“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” Abraham Lincoln

Chomsky & Co: Nailed

with 70 comments

I am not a fan of Noam Chomsky, after his defence of Faurisson and unsavoury associates.

I was indebted to Harry’s Place for their diligence in highlighting the Guardian’s kowtowing to Chomsky and Diana Johnstone over Srebrenica.

The letter by Kamm, Wheen and Aaronovitch is a very clear indictment of Chomsky’s shoddy methods and bias.

I have no doubt there will be some counterblast from Chomsky and his cult, which are guaranteed to confuse the issues.

Written by modernityblog

20/03/2006 at 13:35

Posted in Uncategorized

70 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I’m well aware that this comment may not be posted. I feel that I need to make a statement about two things in this post.

    1. The representation that Noam Chomsky was in alignment with Faurisson, he wasn’t. Chomsky was in fact a jew and the first article that he had published was in concern to the rising fascist movement in Germany. Chomsky does believe in free speech and the right that no matter the opinion, you have a right to express that opinion.

    2. The amount of emotional speech in this article is indicitive of proof for many of Chomsky’s theories. Emotion is used by the ruling class in order to control masses of uneducated people. For example religion; propoganda; political forums. It’s a very deliberate thing.

    However I do like that you have referenced everything that you have posted and hope that you continue to do this as it really does help to cement your POV.


    15/01/2010 at 02:02

  2. Why wouldn’t it be posted? As long as you’re not a fascist or one of their mates then I don’t mostly have a problem.

    I’m well aware of what is written on wiki, but that isn’t an answer.

    The question you have to ask yourself is, should the world’s greatest intellectual be giving support to the extreme right.

    Well *should* he?


    15/01/2010 at 15:58

  3. But he didn’t which is my point. The letter was published in the front of the book by Faurisson without his knowledge. What Chomsky is saying is that even the extreme right has the right to speak their opinions. Otherwise the UDHR’s Article 19 means nothing.


    19/01/2010 at 07:13

  4. What is it with you?

    Do you have an overpowering compunction to defend Chomsky, no matter what? I asked a direct question should Chomsky have defended Faurisson?

    Yes or no?

    Chomsky defended him because he argued that Faurisson “is a kind of relatively apolitical liberal.”

    Er no, Faurisson is a neofascist jew hater.

    So that was Chomsky defending Faurisson, making out that he is something that he wasn’t.

    Returning to the question, do you think Chomsky should have said that?


    19/01/2010 at 13:42

  5. I think that I already said this. But yes, Chomsky should have defended this persons right to have Free speech. There is nothing in the statement that you have quoted that says Chomsky agreed with the idea that Faurisson is toting. I just think that if we censor someone based on beliefs they have, means that we are no better than the book-burning Nazi’s that came before us.

    Censorship is what I’m arguing against and a lot of people tend to think that freedom of speech only applies to beliefs that they themselves hold dear. In fact the quote that you have said, in my mind, is actually having a dig at Faurisson. Don’t look at the text but the subtext.

    If I was to say that some one is “a kind of relative hero” what that is saying to me is; in their mind they think that they are the hero. Heroism is relative to what that person believes in. Even if that idea doesn’t mesh well with actual fact we should, in a free-speaking country, be aloud to tote our opinions.

    P.S. I am enjoying this back-and-forward and I hope that it’s encouraging debate in your mind. And I realise that neither of our minds will change on this subject, I just enjoy talking and debating with sensible and intelligent people on subjects that actually matter… Which is a change to talking with most people around the world.

    P.P.S. I don’t support Faurisson. Just making that clear in case any persons out there wish to misquote my support for free-speech as being support… hmmm maybe that’s the postscript that Mr. Chomsky should have had at the bottom of his letter…


    19/01/2010 at 17:35

  6. It is not about freedom of speech, it is a bit beyond that.

    It is whether not someone on the Left should provide propaganda, help and assistance to neofascists.

    So let’s get this clear, Faurisson is not some apolitical liberal, the guy is a neofascist and yet Chomsky couldn’t get that right. He didn’t have the wits to understand it.

    It is as simple as that, you don’t see it, and frankly I’m not bothered, I have heard enough from Chomsky’s apologites over the years to last a lifetime.

    No doubt, you will also the only to keen to explain away why he supported a rightwing militia keeping its guns? Hezbollah was that militia. Chomsky wouldn’t support the nativist right-wing militias in America but as long as they’re far away he’ll support them, when it suits him.

    Chomsky is to intellectual consistency what blancmange is to concrete construction.

    Again unless you have missed it please go and read my comments policy and try to work out why I am annoyed at Chomsky, if you can 🙂


    19/01/2010 at 20:31

  7. The way I see it, it is entirely about freedom of speech.

    He signed a petition (along with 500 others, most of which were noted scholars) defending that, and only that, Faurisson’s freedom of speech. In no way did he defend Faurisson’s stance on the holocaust.

    He also wrote a statement on civil liberties which was later used unbeknownst to him, as a preface for Faurisson’s book. I would hardly call that providing “propaganda” (or deliberate help or assistance) to Faurisson. At the VERY least, it most certainly not, “that simple”.

    And just to play devils advocate, someone being a holocaust denier does not elude to someones political alignment or for that matter even to thier antisemitism. It does however, elude to thier complete lunacy, but that’s not the issue…

    As for suppoting hezbollah, he was supporting their having weapons. I do have mixed feelings about that (I don’t support armament of any kind), but there is was SOME justifacation due to the huge threat of violence in the area. At least until there was some sort of political settlement.

    Don’t you see that in the middle east they see America in the same light as Americans see them? When you see a bunch of turbaned people burning flags in the streets and screaming and shooting guns, it’s exactly the same as seeing a bunch of under-educated podunk Americans shooting their guns in the air sreaming how they’re gonna kill the next towel head they see. It’s a narrow perspective on both parts. The difference is America if anything is more guilty of terrorism than any other nation.

    What do the so called nativist right-wing militias in America have to worry about or to justify their gun toting? 9-11 was pale in comparison to the kind of atrocities that have occured in Americas name. And they for sure never have to worry about a war landing on their shores.

    And as I see it, even if Chomsky’s stance on such things WERE as biased and misinformed (which they are not) as the views of say, Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck, it is still just one voice in a sea of bullsh!t and is much needed.

    Anyways, seems to me that you are the one who lacks the wit to understand. You are the one confusing the issues.

    Funny thing is, as an admirer of Chomsky, I felt it necessary to set out to find any criticisms (of Chomsky)I could find so as to get a fuller picture of the mans work. but alas so far all I can find is stuff like this. People taking his words out of context or more pertinent to this situation, complete misrepresentation of facts.


    31/01/2010 at 15:32

  8. Fair enough, I think you could make a bit of the case on the signing of the petition.

    The problem is the subsequent defence, Faurisson is not an apolitical liberal, and to represent him as such is to be disingenuous.

    Please look up Faurisson then give me your candid opinion of him, independent of Noam’s views.

    Please get back to me on that, then we might discuss the other issues


    31/01/2010 at 15:38

  9. I believe I addressed that problem in my comment; Being a holocaust denier has absolutely nothing to do with political affiliation or antisemitism.

    Chomsky was referring what he knew of the man and never claimed to be an authority on the subject in question. In Chomsky’s defence I assume he was referring to his limited knowledge of him, namely the book in which the preface appears. perhaps upon further inspection he might come to a different conclusion? I don’t know but from what I can see as far as hard evidence, Faurisson is an avid holocaust denier and not much more. OK, granted, it seems yes, he is a rotten bastard and deep down, I’m sure he is an antisemite but in an interview I saw with him, when he was asked if he was a nazi supporter and he replied no. when asked how he thought of himself politically he replied; “a nazi is a man, a communist is a man, a jew is a man, I am just a man, politically I see myself as nothing” (whatever that means).

    I don’t see it as a defence, rather an observation. You can call him this and chomsky can call him that but it’s all just opinions, not fact. The only way to derive truth about his political affiliations is through his own self proclamation. Admittedly I’m no authority on his work but Chomsky never claimed to be either.


    31/01/2010 at 19:23

  10. aye right whatever.


    31/01/2010 at 21:44

  11. Whatever? Really? Is that all?

    Does this mean you’ve changed you mind about the esteemed proffesor Chomsky?


    01/02/2010 at 00:40

  12. No.


    01/02/2010 at 00:44

  13. ??? Care to elaborate?


    01/02/2010 at 00:51

  14. Why would I bother? I’ll only receive another cherry picked, partisan and nonsensical answer.


    01/02/2010 at 00:53

  15. I certainly hope it hasn’t changed your mind about Faurisson lol…


    01/02/2010 at 00:53

  16. Typical. What a joke.

    Talk about partisan and cherry picked. You’re the one who wrote a post containing nearly no body at all and a bunch of links to other peoples opinions. hell, I’ve written more about here than you have. how about generating some original thought buddy?

    I went and looked up Faurisson like you asked. I gave you my opinion on the matter.

    sooooo how about that discussion?


    01/02/2010 at 01:01

  17. The only time I ever hear rubbish about Faurisson is either from a neo-Nazi, or some Chomsky supporter.

    I simply can’t understand why otherwise intelligent people (who are not neo-Nazis) can’t be honest about Faurisson’s views.

    To take a neo-Nazi, Holocaust denier’s views at face value and to credit them with honesty is breathtakingly stupid, and seemingly contradicting one of Chomsky’s notions that you should apply critical senses to what people say.

    Well, I say I can’t understand why, but thinking about it I can.

    Because to acknowledge Faurisson’s true nature is to pull the rug from under Chomsky’s excuses and that is something that his acolytes won’t want to do.

    Chomsky’s apologists will dance around the subject, telling you black is white, up is down and how George W Bush is now a Shakespearean scholar before they ever admit the bleeding obvious.

    Faurisson is a neo-Nazi by any objective measure, his associates, his actions, the ideas he pushes out, etc etc

    And the fact that some people can’t see those evident points, tells me that they are not worth discussing the matter with.

    So when I say “aye right enough” what I mean is “oh, fuck off talking such bollacks”.

    I hope my views are very clear by now?

    I find apologists for Chomsky incredibly tedious and frankly intellectually insulting, so please if you wish to foist your paper-thin arguments on people, do it elsewhere.

    I am not interested. I am not interested, clear enough?


    01/02/2010 at 01:10

  18. When will you get it through your head that Faurissons views are not the issue?

    I wholeheartedly agree, Faurisson IS a neo-nazi by all standard definitions. But the point is moot.
    Faurissons true nature pulls no rug from under anything.

    The issue is freedom of speech, always has been.
    The true meaning of freedom of speech is to support a persons right even if, scratch that, especially if their views differ from your own. Faurisson has as much right to spew his garbage as you do to spew yours.

    You’re just building a man of straw. by calling Chomsky supporters “apologists” and claiming that they “will dance around the subject, telling you black is white, up is down and how George W Bush is now a Shakespearean scholar” is perposterous and the only part of this exchange that is intellectually insulting.

    Let me be clear, NO ONE IS APOLOGIZING.

    If the argument is so paper thin, why can’t you address it directly instead of continually shifting the focus to Faurisson and his views? Because Faurisson is a lot easier to tear down than Chomsky (I mean shit, He’s a holocaust denier for christsake).

    I’m pretty sure your views are clear. you hate Chomsky because someone told you to and no ammount of rational discussion will prove you otherwise.


    01/02/2010 at 01:57

  19. Not only have I found Chomsky’s apologists extremely tedious, they are in my extensive experience of them a bit thick.

    They like to frame the discussions on their own terms, eg freedom of speech, to avoid the political aspects of Holocaust denial, and then will often come out with the most nonsensical bollocks that you would not see this side of a white power web site, an example:

    “Being a holocaust denier has absolutely nothing to do with political affiliation or antisemitism.”

    Which is akin to saying being a footballer has nothing to do with playing football.

    Any literate and honest individual who has studied Holocaust denial would see that it is intrinsically linked to antisemitism.

    It is hardly coincidental that neo-Nazi groups are the most vigorous in pushing Holocaust denial.

    It is hardly coincidental that Hitler lovers, White Power freaks and other semiprofessional antisemites always make a conscious effort to push Holocaust denial, etc etc

    To deny that is to demonstrate a particularly pernicious form of intellectual cretinism, or to be completely ignorant on the topic, but lack the ability to admit it.

    Either way discussing Chomsky with his apologists is a thankless task and something that I do not wish to continue.


    01/02/2010 at 02:12

  20. OK. For all intensive purposes I conceed. you are right about Faurisson and his views and I am wrong.

    But on the subject of Chomsky, you have proved no point. The task is thankless because you are wrong. He is one of the most respected (by his peers) intellectuals of our time.

    His prolific career has earned him too many academic achievements, awards and honors to mention here but some of which are: Chomsky was voted the leading living public intellectual in multiple publications, and voted seventh in a “heroes of our time” list.

    I would say it’s pretty presumptuous to call his long list of supporters “a bit thick” being that they are largely comprised of many other celebrated and respected scholars and itellectuals the world over.

    Again you have shifted focus from Chomsky himself, and proceeded to attack his supporters out of desperation. Of course your wild accusations are completely unfounded.

    May I ask what your “extensive experience” is comprised of?


    01/02/2010 at 02:50

  21. Might I add a couple of his supporters include Raul Hilberg and Norman G. Finkelstein, two of the world’s most preeminent Holocaust scholars.


    01/02/2010 at 03:12

  22. As I said Chomsky’s apologists, not supporters are obviously thick as they can’t read.

    Finkelstein, hmmm, and you think using his name is a plus?


    01/02/2010 at 03:15

  23. As I said, no one is apologizing here.

    And yes although Finkelstein’s career has been met with much controversy, here is a Raul Hilberg quote on his book:

    “When I read Finkelstein’s book, The Holocaust Industry , at the time of its appearance, I was in the middle of my own investigations of these matters, and I came to the conclusion that he was on the right track. I refer now to the part of the book that deals with the claims against the Swiss banks, and the other claims pertaining to forced labor. I would now say in retrospect that he was actually conservative, moderate and that his conclusions are trustworthy. He is a well-trained political scientist, has the ability to do the research, did it carefully, and has come up with the right results. I am by no means the only one who, in the coming months or years, will totally agree with Finkelstein’s breakthrough.”

    My point is, that respected (in Hilberg’s case, arguably the most) holocaust scholars and historians support Chomsky.

    And I’ll stop with the mud slinging if you will. It’s completely detrimental to the conversation.

    And again, can we stick to the subject? this constant deflection is also quite detrimental to the conversation as far as the forfront issue of Chomky’s validity goes.


    01/02/2010 at 03:30

  24. Apologising, as in making excuses for his actions.

    As in making excuses for his conduct with Faurisson.

    Apologising, as in accepting that no criticism of Noam Chomsky is possible.

    Don’t get me started on Finkelstein.

    Whilst I hold Chomsky in a bit of disdain. I positively loath Finkelstein.

    I love it how Chomskites go all around the houses and then start employing logical fallacies.

    In this case an appeal to authority, because Raul Hilberg says something nice about Finkelstein we’re are all suppose to follow suit.

    Utter bollacks.

    We are not having a conversation, you’re defending Chomsky and I couldn’t give a toss one way or the other.

    The original post was written nearly four years ago, not last week or last month.

    Chomsky is about as interesting to me as George W Bush’s smelly socks.

    PS: I seriously suggest you read my comments policy, and take it in, slowly.


    01/02/2010 at 03:49

  25. No excuses are being made. Only justifications.
    I’ll accept critcism about Chomsky sure. No man is perfect. But this one is silly. in no way did he give direct support to Faurisson or his views. He made one off hand remark about his take on faurissons politics. it was never meant to be taken as scripture or even an educated opinion. he confessed multiple times previous, during and after that he had limited knowlege of the man.

    But of course his would be adversaries snatched it up, spun it around and around until BAM! he’s an antisemite. And they did this full well knowing that non-independent thinking people would pick this up and take it as fact without having the slightest idea of the actual events that took place. IT’S REDICULOUS

    As for Finkelstein? I’m SURE you are more of an authority than me. the point still remains valid that more noted and respected holocaust authorities support Chomsky than one obvious lunatic freak. I find it hard to believe that men (OK, for argument’s sake, one man) of such a high esteem would support him (Chomsky) if there was any weight to his so called “conduct with Faurisson”. And I’m POSITIVE he is aware of the affair.

    Obviously you DO give a toss or you wouldn’t have given such a lengthy and rapid response and continued debate. You responded to mikeyb’s comment mere hours after it was made and responded to mine in 6 minutes.

    As for the comments policy? I see no deviation or tresspass. I’m not racist, not xenphobic, not american and have little to no hang ups about anything really (except for Chomsky haters lol) please elaborate? I guess I didn’t take it in slowly enough as I must be retarded or something eh? lol

    I hate to break it to you, but your condescention doesn’t make you look cool. maybe you should try using facts and knowledge instead of patronization. It would be a lot cooler if you did 🙂


    01/02/2010 at 04:37

  26. For instance, I almost completely agree with the critcism that Chomsky has at times, has contradicted himself in his writing, in refference to his stance on the Cambodia controversy.

