From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Chomsky & revisionism
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:56:11 GMT

In article <CRAMER.92Dec10100645@clem.Eng.Sun.COM>, cramer@Eng.Sun.COM (Sam
Cramer) writes:

|>>>>>> On 10 Dec 92 02:22:07 GMT, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) said:
|>
|>cramer> Correct.  Consider the case of Gore Vidal, a prominent left-wing
|>cramer> anti-semite.  Or Noam Chomsky, author of an introduction for a
|>cramer> Holocaust-denying book.
|>
|>dzk> To be on the fair side - I have e-mailed Chomsky and asked him what is
|>dzk> his opinion on Holocaust denial ("Holocaust revisionism" in the
|>dzk> neo-Nazi jargon). He answered that he does not doubt any of the facts
|>dzk> of the Holocaust and described Holocaust deniers as "crackpots" and
|>dzk> "neo-Nazis".
|>
|>Chomsky talks out of both sides of his mouth, depending on the audience.
|>He describes the French Holocaust denier Faurisson (for whom he penned an
|>introduction to the latter's "Memoire en defense") as "a sort of relatively
|>apolitical liberal."  He denies that Faurisson---certainly the foremost
|>French revisionist---is an anti-semite, stating "I do not see any proof
|>that would lead to such conclusions."

Chomsky did not pen the introduction either as an introduction nor for
Faurisson. It was penned as a general defense of the rights of the individual
against the state which he thought were threatened by the affair. Since Chomsky
holds left wing views which were persecuted in the USA within his lifetime
during the Mcarthy era it is understandable that he may feel strongly on freedom
of speech.

Chomsky's own words on the matter:-

   "Perhaps I should clarify, once again, that my statement was not
    written as a preface to the book, which I did not know existed, and
   that I asked to have it withdrawn, though too late to affect
   publication a few weeks after I wrote it, a fact that has been
   subjected to much absurd and malicious comment in the French
   press..."
 


Let us consider the original charges made by Dershowitz :-


|>Following this exchange, I challenged Chomsky to a public debate on the
|>issue of whether it is anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish to deny the Holocaust.
|>This was his answer: "It is so obvious that there is no point in debating
|>it because *nobody* believes there is an anti-Semitic connotation to the
|>denial of the Holocaust" (emphasis added by Dershowitz to Chomsky's
|>reply)[60].  That answer, which suggests what kind of perverse world
|>Chomsky lives in, speaks for itself.


  "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...

   ...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."
 

Chomsky is a Professor of logic, his work is the philosophy of language and he
is very particular as to the precise meaning attached to words. If you want to
make Chomsky look bad then ask him a stupid question, watch him produce a long
reply in which he analyses your question and shows why it is stupid then goes on
to reply. Then you take the part where he analyses your stupid question and
selectively edit it to make it appear that Chomsky beleives something he does
not. Dershowitz is a professional lawyer, he does not care how he wins an
argument, only that he wins it, truth does not matter much to him.

Again from Chomsky:- 

  "My own view is that there are no reasonable grounds to doubt
   the existence of gas chambers.... The claim that there were no
   gas chambers seems to me highly implausible, and the denial of
   the holocast, completely so.... I see no need to investigate
   further."



|>By the way, don't assume that Chomsky's generosity toward Nazis is limited
|>to Faurisson.  Not at all!  Chomsky provides blanket absolution for those
|>who deny the Nazi genocide so that they may realize it again.  Chomsky
|>states "I see no anti-semitic implications in denial of the existence of
|>gas chambers, or even denial of the Holocaust."  No wonder Chomsky's works
|>are distributed by the Institute for Historical Review and Liberty Lobby!

This quote is wrong, see the Dershowitz quote above for the original version.


|>For more information on Chomsky's odd affection for Holocaust revisionists,
|>consult "Gas Chamber Games: Crackpot History and the Right to Lie" by Paul
|>Berman (Village Voice, 6/10/81) and "Denial of the Dead: On the Faurisson
|>Affair" by Nadine Fresco (Dissent, Fall 1981).  Both publications may be
|>found in any good library.  The most in-depth (and devastating) treatment
|>of the topic is Werner Cohn's monograph "The Hidden Alliances of Noam
|>Chomsky," which may be purchased for $2.95 from AFSI, 147 East 76th Street,
|>New York, N.Y.  10021.
|>
|>As an aside, many would argue that Chomsky's attempts to minimize the
|>extent of the Cambodian genocide constitute a form of Holocaust
|>revisionism.

Again these allegations are very easy to make if you are not going to bother to
read the original sources.

The Cambodian article was a review of another article, Chomsky makes it plain
throughout that he is specificaly answering to the question of what that
particular article had proved at that point in time about the Cambodian Genocide
that was occuring at that time. Since the article was contemporary there can be
no question of it consitiuting ""revisionism" since Chomsky is at worst only
following the State department line.

However this is not actually the case. Despite the criticism that Chomsky makes
including the assertion that an unanswerable case had not been made at that
point in time, he did assert that there was cause to worry and that it was
unquestionable that savage attrocities were taking place.

As a point of fact the author did in fact thank Chomsky for his comments.

The background to the Cambodia affair was similar to that of the Gulf war.
Chomsky beleived that the people who wanted to go in with the troops didn't give
a damn about the genocide and merely wanted an excuse for another war in the
region. I remember the time when Chomsky was being ridiculed for attacking the
US govt for supporting Saddam Hussein and the state dept dismissing reports that
he had gassed the Kurds. Funny how the minute Kewait was invaded the people who
had been supporting Iraq decided that the stories were now officialy true.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy