The New Republic

We need a tribunal that would judge the leftover left. Those lovers of the Soviet Union who had no problem accepting the millions of murders that took place there all in the name of "a better world." Moreover, it's no accident that people like Chomsky end up supporting Holocaust deniers like Faurrison. Nor is it by chance that many anti Israel activists seem to have secret lives as Nazi lovers: “ORIGINAL: There are two Marc Garlascos on the Internet. One is a top human rights investigator who, having joined Human Rights Watch after several years with the Pentagon, has become known for his shrill attacks on Israel. The other is a Marc Garlasco who’s obsessed with the color and pageantry of Nazism, has published a detailed 430 page book on Nazi war paraphernalia, and participates in forums for Nazi souvenir collectors.” Read the whole thing, here: http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11275875.html These are the people who want to judge Israel. Pathetic.

- jacksondyer

September 9, 2009 at 1:07am

As for Jane Fonda, she had no problem excusing North Vietnamese torture of Americans during the Viet Nam war. She is a joke and I am surpised that anyone still takes her seriously.

- jacksondyer

September 9, 2009 at 1:09am

mp: ...it was one of those false kangaroo courts in which, from the Stalin era on, convenes not to evaluate evidence but to condemn. george: Right, and you never engage in this sort of trumped up psychodrama in here, do you? True, you always seem to condemn anything Palestinian or Arab before you evaluate the evidence, but that's only because they are THEM. Just as Fonda, Robinson, Tuto, Glover, Byrne, Walker and Carter are. All THEM, each and everyone. The very essense of that which is Other. Me, I'd be proud to be one of THEM; but I suspect I no longer qualify because I am now WORSE THAN THEM. Well, that gives the others something to aim for, right? The strange thing is, I looked up THEM on google and all I found were Palestinian and Arab references to you. You are their THEM. But then I wondered: How could Marty allow THEM beat HIM to the top at google?! That's something for you to aim at. gw

- iambiguous

September 9, 2009 at 3:23am

jd it's no accident that people like Chomsky end up supporting Holocaust deniers like Faurrison. george: Like Marty, I can google too. So, having never heard of Chomsky's relationship with the Holocaust denier Faurrison I googled it. Below is what popped up on top. I'll leave it to you of course to straighten it all out and set me on the right course. The Faurisson Affair Noam Chomsky writes to Lawrence K. Kolodney Kolodney's query: Recently, I have come across allegations concerning actions you took with respect to the Faurisson affair. Although I thought the issue was essentially settled, a new pamphlet, entitled "The Hidden Alliances of Noam Chomsky" by one Werner Cohn has been making its way around. It claims to rebut your most recent public statement in "The Nation" on the subject, and contains some disturbing allegations. 1. Is it true that you stated that you saw "no anti-semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust"? Did you mean this in a purely formal sense? In any other way, it seems strange to me that you wouldn't at least suspect the motives of someone who does seriously attempt to deny that event. 2. Is it true that you published the French version of "The Political Economy of Human Rights" with Faurisson's publisher? Doesn't this go beyond the scope of merely defending free speech to subsidizing anti-semitic speech? 3. What's the story behind La Vielle Taupe [the publisher of Faurisson]? The pamphlet I mentioned paints it as a kind of Larouchite organization, with roots in the stalinist [sic] left but now with an idiosyncratic right wing ideology. Chomsky's reply: Dear Mr. Kolodney, The issue of the Faurisson affair is very far from settled, in two respects. First, the actual issue has not yet even been addressed. Recall the facts. A professor of French literature was suspended from teaching on grounds that he could not be protected from violence, after privately printing pamphlets questioning the existence of gas chambers. He was then brought to trial for "falsification of History," and later condemned for this crime, the first time that a modern Western state openly affirmed the Stalinist-Nazi doctrine that the state will determine historical truth and punish deviation from it. Later he was beaten practically to death by Jewish terrorists. As of now, the European and other intellectuals have not expressed any opposition to these scandals; rather, they have sought to disguise their profound commitment to Stalinist-Nazi doctrine by following the same models, trying to divert attention with a flood of outrageous lies. So, the issue has not been settled, or even addressed. Second, as to the minor matter of my role, that has also not been addressed, though it has been the subject of a flood of lies and deceit on the part of those who want to disguise their own commitments, and on the part of groups like Americans for Safe Israel (ASI), which have their own agendas, namely, to defame and discredit anyone who does not meet their standards of support for Israeli militancy. ASI, which published the ludicrous pamphlet to which you refer, has a long record of attacking Americans and Israelis who depart from their right-wing extremism, with scandalous lies and fabrications, a record that is well-known. ASI was also the sponsor of Rabbi Kahane, the advocate of the Nuremberg laws who was denounced as an outright Nazi by Israeli supreme court justices and Israeli scholars, and barred from the Israeli political system as an outspoken Nazi, which indeed he was. People who choose to pay attention to pamphlets published by pro-Nazi organizations of course have a right to do so. I believe in freedom of speech. But it is hard to take them seriously. The pamphlet in question is beneath discussion. In fact, I have discussed it once, in the Canadian Jewish journal Outlook, where Cohn presented what he took to be his strongest arguments -- including one that you cite. Each argument was based on total fabrication and absurdity, as easily demonstrated. He never dared to respond. Those, recall, were his own choice of his strongest arguments. Turning to your questions, I'll begin with the third. For details about Vieille Taupe, I suggest that you contact them. The publisher still exists, to my knowledge. I don't know much about them, but enough to know that what you quote from Cohn is idiotic. The roots of the organization are not "stalinist left" but libertarian left. It was associated with the French (more or less anarchosyndicalist) group of Alfred Rosmer (Griot) and others, whose journal was Revolution proletarienne. This was one of the very few groups in France that was not only anti-Stalinist, but anti-Leninist, and anti-Marxist by conventional standards (little being known among intellectuals beyond the Leninist variant). As to their recent history, I know less, but I have never seen the slightest indication that they are Larouchite. Again, for information, I suggest that you contact them. Surely no one can take Cohn and ASI seriously, given their record of abusive defamation of mild liberals, lies, jingoist extremism, and advocacy of Nazi doctrine. Your second question is a factual one: did I, as Cohn asserts, choose to publish the French edition of PEHR with VT, as a gesture of solidarity? Note that even if that were true, he could not possibly know it, which is sufficient to prove to any rational person that he is a liar. Out of curiosity, I contacted the publisher -- who, of course, arranges all translations; I can't even keep track of the myriad translations of books of mine, let alone arrange or plan them. I discovered that they indeed had a contract, with Albin Michel, a mainstream French publisher. But they had no record of whether the book had ever appeared; nor do I, or Herman. They had had no communications with Vielle Taupe. Now your first question. The "statement" to which you refer is a distortion of something that I wrote in a personal letter 11 years ago, when I was asked whether the fact that a person denies the existence of gas chambers does not prove that he is an anti-Semite. I wrote back what every sane person knows: no, of course it does not. A person might believe that Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews in some other way without being an anti-Semite. Since the point is trivial and disputed by no one, I do not know why we are discussing it. In that context, I made a further point: even denial of the Holocaust would not prove that a person is an anti-Semite. I presume that that point too is not subject to contention. Thus if a person ignorant of modern history were told of the Holocaust and refused to believe that humans are capable of such monstrous acts, we would not conclude that he is an anti-Semite. That suffices to establish the point at issue. The point is considerably more general. Denial of monstrous atrocities, whatever their scale, does not in itself suffice to prove that those who deny them are racists vis-a-vis the victims. I am sure you agree with this point, which everyone constantly accepts. Thus, in the journal of the American Jewish Congress, a representative of ASI writes that stories about Hitler's anti-gypsy genocide are an "exploded fiction." In fact, as one can learn from the scholarly literature (also Wiesenthal, Vidal-Naquet, etc.), Hitler's treatment of the gypsies was on a par with his slaughter of Jews. But we do not conclude from these facts alone that the AJC and ASI are anti-gypsy racists. Similarly, numerous scholars deny that the Armenian genocide took place, and some people, like Elie Wiesel, make extraordinary efforts to prevent any commemoration or even discussion of it. Until the last few years, despite overwhelming evidence before their eyes, scholars denied the slaughter of some 10 million native Americans in North America and perhaps 100 million on the [South American] continent. Recent studies of US opinion show that the median estimate of Vietnamese casualties [resulting from the Vietnam War] is 100,000, about 1/20 of the official figure and probably 1\30 or 1\40 of the actual figure. The reason is that that is the fare they have been fed by the propaganda apparatus (media, journals of opinion, intellectuals, etc., "scholarship," etc.) for 20 years. We (at least I) do not conclude from that fact alone that virtually the whole country consists of anti-Vietnamese racists. I leave it to you to draw the obvious analogies. In these and numerous other cases, one needs more evidence before concluding that the individuals are racists. Thus in the case of Wiesel, it is quite likely that he is merely following the instructions of the Israeli government, which doesn't want Turkey embarrassed. In short, denial of even the most horrendous slaughter does not in itself establish the charge of racism, as everyone agrees. Since that is obvious and undeniable, one naturally questions the motives of those who deny the truism selectively, and produce charges such as those you relay. You ask whether one wouldn't at least suspect the motives of someone who denies genocide (the Holocaust, in particular). Of course. Thus, I do suspect the motives of Wiesel, Bernard Lewis, the anthropological profession, the American Jewish Congress and ASI, Faurisson, Western intellectuals who systematically and almost universally downplay the atrocities of their own states, and people who deny genocide and atrocities generally. But I do not automatically conclude that they are racists; nor do you. Rather, we ask what leads them to these horrendous conclusions. There are many different answers, as we all agree. Since the points are again obvious, a rational person will proceed also to question the motives of those who pretend to deny them, when it suits their particular political purposes. In this respect too the Faurisson affair is far from "settled," as you put it; in fact, the issues have yet to be addressed. In fact, they will never be addressed, because they reveal too much about Western intellectual culture. Let me repeat. You open by saying that you thought the Faurisson issue is settled. You are incorrect. It has yet even to be addressed, either the major issue that Western intellectuals are desperate to suppress for the obvious reason that it sheds too much light on their actual commitments; or the marginal issue of my own defense of traditional libertarian values that are utterly scorned in Europe, if they are even understood, which I doubt. Sincerely yours, Noam Chomsky

- iambiguous

September 9, 2009 at 3:41am

Chomsky's letter on Faurrison is full of the usual half truths he specializes in. Wikipedia, not a favorite source of mine has a better overall analysis of the affair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair It says among other things: "The Faurisson affair is a term given to an academic controversy in the wake of a book by Robert Faurisson, a Holocaust denier. The scandal largely dealt with the inclusion of an essay by Noam Chomsky, Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression, as an introduction to Faurisson's book. Responding to a request for comment in a climate of attacks on Faurisson, Chomsky defended Faurisson's right to express and publish his opinions on the grounds that freedom of speech must be extended to all viewpoints, no matter how unpopular or fallacious. His defense was the target of subsequent accusations by various academics and groups. The accusations claimed that his defense went beyond free speech arguments and included defense of Faurisson's work, as well as seeking to discredit Chomsky by claiming a deeper philosophical and political association between him and Faurisson. On several occasions, Robert Faurisson has been convicted for his speech. For instance, on October 3, 2006, he was sentenced to a three-month suspended sentence by the Paris correctional court, for denying the Holocaust on an Iranian TV channel.[1]" (Notice also that the Iranian TV channel specializes in interviewing Holocaust deniers of all stripes." The affair is not about an issue of free speech but about the falsification of history. Many leading French intellectuals have condemned Faurisson on that score. "Vidal-Naquet offered the following argument to substantiate his characterisation of Faurisson as an antisemite: I shall simply say: Faurisson's personal anti-Semitism, in fact, interests me rather little. It exists and I can testify to it, but it is nothing compared with the anti- Semitism of his texts. Is it anti-Semitic to write with consummate calm that in requiring Jews to wear the yellow star starting at the age of six "Hitler was perhaps less concerned with the Jewish question than with ensuring the safety of German soldiers" (Vérité, p. 190) ? Certainly not, within Faurisson's logic, since in the final analysis there is no practical anti-Semitism possible. But within Chomsky's logic? Is the invention of an imaginary declaration of war against Hitler, in the name of the international Jewish community, by an imaginary president of the World Jewish Congress, a case of anti-Semitism or of deliberate falsification? (Vidal-Naquet, op. cit.) John Goldsmith writes that "Unsympathetic critics used it as an opportunity to brand Chomsky with anti-Semitic labels, but even critics potentially sympathetic to Chomsky's political views felt his remarks showed lack of judgment." [8] Other critics held that Faurisson's statements were the archetype of anti-Semitism, and that the logical conclusion of Chomsky's statement would be that Nazism was not anti-Semitic. The main argument for this is that Holocaust deniers are not interested in truth, but "motivated by racism, extremism, and virulent anti-Semitism" ([9] Deborah Lipstadt, in Dimensions, the journal of the ADL)." Vidal-Naquet by the way was a well respected historian of ancient Greece. Suppose someone had written a book denying that slavery ever existed in the US would this be an issue merely of "free speech" or of the falsification of history? The reactions to Faurisson’s ideas need to be judged in the European context and not in the American one. Chomsky at the very least showed bad judgment in coming to the defense of Faurisson. However, it seems that what motivated his defense was contempt of his fellow Jews bordering on antisemitism. And people defending him like the bigot who posted above do because they see in him an antisemitic soul-mate. There must a reason, moreover, why Chomsky's books are popular with extreme right wing groups even in the US. In any case the man is a liar.