    But I have never seen a man who is more willing to engage his crtics in discussion than him. In fact he has been confronted multiple times about Cambodia (and the Faurisson affair) and apologizes (if warranted) and explains why he came to one conclusion and changed his stance later. he has nothing to hide and that’s a lot more than I can say for any of his contemporaries.


    01/02/2010 at 04:47

  27. Utter balderdash.

    Chomsky was wrong over Faurisson, and yet subsequently he can’t even admitted.

    This is the world greatest intellectual!!

    Finkelstein is no more an authority on the Holocaust, than the average taxi cab driver.

    There is one quote that Hilberg made, and its been recycled enough times to make the Green party happy.

    Finkelstein wrote one of the most nauseating books around, he’s never written a research paper, not one. He’s only published by people who politically support him.

    I might occasionally say a pleasant word about Chomsky, but never about Finkelstein.

    He is beyond the pale, and I hope you make a conscious effort to understand my comments policy.

    And this is the problem I find, if someone else had made the errors that Chomsky made, they would have apologised.

    They would have admitted that they were wrong, occasionally, but he never does.

    So his acolytes, culties and general groupies are forced to defend the indefensible.

    I have seen it dozens of times, Chomsky’s groupies twisting logic and reason to ensure that their beloved Noam is always correct.

    It is so unseemly, and frankly when you seen it this many times rather boring.


    01/02/2010 at 04:51

  28. Also dude, calling something “utter bollacks” isn’t really a valid argument. if you told me the earth was round, and I replied; “thats utter bollacks”, how much weight would my opinion hold with you? probably a bit less than if I told you it was flat…


    01/02/2010 at 04:55

  29. As I said, Chomsky’s culties are normally a bit thick.

    I’ll explain it slowly, I like discussing politics, but what I don’t like is the tactics which are often employed:

    1) ignoring the other side’s arguments
    2) re-framing the terms of the exchange
    3) saying that the other persons arguments are essentially irrelevant
    4) an inability to admit error.
    5) using kettle logic

    Now when I argued that:

    “The problem is the subsequent defence, Faurisson is not an apolitical liberal, and to represent him as such is to be disingenuous.”

    The answer I got was:

    ” I believe I addressed that problem in my comment; Being a holocaust denier has absolutely nothing to do with political affiliation or antisemitism.”

    Which is a nonsensical answer, so why would I continue arguing, in a civil fashion, with someone who can’t address the nub of the issue?

    I wouldn’t, no point.

    If you can’t admit the bleeding obvious, then you can’t admit the bleeding obvious and then there is no common ground.

    Finally, Chomsky was wrong and he still can’t admit it.

    That does not make him the world’s most marvellous stupendous intellectual, rather a flawed character with an inability to clearly admit his mistakes.


    01/02/2010 at 05:13

  30. OK dude, your responses are not even arguments but banal statements that are backed by nothing.

    “Chomsky was wrong over Faurisson, and yet subsequently he can’t even admitted.”
    Why? First off, not a proper scentence. Second, I told you, and have proof that he directly admitted to exactly what happened.

    This is the world greatest intellectual!!
    OK, this is true 🙂

    “Finkelstein is no more an authority on the Holocaust, than the average taxi cab driver.”
    Rediculous and untrue.

    “There is one quote that Hilberg made, and its been recycled enough times to make the Green party happy”
    Uuuumm… you have to do more than that to become (arguably) the worlds most respected authority on holocaust history. Green party? huh? maybe a sample of the quote? ANYTHING????

    “Finkelstein wrote one of the most nauseating books around, he’s never written a research paper, not one. He’s only published by people who politically support him.

    I might occasionally say a pleasant word about Chomsky, but never about Finkelstein.”

    I’m sure this could be true but completely irrelivant. And I haven’t heard you say anything nice about Chomsky 😦

    “And this is the problem I find, if someone else had made the errors that Chomsky made, they would have apologised.

    They would have admitted that they were wrong, occasionally, but he never does.

    So his acolytes, culties and general groupies are forced to defend the indefensible.

    I have seen it dozens of times, Chomsky’s groupies twisting logic and reason to ensure that their beloved Noam is always correct.

    It is so unseemly, and frankly when you seen it this many times rather boring.”

    The same tune you were singing before, I have explained why you are wrong in this case and can provide source meterial if necessary. Also again with the condescending. it proves nothing other than you get a little too excited when confronted with valid arguments and shows weakness in your stance on the subject.

    let me know when you gain the actual knowledge and theory behind your statements…


    01/02/2010 at 05:27

  31. I didn’t see your last comment before I wrote my last, sorry.

    I admitted I was wrong about Faurisson!

    1) ignoring the other side’s arguments- I implore you to re-read and tell me I haven’t systematically addressed every one of your arguments.

    2) re-framing the terms of the exchange- I did that once, to give you the upper hand and discuss the original topic, Chomskys validity.

    3) saying that the other persons arguments are essentially irrelevant- what can I say, if they ar e they are. try giving an arument that-s related to the discussion.

    4) an inability to admit error.- didn’t do it.

    you are a moron.


    01/02/2010 at 05:37

  32. And chomsky has admitted to exactly what happened. I have an interview with him in which he explains the whole affair, in great detail.


    01/02/2010 at 05:41

  33. and in response to my answer;

    ”I believe I addressed that problem in my comment; Being a holocaust denier has absolutely nothing to do with political affiliation or antisemitism.”

    The statement is technically true.
    And I retracted my stance, admitted I was wrong anyways for the sake of argument.


    01/02/2010 at 05:44

  34. And again with the insults, it’s pathetic dude…


    01/02/2010 at 05:46

  35. And of your employed tactics, you are guilty of points 1, 3, and 4.


    01/02/2010 at 05:48

  36. And upon further inspection, 2 aswell.


    01/02/2010 at 05:49

  37. OMG this is hilarious. go back and read the whole thread. how could you accuse me of ignoring the other side’s arguments!?!? I have sytematically responded to every one of your arguments. What’s more, you have continually ignored mine. Singing the same tune from the beggining and never answering any of the key points I have made.

