We [see] that Chomsky justified Faurisson's Holocaust-denial, we [find] Chomsky publishing his own books with neo-Nazi publishers, we [see] him writing for a neo-Nazi journal, we [see] that the neo-Nazis promote Chomsky's books and tapes together with the works of Joseph Goebbels.What? Noam Chomsky, the Zionist Jew, allied with Holocaust deniers and Neo-Nazis, or even a Holocaust denier himself? Say it ain’t so, Noam!
- Werner Cohn, "Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers"
Well, it ain’t so. What Cohn is referring to is the notorious Faurisson Incident, in which literature professor Robert Faurisson wrote a book claiming the Holocaust didn’t happen. Not surprisingly, there was a substantial uproar. Faurisson was suspended from his post and sued for defamation.
This is where Chomsky comes in. He wrote an article entitled 'Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression', in which he says that we shouldn’t legally prosecute people for publishing historical fallacies, no matter how grave. So far as Chomsky is concerned, this is entirely a free-speech issue. Of course, this put him in the unfortunate position of being positively linked to a Holocaust denier. Things became even hairier when Faurisson used that same essay as the preface to his next book (WITHOUT Chomsky's permission). Guilt by association, and so, Cohn’s book.
Werner Cohn then went on to accuse Chomsky of both writing an article with ‘historical revisionist’ (read: another Holocaust denier) Paul Guillame and using revisionist publishing house Ville Taupe for the French edition of his works. In this letter, Chomsky crankily notes that he has never written anything with Paul Guillame, and that he takes no notice of who publishes his works in translation.
Chomsky ends the letter in characteristic style:
That Cohn is a pathological liar is demonstrated by the very examples that he selects. Knowing nothing about him, and caring less, I am in no position to comment further on what may lie behind this odd and pathetic behavior.
Sincerely yours,
Noam Chomsky
9 comments:
Wow...researching in depth into depleted uranium AND accusations about Noam Chomsky - Loyal Achates certainly has a lot of time on his hands.
Basically, the only refutations you produce of Werner Cohn's claim is from NOAM CHOMSKY HIMSELF. Whatever happened to checking sources a bit more carefully?
Even if, by some chance, the claims are exaggerated, it still does not detract from the other nauseating things that Chomsky has said and done over the decades - visiting Vietnam during the war to offer support to the NLF, having a Khmer Rouge fetish, comparing U.S. and Israeli military policies to those of the Nazis (many a time), saying the U.S. "deserved" 9/11 because of its foreign policy saying that the war in Afghanistan would result in mass starvation deliberately perpetrated by the U.S., etc., etc., etc.
And PLEASE do not insult the REAL Zionists by referring to Chomsky as one. Yes, he was in a left-wing Zionist group as a teen, but over the decades, he has come to deny the very legitimacy of the existence of a Jewish state. He has publicly supported Palestinian terrorism, and has (I repeat) referred to Israeli defense measures as comparable to or worse than those of the Nazis. Come on, the man is NOT a Zionist.
The man may be a great linguist, but when it comes to political commentary, he's a hateful kook.
Stay on subject, please. This is only in reference to charges that Chomksy has some kind of love affair going with Holocaust deniers. Which he does not.
Also, what more refutation of Cohn do I need, when all of his accusations concern Chomsky and his writings? If Cohn claims Chomsky said something, it appears nowhere in Chomsky's works, what credibility does Cohn have?
OK, OK, sorry for drifting into the rest of the Chomsky netherworld.
The comment on his lack of Zionism was a direct reference to your claim, however jocularly it may have been made, that he was a "Zionist", which he is NOT.
Noam Chomsky denying (natch) a connection with Holocaust deniers doesn't necessarily mean there is a lack of connection, just as his calling Werner Cohn a liar doesn't necessarily make him a liar.
There are examples of neo-Nazi groups using Chomsky's work at their "festivals", Chomsky publishing books with neo-Nazis, the Institute for Historical Review (Holocaust denial org.)using Chomsky's work publicly - ALL w/o any protest from the illustrious linguist.
His relationship with these people extends beyond his support of "free speech". He can support their right to free speech without being on friendly terms with them.
The "Notes" section of Cohn's book cite DOZENS of examples of Chomsky's work. It's basically a matter of believing Cohn or Chomsky. I don't know too much about Cohn's background (apparently a professor in Canada), but based on the streams of vitriol that comes out of Chomsky on a daily basis - I wouldn't believe a word of his.
"[D]o I believe that Institute for Historical Review and other revisionists are motivated by search for truth, or by antisemitism (or, we might add, other forms of racism)? Having no interest or knowledge about the IHR, I cannot answer."
- Chomsky, "Historical Revisionism"
http://www.chomsky.info/letters/19920331.htm
The fact that Cohn simply ascribes quotes to Chomsky which he has no reason for belieiving Chomsky ever said makes me doubt his veracity. I gotta agree: he's a pathological liar.
The Institute for Historical Review makes it perfectly clear what its mission is. Chomsky's claim that he had no knowledge of it is kind of like Michael Jackson saying, "NAMBLA...I've never heard of it, or what it stands for. Yeah, they play my music at all their meetings and write press releases saying how awesome I am, but I have no idea what NAMBLA does...".
So either Chomsky is a liar, an idiot, or one who doesn't care who uses his "scholarship" to further their goals.
In the back of his book, I think Cohn cites all of the Chomsky quotes from books, pamphlets, essays, and speeches. I don't see much evidence of pathological lying there.
My last comment on this (in the blog, anyway):
For all we know, they play 'Danny Boy' at NAMBLA meetings. Does that make the Irish pedophiles?
There's also the magic of 'context'. In what way do these neo-nazi use Chomsky (if they use him at all)? Are they faithfully reprinting his works in their entirety, and not selectively using his more pro-Palestinian statements to condemn the Jews as a whole?
Probably they wouldn't like it when Chomsky said that Nazism was 'The greatest outburst of insanity in human history' or that "[O]nce the State of Israel was established in 1948, my feeling has been that it should have the rights of any state in the international system."
Post a Comment