- jacksondyer

September 9, 2009 at 9:07am

Here si another view of the faurrison affair by someone who spent years studying it: Chomsky and Holocaust denial – again http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/chomsky_and_hol_1.html Not long after I started this blog 18 months ago, I got involved in a spat with another blogger who had posted sympathetic and grossly ill-informed remarks about the now-defunct German terrorist group the Red Army Fraction. Spelling out to a determinedly uncomprehending interlocutor the appalling nature of that organisation remains the most dispiritingly pointless blogging experience I have had. On its conclusion, I resolved in future to avoid targets that were as ephemeral and obscure as a political naïf’s weblog, and I have generally held to that rule. In this post I make an exception, for I am going to comment on a very soft target indeed: a weblog written from a 'socialist, vegan, transhumanist' standpoint, for which I suspect (though do not know) the audience is extremely limited. The reason is that the target, while intrinsically trivial, is both representative and illustrative of a position of which I am contemptuous, yet on behalf of which it appears that I am now dishonestly being cited. The subject is, once more, the nature of the association between the linguist Noam Chomsky and that most perplexing adaptation of modern antisemitism, Holocaust denial. Let me recap. In 1979-80 Chomsky intervened in the case of a French Holocaust denier, Robert Faurisson. Chomsky’s admirers habitually and indignantly insist that the support extended to Faurisson was nothing more exceptionable than a defence of free speech, which they claim Faurisson was being denied. The unboundedly credulous among those admirers – such as Neil Smith, Professor of Linguistics at London University, in his book Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals – even present Chomsky’s actions as heroic. The reality is different. I set out the facts of the case in this post last month. I summarise them again now, but please see the earlier post for sources. First, the Faurisson affair had nothing to do with freedom of speech, but was a university’s response to a faculty member’s demonstrable fraud in presenting his arguments. By fraud, I don't mean just that Faurisson's claims about the Holocaust were false (though of course they were); I mean he was caught out by a genuine historian (Faurisson is no historian at all, contrary to Professor Neil Smith's invincibly ignorant account of the case) in doctoring his source material in order to suppress those parts of it that clearly stated the existence of the gas chambers. With offensive sophistry, Chomsky (Chronicles of Dissent, 1992, p. 349) describes the charge of 'falsifying history' that was brought against Faurisson as 'a case where a fascist law was applied' and as 'standard Stalinist, fascist doctrine'. The truth is that 'falsifying history' is a literal and exact description of what Faurisson was proved to have done. Faurisson is a charlatan and a crook whose methods disqualify him from teaching in a university. Secondly, Chomsky’s intervention was a defence of the content of Faurisson’s beliefs and not merely of Faurisson’s right to express those beliefs. In his essay misleadingly entitled Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression, Chomsky declared, “As far as I can determine, [Faurisson] is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort” – and did so in the full knowledge that Faurisson was an antisemite and pro-Nazi apologist. This is not a guess on my part to the effect that Faurisson's antisemitism is something Chomsky must have known: it is something Chomsky actually did know. I have demonstrated this beyond argument by paying close attention – as Chomsky’s admirers invariably fail to do – to what Chomsky wrote at the time. Chomsky may not have read Faurisson, but he had certainly read – for he tells us so – an article by the historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet that accurately summarised the pro-Nazi and anti-Jew tirades that Faurisson had published. (Vidal-Naquet's article is reproduced as Chapter 1 of his book translated into English as The Assassins of Memory, 1987. For an account of this piece - which unfortunately is not available on-line, so far as I know - please again refer to my earlier post.) Knowing that Faurisson was an antisemite and a pro-Nazi apologist, Chomsky chose to whitewash the man’s politics. Why he did this is a matter for interpretation, and I offered mine at the end of my post; that he did it is not open to dispute. Surveying Chomsky's incomparable record of dishonesty and perversity, the Berkeley economist Brad DeLong wrote on his own weblog a couple of years ago: What I object to is that Chomsky is an intellectual totalitarian. What I object to is that Chomsky tears up all the trail markers that might lead to conclusions different from his, and makes it next to impossible for people unversed in the issues to even understand what the live and much-debated points of contention are. What I object to is that Chomsky writes not to teach, but to brainwash: to create badly-informed believers in his point of view who won't know enough about the history or the background to think the issues through for themselves. Not everything DeLong said in his Chomsky posts was strictly correct: ironically, in concluding (justifiably) that Chomsky's political writings were not worth considering at any length, DeLong overlooked some of the most damning evidence against Chomsky. But the passage I have just quoted is a temperate and accurate judgement, as I shall now demonstrate. I had no serious expectation that my own exegesis of Chomsky's writings would shake the certainties of those 'badly-informed believers in his point of view', and so it has proved. The author of the socialist, vegan, transhumanist blog I mentioned above, and that I – presumably in common with my readers - had never stumbled across before, responded to the facts I presented by reciting the catechism with a fervour unmarked by a consideration of those facts: In the context of [Chomsky's] essay and especially in the context of Chomsky's strong views on Holocaust denial, this was clearly not any kind of attempt to normalise or justify Faurisson[']s malignant views on the Holocaust - indeed, the whole point of the essay was that free speech is for people we find disgusting, not only for people we like or tolerate. I hold no objection to the author's voluntarily-chosen veganism, while some of those I most admire in politics were or are socialists (George Orwell, Ernest Bevin, Sidney Hook and Michael Walzer). If I knew what transhumanism is, I'm sure I should be sympathetic to it. But rank dishonesty is another matter altogether; if this blogger persists in it, then I shall persist in pointing it out. I have already shown that Chomsky’s defence of Faurisson is, precisely, an attempt 'to normalise and justify' Faurisson’s views, by disregarding the pro-Nazi character that Chomsky knew they possessed. Dealing with the evidence by pretending it doesn't exist is a fashionable approach among Chomsky's followers, but this particular one of their number will not find it in his interests to continue with it. How does our pro-Chomsky blogger deal with the uncomfortable fact of Chomsky's knowledge of Faurisson's antisemitism and Nazi apologetics? Well, I had thought myself inured to the full extent of human gullibility once I had read Professor Neil Smith’s hagiography of Chomsky, but it turns out Smith was a novice in the field. Here is our blogger's rationalisation; read it carefully, for it is a pearl of great price (emphasis added): I must first make the obvious point which Kamm seems to have missed: (a) even though we know Chomsky noticed the part of an article which criticised him personally, because he (Chomsky) said so, it is logically possible that he might not have read carefully the bits making clear Faurrison's [sic] own views; (b) even had he read it all, he might have forgotten it (though, given Chomsky's impressive powers of recall, this latter explanation seems implausible). What I have just quoted may seem incredible, but remember what Brad DeLong said. Chomsky’s admirers are badly-informed. Few have read much in the way of politics, economics and history, which makes them vulnerable to Chomsky’s characteristic techniques of stripping out relevant context, making false interpolations, and twisting source material. What is more surprising is that few of them have read much by Chomsky either, or at least not beyond the pamphlets and books of interviews. The blogger I have quoted, who insists on the 'logical possibility' that Chomsky might have forgotten that inconvenient detail that Faurisson was an apologist for Nazi Germany, hasn’t even read the article he claims to be summarising. In that piece Chomsky not only states explicitly that he had read the article by Vidal-Naquet summarising Faurisson’s political writings, but also remarks: Let me add a final remark about Faurisson's alleged "anti-Semitism." Note first that even if Faurisson were to be a rabid anti-Semite and fanatic pro-Nazi -- such charges have been presented to me in private correspondence that it would be improper to cite in detail here -- this would have no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the defense of his civil rights. Disregard the characteristic non sequitur about Faurisson’s civil rights, which were never at stake in this case. Note merely that here Chomsky acknowledges that he has read the evidence of Faurisson’s antisemitic and pro-Nazi views, in the form of correspondence to him. Indeed his dismissive reference to that correspondence is also characteristic: he falsely dresses up as fastidiousness what is in fact a straightforward and shameless cover-up. Chomsky doesn't say so, but that correspondence was from Pierre Vidal-Naquet, who was determined that Chomsky should not be in a position to claim ignorance of Faurisson's positions. Here is what Vidal-Naquet has to say on the matter, in Chapter 2 of The Assassins of Memory: “[Chomsky] has also read his critics, specifically my article in Esprit (September 1980), and even the personal letters I sent to him on the subject, "a private correspondence which it would be inappropriate to cite in detail here." A fine case of scruples, and a fine example as well of double language, since Chomsky did not realize that the book he was prefacing contained unauthorized reproductions of a series of personal letters, and he himself does arrogate the right of summarizing (while falsifying) my own letters. I shall simply say to him: "Kindly publish-- I give you my authorisation-- the entirety of that correspondence. It will then be possible to judge whether you are qualified to give me lessons in intellectual honesty." Chomsky does not appear ever to have taken up that challenge. I assume, however, that, given that Vidal-Naquet tells us that his letters to Chomsky were on the same subject as his article in Esprit - viz. Faurisson's pro-Nazi and anti-Jewish bigotry, which the article demonstrated at length - not even our vegan blogger is going to claim that it is 'logically possible' they instead dealt exclusively with the weather, Chomsky's health, or recipes for blanquette de veau au pamplemousse. As I intimated at the start, I have in this post discussed at far greater length than it merits a target of zero intrinsic value: an ill-read blogger's hapless defence of Chomsky. I have done so first because this blogger's refusal to acquaint himself with what Chomsky has said and written - a counterpart to those who manage to maintain the inerrancy of the Bible by the expedient of not reading it - is replicated across countless university campuses and supposedly progressive publications, and when I see it I am unwilling to let it pass. But secondly, I decided to discuss his attempt to defend the indefensible because he has the effrontery to cite me in his support (emphasis added): I also note in passing that even Kamm (who seems to have studied this [Faurisson] episode at length) says that "Chomsky is not himself a Holocaust denier, and no responsible critic has ever claimed he is." Let me say this as undemonstratively and cordially as I can to any Chomsky admirers who may be reading this (and judging by the messages I receive daily on this subject, in varying shades of politeness, there are liable to be quite a number). If you wish to quote me on this or any other subject, I expect and require you to do so with the relevant context included, rather than in the way this blogger has done. So you should be in no doubt about what that involves, I am doing you the favour of appending a paragraph I have knocked together that will provide you with both the judgement that you apparently wish to reproduce and the context in which it is made. Here goes: “Kamm has studied the Faurisson episode at length and is consequently in a position to refute Chomsky's self-serving and dishonest claim that he is the victim of a campaign to depict him as a Holocaust denier. Chomsky's most prominent critics on this subject - among them Alan Dershowitz, Steven Lukes, and the late Lucy Dawidowicz - have made no such accusation. Chomsky's claim to the contrary is deliberate misdirection designed to impress a personal following that evidences scant familiarity with the issues involved. Kamm has also demonstrated the falsehood of the constant refrain of Chomsky's admirers that, in defending Faurisson, Chomsky was doing no more than defending freedom of speech. Chomsky in fact defended the character of Faurisson's beliefs and not just Faurisson's right to express those beliefs (which was in any event never at issue). Chomsky did this not by endorsing Faurisson's obviously false claim that the Holocaust never happened, but by defending Faurisson against the charges of antisemitism and pro-Nazism despite the fact that Chomsky knew those charges were true. Kamm has thereby demonstrated that Chomsky, contrary to his followers' belief that he represents some sort of progressive and principled strain of politics, is in fact a dissembling apologist for bigotry.” If you want to quote me, comrades, then quote that.

- jacksondyer

September 9, 2009 at 9:14am

jd: Chomsky's letter on Faurrison is full of the usual half truths he specializes in. Wikipedia, not a favorite source of mine has a better overall analysis of the affair. george: It's funny how the way in which you describe Chomsky's methodology is more or less the equivalent of how he describes those who attack him. And why would a source that is not a favorite of yours be the place you go to rebut him? You say Chomsky's opinions are only half-true. So, what parts did he get right? I won't attempt what would be a fultile exercise on my part to "weigh both sides" here. I simply do not have the capacity to do so with any degree of sophistication. You may well be right about Chomsky. He may well be right about people like you. My point, however, is to aim anecdotal beams like these at the psychology of The True Believer in possession of The Whole Truth. They all seem intent on parsing "the facts" such that they and only they posseess the knowledge needed to, say, note the precise point where one crosses the line between freedom of speech and pandering to Evil. In the end, of course, "the facts" become merely incidental to the narrative itself. They become the cherries one must pick to bake the pie. The half-baked pie in other words. Folks like me are left to intuite [and it rarely gets more precise than this] about which particular collection of facts laid down in which particular chronological order seem to encompass what [I believe] Philip Morrison once called "the ring of truth" in a PBS series of the same name. Science generally rings the bell with a resonance more fully factual than the historian. Just as the historian rings the bell with a resonance more fully factual than the politician. By the time you get down to the out and out bigots, though, it often resonates only dimly [if at all] with respect to the facts. All bigots, of course. Left and right, liberal and conservative, secular and ecclesiastic, Israeli and Palestinian, Semitic and anti-Semitic, Arab and Jew. george walton

- iambiguous

September 9, 2009 at 11:14am

I don't think there is any evidence that Mary Robinson is either an anti-semite or "dangerous" in the normal sense of the word, i.e. maliciously intending harm and capapble of inflicting it. Desmond Tutu's record in both fighting apartheid in South Africa and indeed working to avoid racial and civil conflict when it ended speaks for itself. With Jane Fonda, the issue is a little different. You indeed can argue that she wanted to North Vietnamese to win, rather than merely wanting an American withdrawal. However, as the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong succeeded in connecting the liberation of the peasantry and national independence better than the pro-western Vietnamese did, they had some claim on winning and indeed convinced vast numbers of Vietnamese of that case. Why not Jane Fonda too?

- ironyroad

September 9, 2009 at 11:30am

ironyroad "I don't think there is any evidence that Mary Robinson is either an anti-semite or "dangerous" in the normal sense of the word, i.e. maliciously intending harm and capapble of inflicting it. Desmond Tutu's record in both fighting apartheid in South Africa and indeed working to avoid racial and civil conflict when it ended speaks for itself." I don't know enough about Robinson to know if she is malicious towards Jews. I tend to think that she doesn't know enough about them and that she bought into a point of view on the Palestinian issue which gives cover to antisemites. Desmond Tutu's record on Jewish issues speaks for itself. He has taken a position of Christian Supercessionist (since denied) and has even said that Jews should forgive the Nazis for what they did. (Not the Germans, the Nazis.). He is not the first would be universal pacifist who has taken antisemitic positions. Gandhi did (he too blamed the Jews for the Holocaust) and there were others.

- jacksondyer

September 9, 2009 at 12:07pm

I don't get the censorship of the arts. I watch Chinese, Iranian, etc. movies and judge them on their own intrinsic worth. (Obviously I stay away from propaganda but such works never migrate out.) How dare anyone refuse the artistic voices of Israelis because they disagree with the policies of the government of the state of Israel? That is simply fascistic. I disagree with one thing that Marty said, for heavens sake Israel is not in the midst of any film blossoming, I have been watching quality Israeli films for years so why denigrate the past achievements for any rhetorical purposes as if to say "don't boycot now because it is really good as opposed to the mediocre past." In the past some were great, some good, and some lousy and the point of film festivals is to judge the quality of the work now. Fuck anyone who would deprive me of my right to judge the current crop of films.

- blackton

September 9, 2009 at 12:15pm

More on Chomsky's mendacious letter to Kolodney: The letter is so full of lies and half truths that it would take me hours to go through them all. I’ll only deal with the first paragraph: “The issue of the Faurisson affair is very far from settled, in two respects. First, the actual issue has not yet even been addressed. Recall the facts. A professor of French literature was suspended from teaching on grounds that he could not be protected from violence, after privately printing pamphlets questioning the existence of gas chambers. He was then brought to trial for "falsification of History," and later condemned for this crime, the first time that a modern Western state openly affirmed the Stalinist-Nazi doctrine that the state will determine historical truth and punish deviation from it. Later he was beaten practically to death by Jewish terrorists. As of now, the European and other intellectuals have not expressed any opposition to these scandals; rather, they have sought to disguise their profound commitment to Stalinist-Nazi doctrine by following the same models, trying to divert attention with a flood of outrageous lies. So, the issue has not been settled, or even addressed.” That France has embraced a “Stalinist-Nazi” doctrine of historical truth is laughable if it weren’t so serious. Moreover the claim that was beaten “practically to death by Jewish terrorists” is also a big stretch. What, by the way does “practical” mean in this outrageous sentence? How can someone be beaten “Practically to death?” Moreover the three people who assaulted him called themselves “Sons of the Memory of the Jews." Here is how this assault is described in wikipedia: “In September 1989, Faurisson was beaten severely by unknown assailants who called themselves "The Sons of the Memory of the Jews"” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Faurisson#Controversies In any case, the supposed near death experience (practical death) was taken up “stromfront,” Zundel’s holocaust denial website. Here again, Chomsky is in good company. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=vtSnStbYL4_gMfa22LEP&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=faurisson,+attacked+and+beaten&spell=1 Finally, and I am just dealing with the first paragraph, it isn’t true that Faurisson is guilty merely of denying the existence of gas chambers: “Robert Faurisson (born January 25, 1929 in Shepperton, Surrey) is a French Holocaust denier, who was formerly a professor of literature at the University of Lyon II. Faurisson generated much controversy with a number of articles, published in the Journal of Historical Review and elsewhere, as well as various letters he has sent to French newspapers (especially Le Monde), which deny various aspects of the Holocaust, including the existence of homicidal gas chambers in Nazi concentration camps, the reality of the systematic killing of European Jews using gas during World War II, the authenticity of The Diary of Anne Frank, and the veracity of Elie Wiesel's accounts of his wartime suffering.” He denied the systematic murder of European Jews by the Nazis. This is what Chomsky doesn’t deal with. Instead he decides to attack Elie Wiesel (who “takes orders from Israel” and Bernard Lewis, who unlike Chomsky is a well regarded historical scholar) among others. So much for Chomskyite truth: he is an adherent to the Stalinist-Nazi doctrine of truth. No wonder he finds himself in the company over and over again of Nazis, white supremacists, and Stalinists and of course George Walton.

- jacksondyer

September 9, 2009 at 12:42pm

Chomsky today: Chomsky’s “so-called freedom of expression” http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/09/09/chomskys-so-called-freedom-of-expression/ "At Lerterland, David Adler makes a good point about something Noam Chomsky said during his recent visit with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. According to a pro-Chavez blog: Chomsky… addressed the media and freedom of expression in the U.S. “In the United States the socio-economic system is designed so that the control over the media is in the hands of a minority who own large corporations… and the result is that the financial interests of those groups are always behind the so-called freedom of expression,” he said. As Marc Cooper responded: “Yawn.” This is tired stuff, especially in the age of the Internet, which I assume Chomsky has heard of. Isn’t it time to update his “corporate media control your (but not my) mind” spiel in light of the past decade or so? As for “so-called freedom of expression” in the US: as David points out, it is so restricted that, um, er, Chomsky was invited to address a class of philosophy students at the US Military Academy in West Point during the Bush administration, to critique the “just war” theory and the invasion of Iraq. But I suppose that was just a charade to make people think there is real freedom of expression. Or something. And just try to imagine a fierce critic of Chavez being invited to address a class of military cadets in Venezuela." I loved this part: "As for “so-called freedom of expression” in the US: as David points out, it is so restricted that, um, er, Chomsky was invited to address a class of philosophy students at the US Military Academy in West Point during the Bush administration, to critique the “just war” theory and the invasion of Iraq. But I suppose that was just a charade to make people think there is real freedom of expression. Or something."

- jacksondyer

September 9, 2009 at 5:57pm

Jackson: I finally found you. I hope that you still are revisiting this Spine thread. I didn't see any of your posts on subsequent threads. My profuse apologies for disappearing on you; my computer has been crashing constantly in the last fortnight. That is why I didn't post by the Friday before last on James Wood's essay. I don't have my own copy of his book and I had to return my library copy. I will get it back soon, and then, computer willing, I will post on the More essay. Again, my sincere apologies.

- liberal reformer

September 14, 2009 at 5:43pm

ironyroad said: "I don't think there is any evidence that Mary Robinson is either an anti-semite or "dangerous" in the normal sense of the word, i.e. maliciously intending harm and capapble of inflicting it. Desmond Tutu's record in both fighting apartheid in South Africa and indeed working to avoid racial and civil conflict when it ended speaks for itself." Mary Robinson has already contributed her share in augmenting antisemitism in this world, when she presided over Durban I. I remember her opening speech in that event: We are here to give voice to the Palestinians. And what a voice that was. The passing years and her partial mea culpa have not been enough to reverse the harm she did to Israel and Jews. All in the name of good intentions. As for Tutu, I cringe to read that he is a "great man". What greatness of mind can come up with these kinds of statements: "The lesson that Israel must learn from the Holocaust is that it can never get security through fences, walls and guns," "But who pays the penance [for the Holocaust]? The penance is being paid by the Arabs, by the Palestinians" These are the fulminations of a puny mind, a mind that cannot, nor ever will be able, to comprehend what the Holocaust was about, or that the only lessons Jews are required to learn from the Holocaust is never to be defenseless again. It is a sorry thing to see ironyroad come to preach for these two, especially Tutu, on the grounds that they have done some good service. What does that mean, anyway? That because of their past endevors they should be allowed to free-associate their darkest notions about Israel or Jews? That they are allowed to say whatever comes to their mind, slander, revisionism, to inflict pain, because they somehow earned that right?

- noga1

September 14, 2009 at 7:00pm

Noga, I didn't say he was a great man. I said his record in South Africa during apartheid and at the transition speaks for itself. I don't believe there is only one measure for judging people. I see a great deal of difference between genuine anti-semites and Holocaust deniers on the one hand, and figures like Robinson and Tutu on the other. If there isn't, we're in a lot of trouble.

- ironyroad

September 14, 2009 at 8:24pm

Ironyroad: There are different forms of Holocaust denials and genuine antisemitism. And different grades. Tutu's latest formula that Palestinians were ALSO the victims of the Holocaust is a dangerously appealing formula for the Revisionist Left, which seems to gain momentum even as we speak. Not denying and still brazenly attempting to erase the 6 million Jews from historical memory. Where could Desmond Tutu be found? http://www.thememriblog.org/turkey/blog_personal/en/3714.htm At a "giant gathering in Istanbul of thousands of high level representatives from hundreds of radical Islamist organizations and institutions from Morocco to Indonasia" What was being sought in this "giant gathering"? "[T]o fight Jerusalem’s ‘judaicization’, and to continue the jihad against Zionist Israel until it no longer exists." Who were some of the participants in this "giant gathering" that seeks to annihilate the state of Israel? "High level representatives from Hamas and Hizbullah, Lebanese Cemaa-i Islamiya Pres. Faisal Mavlawi, Palestinian Islamic Movement leader Raid Sallah, Iranian Pres. Ahmadinejad’s Counsellor Ayatollah Ali Akbar Muhtashemi, former Iranian PM Sayyid Hussein Musavi, Sheikh Yousuf al Karadawi, former Lebanese PM Salim al Hoss, former Egyptian PM Aziz Siddiki, former Jerusalem Mufti Ikrima Sabri, and the present Mufti Mohammed Hussein, Bishop Attallah Hanna, Fahmi Huwaydi, Hossain Ahmed, Desmond Toutou, OIC Sec. Gen. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, British MP George Galloway are some of the participants." What was Desmond Tutu doing at such a conference and with such people?

- noga1

September 14, 2009 at 9:26pm