    How do you expect to be taken seriously???

    What a joke…


    01/02/2010 at 06:10

  38. I bet you are way older than me too. I’m 28 with a high school education.

    And you are the one hurling pathetic insults in leu of a valid response.

    OK, I called you a moron but c’mon, can anyone blame me?

    I would love to hear some external feedback on this thread…


    01/02/2010 at 06:15

  39. Well done Pablomarc. Good argumentation. I think Modernity is completely unwilling to rethink his original and non-researched remark.

    HELLO! Chomsky never supported Faurisson’s POV but just his right for freedom of speech. Censoring Faurisson’s is no different to what happened to the english Evangelical who sent a policeman to somebodies door.

    (I don’t want to name anybody in fear of the police showing up at mine 😉 )


    01/02/2010 at 11:16

  40. Thanks Mikey.

    I really gotta give it to this guy though for one thing. I went and researched for hours all of the critcisms of Chomsky I could find and what his replies were and searched through all sorts of letters and articles just to make sure I wasn’t putting my foot in my mouth! lol

    And everything I found where Chomsky was wrong about something, he has always gone back to correct his mistake, gone into great detail about how he came to his previous conclusion and how he went about finding the truth. I know he (Chomsky) is not infallible, no one is. But what can i say, the guy is just a straight up, no bullshit, stand up kinda guy. Which is a f*ck of a lot more than I can say about most of his counterparts. I truly believe he has no agenda other than spreading the truth and THAT is commendable.


    01/02/2010 at 22:48

  41. “HELLO! Chomsky never supported Faurisson’s POV but just his right for freedom of speech”

    This, readers, is an example of why it is thankless and almost impossible to get any political sense out of Chomsky culties.

    The problem is that they ignore the points of criticism, and all they do is parrot the same old line.

    Of course, anyone with any competence in using google can see Chomsky’s own remark:

    “Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read — largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him — I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort.”

    So there you have it, the world’s top intellectual, and he can’t spot an antisemite, when it’s in front of him.

    Chomsky can’t draw the obvious conclusion that the largest propagators of Holocaust denial are antisemites.

    That simple thought never crosses his mind, so then he comes out with utter balderdash, suggesting that Faurisson is “a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort”, which is political nonsense.

    However, a marvellous thing about Chomsky culties is that all that goes over their heads.

    The paradox of someone apparently on the Left providing support for someone on the Extreme Right doesn’t occur to them?

    It doesn’t register, and in fact that’s probably why they read Chomsky, so he can tell them what to think and make their lives easier.

    Anyone with moderate critical thinking skills and an opposition to neofascism would clearly think it wasn’t a good idea for Chomsky to do that, and having done it, he should have admitted his error and extricated himself.

    No, Chomsky wouldn’t do that.

    Chomsky would sooner the bite off his tongue than admit these errors, so it’s left to his culties to argue any old nonsense in defence of their beloved Guru.


    01/02/2010 at 23:13

  42. Oh god you idiot…

    Your opinion about Faurisson’s antisemitism/neo-nazism is based on ASSUMTION. I went over this before but I will do it again VERY SLOWLY for your benefit.

    Chomsky can’t draw the obvious conclusion because it is no conclusion at all. It is an ASSUMTION.

    Like I said; Chomsky deals in thruths and fact and not what he thinks “might” be or “probably” is true.

    I have exhausted my patience trying to explain the obvious to you so I will let Chomsky speak for himself.

    The Faurisson Affair
    Noam Chomsky writes to Lawrence K. Kolodney

    And just in case you are too stubborn to actually read I will quote a bit of it:

    “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.”

    Again, you are a MORON and your argument is rediculous. Get over it.


    02/02/2010 at 02:23

  43. And your pathetic, childish insults only prove that you are letting your emotions get in the way of rational debate.

    You can say anything you want about Chomsky’s so called “culties” but you have done nothing to prove your your your point. it has been nothing but repetitive belittling, mud slinging and brow beating with no sort of evidence to back up your perposterous claims.

    What a joke.


    02/02/2010 at 02:30

  44. This shows the gullibility of Chomsky’s groupies.

    If, hypothetically, Chomsky had said David Duke was not an antisemite, then that is what they would repeat, ad nauseam.

    Now, turning to, Faurisson, we know he is a neo-Nazi and an associate of neo-Nazis, not because we would like it so, but because that is what the evidence shows.

    It is that inability to see the bleeding obvious that impedes Chomsky’s groupies.

    Because to acknowledge that Faurisson was a neo-Nazi and that his work was obviously antisemitic would be to concede the argument.

    It would be to admit that Chomsky doesn’t know his arse from his elbow, politically speaking.

    Only the Extreme Right, Chomsky or Chomsky groupies would argue that Holocaust denial is not explicitly antisemitic, which is a bit like arguing that the Ku Klux Klan are not antiblack. It is complete political nonsense.

    But I think this sums it up:

    “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,[7] a case of anti-Semitism or of deliberate falsification?

    Can Chomsky perhaps press linguistic imagination to the point of discovering that there are anti-semitic falsifications?”

    I believe the essential point that Pierre Vidal-Naquet was making is, that anyone else reading Faurisson’s work would have concluded that it was expressly antisemitic, not just a bit, not by a small amount, but it oozes from his work. And anyone confident with linguistics would see that, in a tick, but not the world’s greatest intellectual, Chomsky.

    Now instead of making the obvious conclusion that Faurisson is rather nasty antisemite, he argued that Faurisson is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort, which is clearly false and nonsense, but at the time allowed him to save face.


    02/02/2010 at 02:58

  45. YAY!!!! now we’re getting somewhere! I’m so proud of you 🙂 🙂 🙂 this is, turning into an actual conversation, I’m amazed. Truly astonished.

    Your gross generalization of Chomsky supporters is grossly negligent and completely untrue. And Chomsky would never ever in a million years say anything to the effect of David Duke not being antisemetic so again, your point is moot.

    “Only the Extreme Right, Chomsky or Chomsky groupies would argue that Holocaust denial is not explicitly antisemitic”
    you have got to be kidding. it is pure logic and common sense man. Just because He’s an idiot doesn’t make him “explicitly” an antisemite. highly likely yes, but not explicitly. I wont dignify this retardedness with any more response.

    Jesus Christ I’ve been waiting for you to pull out the Pierre Vidal-Naquet for 2 days…

    He has a point, and so do you, any idiot who STUDIED Faurisson’s writings would surely see he is (I wouldn’t say expressly) a raging antisemite but Chomsky’s inaccurate observation, agian, was based on limited knowledge, namely his short personal correspondence with the man which Faurisson initiated, and the petition he signed defending his civil rights. OK, HE MADE A MISTAKE. If there is one thing that anyone can derive from Chomsky’s attitude or work, it is that he has no concern with saving face.

    I will agree and say that he should re-address the situation, maybe read a few more books of Faurissons and publicly share his findings. It would sure put all this silliness to rest. everyone would like to think he hasn’t yet because he’s trying to save face but in actual fact it’s because he’s too busy to waste time arguing over such trivialities (as you can see, I am not lol).

    You have to understand, this is one small indiscretion in a long career of pure awesomeness! In no way does it discredit his work or his intelligence. I challenge you to find one person, anybody at all who you think is a better political analyst and I will show you a million indiscretions akin to this one or much worse.

    The only reason why this one has been so publicized and talked about is because Chomsky’s would be adversaries printed pure lies about his ties and affiliation to antisemetics and racism. Huge lies that are based on this one, very small, insignificant indiscretion. and the reason some people cling on to it is because it the best they could find to discredit the man who so effectively is shedding light on their lies and deceit. sorry guys, you’re gonna have to do better than that.


    02/02/2010 at 04:30

  46. Woah look at all those typos! You got me all excited with your half-way (not quite) decent argument. 🙂


    02/02/2010 at 08:24

  47. You know, if you were REEEALLY smart (which you are most evidently not), the argument you would use would be the original criminal charges that were layed against Faurisson and whether or not it was actually case of freedom of speech, or were there actual legitamate charges…

    It took you a day and a half to find Pierre Vidal-Naquet, it will probably be a week before you start paraphrasing Oliver Kamm. He’s full of shit, but at least his arguments are half decent.

    Just trying to steer you in the right direction (I even gave you a name!)…


    02/02/2010 at 08:53

  48. I am continuing to remark on **my** own blog, not because it is interesting, but it demonstrates how evidence based reasoning doesn’t work with Chomsky’s groupies.

    In the quote below from Chomsky, he denies that there is an implicit or explicit connection between Holocaust denial and antisemitism.

    Now anyone given to thinking would have to question how the good Professor comes to that erroneous conclusion.

    It’s a bit like suggesting there’s no connection between the activities of the Ku Klux Klan (burning crosses, going around in white sheets, intimidating people) and the subsequent firebombing campaigns against blacks in the South in the 1960s.

    Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty would see that the two are connected.

    Here are Chomsky’s words:

    “I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the Holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson’s work”

    Now anyone else would realise what a morally bankrupt and intellectually nonsensical argument that Chomsky is putting forward, but he does it with purpose. It helps him defend his previous position with Faurisson.

    However, as a consequence, Chomsky is required to come out with utter nonsense, hardly the world’s greatest intellectual, as the extreme right, neofascists and neo-Nazis will co-opt Chomsky’s words and use them to defend themselves saying “Chomsky says…….”

    So in truth Chomsky not only came to the assistance of a French neofascist, he is still aiding them, intellectually.


    02/02/2010 at 14:07

  49. OK dude, first of all, the “quote” you used is from an article on wiki that lacks citation. second off, the “quote” in question, is the ONLY “quote” in the article which there is no link to reference material. Whats more, the quote (if you would have cared to research it) actually comes from an article written ABOUT Chomsky entitled “Noam Chomsky’s Search for the Truth” from some bizzare avowedly fascist, antisemetic website that doesn’t even exist any more.

    And COME ON! Does that even remotely sound like Chomsky AT ALL!?!?!

    And again, *sigh* nobody doubts the connection. It’s not the issue. You’ve said the same thing a thousand times. I refuse to answer again. if you want an answer just look at the countles explanations I have given here previously.

    And AGAIN, I implore anyone with half a brain to please give their input on this thread and show this idiot what an idiot he his. You can say anything you want about Chomsky’s so called groupies but the proof is in the pudding. just read it dude. read the whole thread over and tell me that. IT’S A JOKE.

    You need to research your “evidence” before go and post it all willy nilly. this last one was really sad. I even pointed you in the right direction of the only plausible argument and you couldn’t even do that. I’m starting to think you are just a very complex bot that has run out of responses so you keep recycling the same garbage over and over again.

    The only thing this exchange demonstrates to your readership is that you are incapable of original thought. It’s funny how that is your charge of Chomsky’s so called groupies, yet you ar the only one guilty.

    The trick with finding the truth is, you take input from ALL sides of the story and then make up your OWN mind.

    Now, this is of course just speculation. but if I had to guess why you’re so avidly defending your rediculous stance on this subject, it would be that you are so defensive about anything that might be even remotely construed as antisemetic, that your judgement and logic has been severely clouded. That was Chomsky’s point in the first place; freedom of speech means freedom of speech even if it is for your diametric opposite point of view. in the words of Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

    In closing I will quote YOU: “Avoid petty disputes, concentrate on what you know and like, admit when you’re wrong.” You should heed your own advice pal.


