There are two claims here: 1. are these people 'groups' 2. are they 'malicious or unhinged deceivers' 1 is easy - a 'group' is a collection or subset of a larg

There are two claims here: 1. are these people 'groups' 2. are they 'malicious or unhinged deceivers' 1 is easy - a 'group' is a collection or subset of a larger whole of people, which all of the named categories are. This is a simple semantic issue, completely uninteresting, but I still don't understand what point you're trying to make by claiming these people are not 'groups', apart from the non sequitur in your first sentence (when I say 'are these not groups', you say 'I have no reason to believe that they are malicious'). Of course they're not 'organized' as in that they have no central authority and there is strong disagreement about many things between them, but they're still 'groups'. But again this is a wholly uninteresting question and I'm not sure why you brought it up in the first place. Then nr 2, the question was 'are they malicious or unhinged deceivers'. So that means they're either 'malicious deceivers' or 'unhinged deceivers'. Many (most?) are not 'malicious', but anyone who claims 9/11 was an inside job by the US government is 'unhinged'. (9/11 truthers are not 'anyone who wants an intellectually honest investigation into 9/11', they're whack jobs for whom nothing will ever convince them that they're wrong; much like the holocaust deniers in the OP.) They're also 'deceivers' because they all operate to convince as many people as they can about their loony ideas, using all means possible. Repeatedly and without willingness to engage in actual, rational debate repeating claims of being 'oppressed', 'repressed' or 'silenced by the majority' is just the beginning of this deceitfulness.