Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Holocaust denier Eric D. Williams attends 9/11 Accountabilit (8 posts)

  1. Victronix
    Member

    Holocaust denier Eric D. Williams attends 9/11 Accountabilit

    This is only a blog, but will get around . . . soon.

    Holocaust denier Eric D. Williams attends 9/11 Accountability Conference; Prof. James Fetzer defends anti-Semite
    Filed under: Feathered Bastard
    Holocaust denier Eric Williams (left) shaking hands with NY 9/11 activist Sander Hicks (right) at the 9/11 Accountability “press conference” Friday, February 23, 2007.

    Despite statements on 911Accountability.org that Eric D. Williams had “stepped down from involvement in the 9/11 Accountability Conference,” Williams was present today (Friday) at a “press conference” for the opening of the symposium at the Crown Plaza San Marcos in Chandler, and I have been informed that Williams will actually have a vendor booth at the conference on Saturday and Sunday. This is astonishing considering the controversy that’s swirled ’round Williams and the conference since it was revealed that Williams had authored the Holocaust-denying tome The Puzzle of Auschwitz, which asserts that there were no killer gas-chambers at Auschwitz, and that there was no Final Solution planned and implemented by the Nazis against European Jews.
    http://phoenixnewtimes.com/blogs/?p=261

    Posted 17 years ago #
  2. truthmover
    Administrator

    As I said over at 911Blogger the day this story broke...

    "Williams is highly involved, and that as a result he will not be removed from the conference, but just swept under the rug, (which I say based on past experience in the movement) and that the public will be provided even more reason to ignore us, while we are left to fight about this amongst ourselves."

    And I also mentioned how bad it would look if anyone took a photo with him.

    As truthmod said, the whole thing hardly sounded like a good idea in the first place. But then with Williams' bait and switch, why was no one willing to even broach the topic of canning the whole thing, and avoiding this kind of result. I suggested that people not go, and people going suggested I not throw out the dishes with the dishwater. But might it be that they were lacking a strategic scope that adequately includes concern for the objective, outside view of the public? Staying the course is not always brave.

    Well, now it is what it is. I wonder if anyone will be expressing any second thoughts about this after we get smeared a bit more in the press?

    Posted 17 years ago #
  3. Victronix
    Member

    Take a look over on blogger on the comments for the article on Arizona -- they're all congratulating JON GOLD for his comment -

    "At that point, some angry, good looking, intelligent gentleman said, "You're a piece of sh_t" to the idiot journalist. If you didn't guess, it was me. I know that was wrong, but there is a line, and he crossed it."
    http://911blogger.com/node/6428

    and defending Williams as not being a holocaust denier!

    This is classic for that site. Absolutely typical. This is what I was talking about, where the groupthink / mob mentality that jumps to support Williams' "right to be there" leaves an average reader thinking that Eric Williams was somehow a victim that needs to be defended. It's the same thing as the long list mixing bogus and real sites on the lefthand column of blogger - establish a baseline that nonsense and anti-semitism are all "A-OKAY"!

    "We take all here, even open holocaust deniers . . ."

    But better still, a look at Williams' site . . . I see he touts his interview with Kevin Barrett on his site -

    http://www.whatreallyisthematrix.com/BarrettInterv...

    I haven't listened to it, I confess. Maybe someone else can listen and tell me .. . but frankly, no matter what it says, it gives name recognition to Williams within the movement that we really don't need to be doing. No one should be interviewing him on their radio program to try to sort out his position on the holocaust.

    But given that Kevin Barrett is teamed up with Fetzer to KEEP Fetzer's 911scholars.org alive, and the nonsense is still flowing from it, can we pretty much assume that Barrett also supports not only space beam weapons, nukes, no planes at the WTC and UFO photographers like Jack White, but now, also, Holocaust Denial? He now holds the domain name for Fetzer's site. Yet the nonsense continues to flow and he continues to appear with Fetzer, and now is interviewing holocaust deniers.

    Yet to 99% of the movement, he is a hero.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  4. truthmod
    Administrator

    I haven't been following this that closely. I think it's really hard for people to question Barrett after he's been such a popular member of the movement.

    Williams should not have been there. I have a feeling that the organizers, including Janette Mackinlay were just a bit too nice to ask him not to be there.

    Yes, we need to be more disciplined, that is clear.

    Because the movement is already such a marginalized and lonely thing to be a part of, people seem to put up with a lot of bullshit rather than alienate themselves further. The answer to this would be to create stronger and more cohesive groups that aren't scared to tell it like it is...