    03/02/2010 at 00:14

  50. And would you like some REAL evedence of Chomsky’s support of Faurisson? well shit, here ya go, a complete account of their corespondence. this can be found in numerous places on the web INCLUDING various white supremist, antisemetic and other equaly disturbing sites (as well as legitamate sources).

    [editor’s note, please do not post links to fascist web sites and again please read my comments policy]


    03/02/2010 at 00:34

  51. ”To Rubinstein he wrote the following:

    ”I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the holocaust whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson’s work …”

    Rubinstein has published this excerpt from a letter that Chomsky sent him. As he does routinely, Chomsky objected to the publication of his correspondence but he has not denied either the authenticity or the accuracy of the passage.”

    I am sure that if Chomsky knew that the Wiki article was wrong (and no doubt many of his 1000s of fans would remind him of it), then he could drop them an email they would removed it, in a tick.

    But I suspect it probably is his, the cold tone of the piece is very much like his words.


    03/02/2010 at 01:05

  52. Are you serious? Did you actually read the link you posted? If that is what you call a valid source of information no wonder you are so, I don’t even know what.

    It’s so riddled with lies about other things not even pertaining to the issue at hand how could you even reference it?

    And no, it doesn’t sound like Chomsky al all. Just read every other thing he has said about the issue, and then read that.

    Every other piece of information (concerning his stance) is corroboratory as apposed to this rediculous fabrication. SERIOUSLY!

    You’re just grasping at straws now buddy…


    03/02/2010 at 01:56

  53. Anyways, I think I’m pretty much done. unless you have something of any worth to say I don’t see the point in continuing.

    It’s been a slice 🙂


    03/02/2010 at 02:02

  54. I mean don’t you agree? We have kind of done it to death.

    Or we could continue, if you prefer.


    03/02/2010 at 02:15

  55. Chomsky has not denied the authenticity of those statements, as I pointed out elsewhere, Wiki is rather careful with attributing words and sentiments to living persons lest they be libelled.

    I see no reason to deny the authenticity of the Wiki link or the source, WD Rubinstein from Australia, a historian who corresponded with Chomsky.

    Anyone really troubled about it could obviously leave a message on the Chomsky web pages, or other places where are Chomsky’s groupies gather, there seems to be plenty of them on the web, I believe Zmag was one of them.


    03/02/2010 at 02:24

  56. I told you exactly why to question the authenticity. But of course you ignored that.


    03/02/2010 at 03:24

  57. As Mod says, Pablo, there is a better source than Oswald, which is the highly respected, if somewhat conservative, historian William D Rubinstein, via the sociologist Werner Cohn. I amended the Wikipedia citation:

    So, “it doesn’t sound like Chomsky a[t] all”?


    03/02/2010 at 14:06

  58. P.S. You may both be interested in this other line of the same story, not directly involved Chomsky:


    03/02/2010 at 14:09

  59. Thanks Bob,

    I think I first ran across Chomskites about 8-10 years ago, having read his work on Latin America and thought it to be ok(ish), if a bit belaboured. However, I was shocked at their fawning admiration for Chomsky and how he could do no wrong.

    Subsequently, I’ve come to think that arguing with Chomsky’s groupies is fairly pointless as they are neither very radical or capable of understanding ideas which go against the grain of their, existing, thinking.

    This is illustrated by the issue of Faurisson, they simply don’t grasp what the problem is.

    Whereas me and you, as antifascists, think that there should be complete opposition to all forms of fascism, neofascism, white power, Holocaust denial, etc and certainly no intellectual compromise with them.

    That isn’t the case when you come to Chomsky’s groupies.

    I suspect that if you said to them, in isolation, ‘should someone on the Left help someone on the Far Right?’

    They would probably correctly say, no.

    Yet when you factor in Chomsky’s conduct on Faurisson then the nitpicking starts.

    Every single point has to be bludgeoned in, every interpretation has to be argued over, irrelevances are brought up, deflections found, the simplist interpretation of Chomsky’s words are argued over.

    It is a thankless task, so in my view, they either get it or they don’t.

    Arguing with them won’t make a damn bit of difference, as I believe we’ve seen from your blog (and mine)



    03/02/2010 at 14:36

  60. Well, I still doubt the credibility of these sources just because it seems everyone who has jumped on this Chomsky hating band-wagon all seem to come from the same specific and narrow end of the political spectrum (as apposed to his supporters, who are, as much as you’d hate to accept, made up of a highly diverse group of respected individuals. And yes, dumb groupies lol). who just so happen to have a vested interest in discrediting him . If you look at the other side (I would say your side) of this debate there is just as many if not more points being bludgeoned in, interpretations being argued and irrelevances being brought up. Not only by Oswald so and so, but also in the newly cited materials.

    If however this information is accurate, the only part I disagree with is the one scentence: “I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson’s work”. If these were indeed his exact words, you got me, that is a bit fucked up. Still, I wouldn’t call it support, Chomsky has also stated numerous times, in reference to this particular incident and in direct correspondence with Faurisson, that he absolutely does not support his views. but I would definately call it a mistake on his part for sure.

    I still think all those crazy white supremists and holocaust deniers still have just as much of a right to voice thier opinion as you do yours. And I don’t think it matters who’s from which side, everyone deserves the right to freedom of speech. And if it were someone elses rights who were being violated, from a completely different point of view, Chomsky would have just as avidly defended thier rights. Those rights include interpretation of history. otherwise you could go and arrest any christian (or jew) who denied the theory of evolution. Faurisson’s views, or anyone else’s for that matter, were never the issue.

    And again, if you look deeply enough into anybody’s career you’ll find indescretions such as this one. nobody can be right 100% of the time.


    03/02/2010 at 17:31

  61. Bob,

    I hope you see what I mean:

    “I still think all those crazy white supremists and holocaust deniers still have just as much of a right to voice thier opinion as you do yours.”

    “Faurisson’s views, or anyone else’s for that matter, were never the issue.”

