Oh, the denial-movement doesn't seem to have the concept "Disinfo-agent" I gather...
.
It doesn't have a
formal concept of 'disinfo agent' because there simply aren't that many active Holocaust deniers. However, in debating deniers elsewhere, it is remarkable how willing they are to throw overboard any of the name revisionists if one of their statements proves inconvenient for the purposes of current argument.
Thus I've had deniers declare that Mark Weber, the director of the IHR, was probably a disinfo agent/shill (forget the exact workds used); while someone else declared that Carlo Mattogno, who is the only denier actually semi-capable of doing proper archival research, was obviously in the pay of you-know-who.
There is a much greater reliance on arguments to counter-authority among the dwindling band of Holocaust deniers; even though Leuchter was shredded on the witness stand in 1988 they still appeal to his arguments; Faurisson is revered almost like a god and called a 'historian' even though in over one million words of rantings, he manages to cite precisely four unpublished documents.
Nonetheless, when pressed on a specific point, deniers will as the above examples show, abandon reliance on the counter-authority and retreat to 'common sense' reasoning, just like any other woo. As long as the basic tenet is clung to, then no cognitive dissonance will be acknowledged.
I think 9/11 Truthers bring out this probably standard dynamic across all forms of woo and denialism very well because there are so many 'authorities' and so many utterly contradictory theories.
But perhaps another common feature is the proliferation of relatively anonymous propaganda for the 'Twoof'/'Wahrheit'. The idea that there might be a real person behind 'Loose Change' or 'Did Six Million Really Die' doesn't seem to cross their minds, and it would be inconvenient to their fantasies to acknowledge that the authors/film-makers might be fallible individuals, so they prefer to appeal to a
super-authority, 'The Truth Movement' or 'Revisionism', the better to avoid acknowledging any cognitive dissonance at all.
On closer examination, the super-authority turns out to be composed of contradictory viewpoints... but they'll never admit that.