    Posted 17 years ago #
  5. yfhahn
    Administrator

    A new direction

    I know this may ruffle some feathers but I think it is time to make 2 movements.

    One, we need a media face. This means presenting the socially safest facts. It seems inexcusable to me to not take advantage of this possibility, when questioning the commission, the failed investigations, the forewarnings, in other words, the 9/11 Press for Truth / Paul Thompson / Jersey Girls case is ready for the taking. We have many progressives, liberals willing to look at these facts. Patriot conservatives already are. It is amazing to me that people do not see what is going on with Kucinich and Obama--Obama is willing to say the negligence and incompetence was criminal! If that is not a signal or an indication, I don't know what is. The point is, BIG people are willing to join us in actions through legitimate channels, but only if we limit ourselves to a subset of the implications we've been tracing.

    Two, we need a grassroots face. This is the side of the movement the media, liberals and politicians are afraid of and or cannot reasonably own up to. But it is an important side of the movement because it has the power for revolutionary change, not just stepwise reform. But realize, any number of topics can work on this front. Peak oil, urgent environmentalism, black ops, election fraud, 9/11 truth, any of these can act as a catalyst for waking up different audiences. There is no reason besides stubbornness and a kind of dogmatism to hold 9/11 truth as paramount above other issues. I believe some activists are best suited for engaging in 9/11 truth because of their passions and interest--others are more powerful as environmentalists, government whistleblowers, etc. The point is, on the grassroots side, the goal is to wake up your neighbor. Not to get some legislation passed or media pressure.

    We need to recognize that these are 2 different games. Until we start playing each game by its own rules and not finger pointing at others for "selling out" or some other nonsense name calling, we will lose at both. Separate the movements. In public, deny your involvement & solidarity with the other, though in private or even at the unspoken level, maintain a firm support for the other.

    BTW, holocaust denial and flaky science fits into none of these camps.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  6. Victronix
    Member

    I realize you have good intentions. Much of the case you are describing has already been out there for years. Indeed, the Democrats would love to have you work towards incompetence -- this would be their dream. I wouldn't be surprised if they go as far as creating the incompetence case themselves.

    But is this really the right thing to do? Is this our goal for this whole movement?

    It's important to notice that even the FAMILIES themselves were braver than this, and would not embrace incompetence by ignoring obvious questions which pointed beyond incompetence. The people who were charged with putting together the questions to put before the Commission were at least courageous and convinced and concerned enough to bring up Building 7 in the carefully chosen questions they put forth -

    "13. On 9/11, no aircraft hit WTC 7. Why did the building fall at 5:20 PM that evening?"
    http://www.911independentcommission.org/giuliani31...

    Should we edit out such questions, even though the people who originally created the commission were even willing to put this out there?

    To say that we should now go for "incompetence" is basically to say that we will trade the real truth -- that false flags are what governments and insiders do, that they will indeed kill their own people, kill their own presidents, etc. -- for a legal case against a couple of sacrificial lambs, like Libby, but which in the short run can rocket to fame a Democrat? Certainly rocketing a Democrat to fame isn't your goal, but it's theirs. Their goal will be to do the handoff (D-R-D-R) but become famous while taking down a few minions over 9/11 but at the same time, never revealing the real situation which is the information they don't want the public to ever embrace and which would cost them their jobs if they did - that false flags are real.

    But why would we step back from EVEN what the families themselves were willing to go public with? This only makes sense when you are creating an articial case which will likely split the movement and drain inspiration.

    There is very strong evidence which is not incompetence. But part of that evidence is physical. The Pentagon no-plane issue is obviously not strong evidence and is only used to discredit us. We know this. This hoax is paired with the demolitions as a strategy to discredit them both as the looney "physical evidence" and make them untouchable. But Building 7 is very strong evidence, one of our absolute strongest points and extremely inspiring to people. It is unique because it shows that insiders were not incompetent, but were active in the cover-up. The put options. Mineta's testimony. Etc. The families knew this. They understood that it wasn't just incompetence.

    If Americans don't learn that this was beyond incompetence, we are laying the whole country open in a vulnerable stance to accept and digest the NEXT false flag as incompetence, instead of what it really is. And by then, everything will be worse. There is a long history of false flags and they aren't going away because Obama or Hillary gets in.

    9/11 cannot be seen as Katrina or we all lose.

    The situation that you need to understand is that while the Democrats aren't the bull-in-the-china-shop that Bush is, they are essential for creating the environment for Bush to exist, for covering for him, for selling us all out to the corporations at every turn so that our media is 100% a tool of manipulation and not news, for pretending that we have a democracy when we do not, etc.