    Although they may think of themselves as notionally Lefties, the frame of reference that these Chomsky groupies go by is so widely different from our own, that they can’t even grasp the arguments of antifascists and why it is a very very bad thing to provide neofascists with arguments, help or any form of assistance, etc etc

    They can’t simply grasp what the complaint from antifascists is, concerning Chomsky’s conduct.


    03/02/2010 at 17:42

  62. I can grasp just fine. I just don’t entirely agree.

    But lets just say, as you’re so convinced, I have no grasp whatsoever.

    Instead of continuing with this condescending, holier than thou douchebaggery, why don’t you just politely explain yourself? You don’t even really HAVE to be polite but it sure helps.

    It works a lot better than placing yourself on a pedestal so high that no one can reach you (or rather that you can’t reach them). If you’re sooo convinced that you’re soooo right about every goddamn thing, why not try to educate? Isn’t that why you started blogging in the first place? Or did you just need an outlet to cram your opinions down other peoples throats?

    So far you haven’t really done a whole lot to explain why you are right. You’ve just stated, hardly explained, that anybody who digs Chomsky is unexceptionally wrong. Ok, that’s a bit of an exaggeration to prove a point but you DO see my point yes?

    Even if you were uncondtionally right about everything, you’ve gone about it in such an unprofessional, close minded, irresponsible way that you lose all credibility.

    One of the great things about Chomsky is his incredible patience with people. His ability to explain in comprehensible terms to people from all walks of life, all levels of political knowledge and affiliations. you make it sound like a bad thing that he so indiscriminatory about who he’s shares his knowledge with. I’m sure this is the reason why you come to the absurd conclusion that all Chomsky supporters are all the same and all uneducated but in actual fact it’s a pretty full spectrum.

    If we’re all such idiots and you are such a genius than you have an opportunity change some minds. or does being an antifascist mean you’re part of some secret club?

    The key to change is education. If you feel so strongly about your views you should do something about it instead of just being an asshole.


    03/02/2010 at 19:46

  63. This might be a stupid question, but are you of the opinion that any antisemetic remark made by anyone should be ideally silenced immediately with no regard to their right to freedom of speech?


    03/02/2010 at 20:55

  64. There you go, on the one hand:

    “I can grasp just fine…”

    to an asinine comment, which clearly shows that he doesn’t grasp the point:

    “…are you of the opinion that any antisemetic remark made by anyone should be ideally silenced immediately with no regard to their right to freedom of speech?”

    It’s bleeding hard work trying to communicate with Chomsky’s groupies, but clearly their grasp of words is not the same as the rest of us, their vocabulary means one thing, and ours another.

    I do wish they’d read my comments policy, it is plain enough, to those with an ounce of sense.


    03/02/2010 at 21:38

  65. The question was unrelated…


    03/02/2010 at 21:44

  66. I finally googled you. went to all the links that weren’t from your blog. saw a bunch of the comments you made on other blogs and reviews on your yours.

    You got some pretty funny ideas dude.

    Can’t believe I wasted all this time on such a nutcase.

    I can at least take comfort in the fact that anybody outside of your weird little posse of bloggers shares the same opinions about your retardedness that I do.

    Words cannot describe… cya lmfao


    03/02/2010 at 21:58

  67. The Chomsky charm school must be failing a lot of students today given such comments as “…retardedness…”. etc

    I can’t help wonder if, as Bob has suggested, that Chomsky groupies are similarly lacking in any empathy for real people as with their Guru, because otherwise they would know that making comments about people’s mental conditions is not exactly fitting or proper, some might call it extremely offensive.

    But as these Chomsky groupies can’t read my rather obvious comments policy and deduce that I am completely against neo-Nazis, neofascists, White Power freaks, the KKK, Holocaust deniers and other assorted hardcore racist, then I suspect a lot of subtleties pass them by.


    03/02/2010 at 22:12

  68. I’m truly sorry, but it seems I just can’t help myself…

    I simply must make it clear that the only empathy I lack is for you. You and perhaps others that share your hypocritical, completely ass backwards views on the most simplest of concepts. If these distorted views are due to some sort of real mental condition I sincerely apologize.

    Also, I’d like to state, for the record, that I also am completely and whole-heartedly against neo-Nazis, neofascists, White Power freaks, the KKK, Holocaust deniers and other assorted hardcore racists.

    I would assume that the aformentioned distortion of views stems from some level of personal experience with racism. As a visible minority, I and my family too have had experience on a personal level with racism. I however have not let these experiences skew my perception of the very most basic of human rights. No one can be charged with any crime for just thinking something. The same as no one can be charged of any crime for professing their views. to do so would be neglegent and discriminatory.

    Again, I apologize. But if I use such offensive language, it’s only to reflect the level of distaste I have for such a lack of common sense, objectivity and prefessionalism that should be charged of you and your peers.


    05/02/2010 at 12:34

  69. Please, *do* continue insulting me, after all that is the sure fire way of winning people over.

    You won’t be banned for insulting the blog owner.

    The side benefit of insulting the blog owner is that you do not have to advance any arguments, or deal in any meaningful way with the critiques of Chomsky’s actions.

    It is quite a good ploy, a bit lazy, but useful in side tracking the debate.


    05/02/2010 at 15:37

  70. just on this:
    it seems everyone who has jumped on this Chomsky hating band-wagon all seem to come from the same specific and narrow end of the political spectrum (as apposed to his supporters, who are, as much as you’d hate to accept, made up of a highly diverse group of respected individuals. And yes, dumb groupies lol).

    A narrow spectrum that includes, er, the Venezuelan and Cuban anarchists who have been circulating the Chomsky the clown text, leftists like Michael Berube, liberals like Oliver Kamm, conservatives like David Horowitz, not to mention rabid anti-Zionists like Jeffrey Blankfort.


    05/02/2010 at 23:50

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: