Noam Chomsky wrote the preface to a book by French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson. A book within which Faurisson said:
"The alleged gassing and the alleged genocide of Jews are part of the same historical lie which has been the basis of a huge political and financial swindle of which the principle beneficiaries are the State of Israel and principal victims the German people, not its leaders, and the Palestinian people. . ."
Chomsky also wrote a ringing endorsement for another book, which teaches that Jews worship Satan and justifies the 17th Century Chmeilnitsky pogroms here in Ukraine, which killed thousands of Jews. Chomsky praised the author as: "an outstanding scholar, with remarkable insight and depth of knowledge. His work is informed and penetrating, a contribution of great value."
He also gives consent to anti-Semitic groups to publish his articles, and has even given lucrative publishing-rights to extremist groups.
Can you imagine the frenzy if a normal person did anything similar? It would be a toss-up if the pitchforks or torches would do him in first. But Chomsky gets a pass because he's the darling of the anti-Globalist Left. Pas d'ennemi à gauche, baby.
Check out the full article by Rachel Neuwirth.
Also, don't miss Oliver Kamm's amazing research on Chomsky and holocaust denial. Page down for article after damning article. Chomsky is like a Michael Moore who's been taught to shave and eat with utensils. It's schadenfreudelicious to watch him be exposed for what he is. Hat tip: Windmills on the Hill.
Posted by Discoshaman at janvier 9, 2005 01:47 AM | TrackBack
Disco, This is off topic so delete if you want but I was reading the news from Maidan and they had a piece about Wikipedia doing a Wiki News beta and http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Ukraine_political_crisis they mention your blog, Tulipgirl, Neeka, ...
Posted by: Hello at janvier 9, 2005 05:28 AMYou might want to check out Oliver Kamm's blog http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/. He has written quite extensively about the Faurisson affair.
If you start with this entry http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/index.html
you will find links to earlier posts on the subject. Kamm goes into quite alot of detail and makes a very damning case against Chomsky. Reading it is time well spent.
Hello-
Thanks for the head's up. That's cool. :-)
Sean-
Thank you so much for pointing out that research to me. Wow, damning stuff. I'll post it on the main page.
Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 9, 2005 09:14 AMShaman, since when is the essence of being a Christian cheerleading for Lieberman, gloating over Republican *partisan* political victories, mocking the dead (Gary Webb) and lambasting insufficiently ethnocentric (to my mind, metschy and righteous) Jews such as Chomsky?
Posted by: Antaeus at janvier 10, 2005 11:18 AMAnteaus-
I'm not sure where these questions are coming from. I'll answer as best I can.
"since when is the essence of being a Christian"
I don't think the 'essence' of being a Christian is to be found in politics at all. As I've said in the past:
The Cross has one name on it, and it is NOT George Bush. Christ transcends party lines, and they are tools in HIS hands. . . I'm a Republican because the things I value as a Christian find more support there. But my party loyalty is a contingent thing; my loyalty to Christ is not. And the line between the two needs to be marked out with double-thick, permanent black magic marker."
But unless you're somehow weirdly implying that only secular people can be involved in party politics, I'm not sure what your point could be. I am a Christian, and I am also a citizen in a democratic republic. So I have a right and a duty to take part in the political process.
"mocking the dead (Gary Webb)"
Maybe I'm being dense, but I have no idea who Gary Webb is.
"cheerleading for Lieberman"
I respect some of his positions, but I lost a lot of admiration for him in 2000. It never returned. Not sure where this question is coming from.
"lambasting insufficiently ethnocentric (to my mind, metschy and righteous) Jews such as Chomsky?"
I lambaste Chomsky because he's a viciously anti-American apologist for some really ugly regimes. I'm not sure which hat you pulled the 'insufficiently ethnocentric' thing from, but it certainly wasn't from my actual writing. I have no interest in his personal religion at all.
Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 10, 2005 01:48 PMThere you go being reasonable again. We've warned you about that.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at janvier 11, 2005 03:16 AMIt's amazing to me that this incident just won't die. It's dealt with in the documentary "manufacturing consent," among other places. The problem is, in eseence, a quote out of context.
According to Noam himself he permitted that french character (whom he refers to as a lunatic) to use a piece *he'd already written* as a forward to his book.
The Chomsky piece is about free speech and how it ought to be an absoute right -- even people who say abhorrant things should be free from government reprisal. France, notably, does not allow free speech with respect to the Nazis and Chomsky wanted to make a point.
None of that, mind you, makes him a holocaust denier. He's said on numerous occasions that the idea is ridiculous.
I emplore you, please don't succumb to mindless Chomsky-bashing. It's seductive, I know, but wrong nonetheless.
Posted by: dave at janvier 11, 2005 08:14 PM