    An important quote -

    "For over 130 years the two major parties have been extremely effective in preventing the emergence of any mass political formations that could challenge their political monopoly. Most attempts to build political alternatives have been efforts to represent the interests of the average person, the working people. These efforts have been unable to develop. Both major parties have been dominated by moneyed interests and today reflect the historic period of corporate rule.

    In this sense United States history has been different from that of any other advanced industrial nation. In all other countries multi-party systems have appeared and to one degree or another these countries have more democratic electoral laws and better political representation. In most other countries, there exist political parties ostensibly based on or promoting the interest of non-corporate sectors such as working people."
    http://www.mvp-seattle.com/Pages/ExtraPages/pageAv...

    Again, I realize your intentions are good. The low hanging fruit of what the Dems will offer us will be almost impossible to reject, and yet, this will be the most likely thing they will do. We can bury the truth and swallow incompetence, but we all lose with that.

    An investigation via the Democrats will be a huge battle, so thanks for reminding me and encouraging this debate, which needs to happen sooner, rather than later.

    Obama's quote -

    "While I do not believe the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks, I do think it should be held accountable for the unacceptable mistakes it made in the run-up to that terrible day."
    http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/230207_obama_9...

    It was all just a big mistake . . .

    Posted 17 years ago #
  7. yfhahn
    Administrator

    Thanks for the response...

    I think you are right about maintaining our integrity and sense of purpose and truth. My statements above were more like wonderings--when we look at the long road, what do we see happening? If we would like to distance ourselves from a movement that accepts or at least allows Holocaust Deniers, how will we manifest that distance? By calling ourselves something else? When the reporter from the local news comes by and asks, "How are you different from them?" what will we say? We go by more or less the same tenets, just we use good science and we don't allow quacks?

    My point is that the playing field has changed very quickly, and I believe we are possibly in both a better and a worse situation than we were a year back. The grassroots movement has only gotten stronger. The mainstream movement, however, is completely locked out. And without something that sounds and appears different, it does not seem plausible to me that the same tactics with better science and/or less quacks will work. Will they let us discuss WTC7 in the media because we distance ourselves in name?

    I don't know what the solution or right course of action is here, and I think you are right in maintaining a firm commitment to truth and the evidence we find convincing. But our method of attack and the issues we are most vocal about (in the mainstream) need to change. Just as the Bush Administration can be more vocal about immigration and gay marriage than they are about global dominance, we need to figure out how to hold onto all our truths but to first project the ones most palatable to our audiences / media channels to prepare them for the hard ones.

    On another note, how serious are we about criticizing the movement for its handling of the disinfo / williams situation? What are the actions we can potentially take?

    Posted 17 years ago #
  8. SkepticGuy
    Member

    Re: A new direction

    yfhahn Wrote:

    One, we need a media face. This means presenting the socially safest facts. It seems inexcusable to me to not take advantage of this possibility, when questioning the commission, the failed investigations, the forewarnings

    Here's one idea we came up with: http://www.911gorilla.org

    Problem: While "conspiracy theory aficionados" may easily see the discrepancies in the "official" explanations for the attacks on 9/11/2001, the average person does not. In an effort to spread awareness of the possibilities of government conspiracies related to these vents, various "9/11 Truth" groups have formed throughout the world, following the lead of the main group at 911truth.org. However, these groups tend to be populated primarily by "activists" whose tactics often create a negative response from the average person. As a result, the general public has either been turned off by the passionate efforts of eager activists or simply does not care.

    Need: Those who take the time to review well-presented material about the discrepancies associated with the attacks of 9/11 tend to begin a cycle of questioning and doubt that leads to a concern that "something important" is being withheld. So the issue is finding a means to effectively communicate concerns about 9/11 in a rational, concise, and "mainstream" manner so that the average person will listen, and begin to question more.

    What: The Nine Hundred and Eleven Pound Gorilla - 911gorilla.org

    Basic Idea: Create a "branded icon" that represents a growing frustration over discrepancies and questions related to the official explanations of the attacks on 9/11/2001.

    The Gorilla is a pervasive symbol, supported by all who seriously question the events of 9/11 with a strong factual focus and reliance on critical thinking. "It's the 911 pound gorilla in the room everyone has heard about, but few like to talk about."

    But it turns out to be rather hard to come up with a concise list of "mainstream" issues... but we have several that are tantalizingly close here:
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread267110/p...

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.