butchersapron]

Oh, he can try. It won't get anywhere. For obvious reasons. It's laughable.

Of coure not. But it's there to bow others.

 

[fela fan]

As to people's emotional reaction to lies about millions being exterminated, would you like them to censor it? Ignore the lies? Not discuss it at all?

If people think such rubbish, let them think it.

This thread has been about rubbishing the person with the untasteful views, rather than rubbishing the views.

The best way to rubbish views is to hear them in the first place.

That is the whole point of freedom of speech.

This thread seems to hold the view that the best way to censor 'wrong' views is to ban them in the first place.

Not so.

 

[butchersapron]

If people think such rubbish, let them think it.

This thread has been about rubbishing the person with the untasteful views, rather than rubbishing the views.

The best way to rubbish views is to hear them in the first place.

That is the whole point of freedom of speech.

This thread seems to hold the view that the best way to censor 'wrong' views is to ban them in the first place.

Not so.

Every point is wrong.

The best way to rubbish views is to hear them in the first place.

And then don't criticise them? What, they'll automatically criticise themselves?

 

[fela fan]

Oh pur-lease.
I have found out his address. Have I published it? Nope.
Did the 9/11 conspiracy theory board try to publish my home address, and state that my husband was a Zionist Israeli, along with a threat to 'pop round'? Yep.
Did Nick Kollerstrom call my book a 'work of fiction'. Yep.
Did the 9/11 board edit this only when I pointed out it was libellous. Yes.
( Because it was, and my publisher went mad)
Have the conspiraloons on the 7/7 board made any attempt to remove the stuff they said about me, which I then quoted and said I thought they were better applied to Kollerstrom? Nope.

Did they go emotionally overboard about me last week in a vicious personal attack? Yep. Have I tried to get them jailed or shut down or spoken to a lawyer? Nope.

Do I think Kollerstrom is a liar and a disseminator of lies and a Holocaust denier? Yes. Because he is.

Has Kollerstrom himself gone on about writing to academic institutions when you do not agree with views espoused there ( in his case, writing to a school about teaching children about the Holocaust)? Yep.

Kollerstrom is indicative of what is going on with these self-styled Truthers.
He is stupid enough to write under his own name and cite his PhD.

Others are less stupid. But no less bullying, no less foul in their views.

Can we have a discussion about this? Absolutely.
Is it a witch hunt? No, it is people freely expressing an opinion about a man who has freely expressed a lie.

And as I said, the reaction of his fellow travellers has been
a) Personal abuse and threats
b) Removal/hiding of threads in which antisemitism and holocaust denial are expressed
c)Threats of legal action
d) Complaints of being smears

As to people's emotional reaction to lies about millions being exterminated, would you like them to censor it? Ignore the lies? Not discuss it at all?

This whole thread seems to be about you and your reactions to this man and his opinions, and the fact that you don't like them.

And if you're going to complain he's a phd man and his thoughts should therefore be 'better' than they are, then you've got the wrong end of the stick about academics.

Academics have their thoughts, and that is the whole point of being an academic. If they're wrong, then this can be exposed precisely because they were able to have the freedom, within their community, to express them in the first place.

Do not expect that academics should have 'correct' thoughts just because they're academics.

 

[cesare]

It's like talking to a brick wall innit.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Oh FFS.

What do you suggest happens when someone starts to say that ''I deny that anyone ever put Jews into gas chambers. That didn’t happen, its not part of the historical record. - Nick Kollerstrom, PhD''

Nick said it.
We're discussing it.

Get over it: I realise that it is mortifying for the 9/11 Truthers to realise that they are fellow travellers with people who express such views, but the fact is, they ARE.

And this thread has demostrated it, in spades.
Deal with it and wake up.

 

[fela fan]

And then don't criticise them? What, they'll automatically criticise themselves?

Yeah, sure, criticise the points, the opinions.

But this thread has not been about that, it's been about criticising the person behind the thoughts, just because he had them in the first place.

I would have thought you'd've seen this.

 

[butchersapron]

Academics have their thoughts, and that is the whole point of being an academic. If they're wrong, then this can be exposed precisely because they were able to have the freedom, within their community, to express them in the first place.

Go to bed.

 

[cesare]

What's wrong with criticising the person fela?

 

[butchersapron]

Yeah, sure, criticise the points, the opinions.

But this thread has not been about that, it's been about criticising the person behind the thoughts, just because he had them in the first place.

I would have thought you'd've seen this.

What, his shoe size? His nose? His hair?

Do, like, fuck off. It's been criticising him and his ideas.

 

[frogwoman]

sorry but imo, if someone denies the holocaust then they're fair game. period. i hate those kind of people and i do not have any sympathy for them at all.

perhaps a bit harsh of me but im sorry ... given that two members of my family have been jailed for opposing fascism i don't see nazis whining about how sad it is that they cant speak the truth about how the world is being controlled by zion, and then having to live with the consequences of their words, as in any way equal to the actions of the fascists in any way.

the fash use "free speech" to silence anyone challenging them and their disgusting ideology. after all whose against free speech right?

ill tell you who'se against it. THEY are.

what about OUR free speech and the right to criticise them?

 

[Badger Kitten]

This whole thread seems to be about you and your reactions to this man and his opinions, and the fact that you don't like them.

And if you're going to complain he's a phd man and his thoughts should therefore be 'better' than they are, then you've got the wrong end of the stick about academics.

Academics have their thoughts, and that is the whole point of being an academic. If they're wrong, then this can be exposed precisely because they were able to have the freedom, within their community, to express them in the first place.

Do not expect that academics should have 'correct' thoughts just because they're academics.

This whole thread is about the fact that Nick Kollerstrom is a holocaust denier. I make no secret of the fact that I think conspiracy theorists have dodgy views and behave in a dodgy way and I hold up the holocaust-denying Kollerstrom as proof of this. I give the background because it is absolutely fair that it is in play. If I didn't people would accuse me of having an agenda. I do have an agenda. It is to point out that Kollerstrom is a holocaust-denier. Which he is. And to point out that this is the sort of person that the ''7/7 and 9/11 Truthers'' campaign alongside, invite to meetings, respond to on boards and generally welcome. When the fact that he is a holocaust-denying loon is pointed out, I observe their reaction with great interest and little surprise.

 

[pk]

Fela, do you dispute the fact that 6 million or so Jewish, disabled and others were exterminated in death camps?

 

[fela fan]

Oh FFS.

What do you suggest happens when someone starts to say that ''I deny that anyone ever put Jews into gas chambers. That didn’t happen, its not part of the historical record. - Nick Kollerstrom, PhD''

Nick said it.
We're discussing it.

Get over it: I realise that it is mortifying for the 9/11 Truthers to realise that they are fellow travellers with people who express such views, but the fact is, they ARE.

And this thread has demostrated it, in spades.
Deal with it and wake up.

I actually suggest you wake up really. All this emotive ffs stuff is getting tiring.

Can you not hear so well? No, you can't, because you're just so emotionally involved in it all.

So the man said there was no holocaust...

Well, so bloody what.

He's clearly deluded. Why are you so fucked about it?

I think it's good that we can hear such views. They help cement more coherent views on the topic.

But you seem to want to censor thinking just because it doesn't coincide with your own views.

And considering that you have a media job, i find that frightening to some degree.

Too fucking subjective you are.

Attack the views, not the person eh?

Well, maybe not. Easier to get emotive eh?

 

[chico enrico]

sorry fela fan, you really are talking a load of fan-ny batter

 

[butchersapron]

But this thread has not been about that, it's been about criticising the person behind the thoughts, just because he had them in the first place.
.

What does this even mean? Back it up with some posts. I don't even understand what this means?

What is 'the person' who's seemingly sacroscant - and what are the views that he holds?

 

[butchersapron]

Attack the views, not the person eh?

Well, maybe not. Easier to get emotive eh?

What does this mean?

 

[fela fan]

Fela, do you dispute the fact that 6 million or so Jewish, disabled and others were exterminated in death camps?

No pk, i totally accept the disgraceful stain on humanity that hitler caused.

One of the worst excesses of human behaviour known to mankind. He is one of the major despots the world has known.

 

[cesare]

So the man said there was no holocaust...

Well, so bloody what.

Oh dear.

 

[EddyBlack]

How is that germane to the thread, eddy?

(I mean, we know it isn't, and that it's just flak, but hey, I believe in giving people the freedom to justify themselves if they wish to.)

On the one hand you have the Neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers, and their affiliates in conspiracy theorist circles. On the other you have communists who refuse to answer the question of what they would do with their enemies in a revolution. I thought that they would have had a ready answer.

So what is the alternative to repression, genocide etc. for those troublesome enemies of the revolution and class enemies. Assuming they don't think that Stalin had the right idea, I'd be interested to know. Or are they simply in denial about what their ideology invariably leads to.

 

[frogwoman]

Fela, do you dispute the fact that 6 million or so Jewish, disabled and others were exterminated in death camps?

not six million.

more than that. at least 12 and probably more like about 20 million.

 

[butchersapron]

On the one hand you have the Neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers, and their affiliates in conspiracy theorist circles. On the other you have communists who refuse to answer the question of what they would do with their enemies in a revolution. I thought that they would have had a ready answer.

So what is the alternative to repression, genocide etc. for those troublesome enemies of the revolution and class enemies. Assuming they don't think that Stalin had the right idea, I'd be interested to know. Or are they simply in denial about their ideology invariably leads to.

Do you know the sound of one man yawning?

 

[fela fan]

What's wrong with criticising the person fela?

good question cesare.

In the political climate that we live in, no worries at all.

But in the world i prefer, personally, quite a lot actually. I'd rather criticise the opinions than the person that holds them.

 

[chico enrico]

Attack the views, not the person eh?

to be honest mate, i'd have no problem about attacking both.