Flutterby™! : Chomsky on Jews 2002-04-19 16:03:50+00

Chomsky on Jews

2002-04-19 16:03:50+00 by Dan Lyke 4 comments

Petronius forwarded on a short article linking Noam Chomsky to Holocaust revisionists that... I'm not sure how to interpret. It's too short and too vague to be very conclusive, and I'm definitely a Chomsky detractor, but... well, submitted for comment, perhaps I'll try to organize my thoughts a little better this weekend.

John Beckett - Blackshirt Leader Jeffrey Hamm - Union Movement Leader Robert Row - Union Movement Leader Neil Francis Hawkins - Blackshirt Leader Lord Erroll - Blackshirt Leader Olive Hawks - Blackshirt Leader Lucillia Reeve - Blackshirt Leader Robert Saunders OBE - Blackshirt Leader Sir John Adrian Chamier - Blackshirt Airman Dennis Lucan - Blackshirt Airman Captain D.M.K. Marendaz - Blackshirt Airman A.V. Roe - Blackshirt Airman Chuck Crate - Canadian Union of Fascists

Mr. Chomsky's name is listed along with the above. Fascists, collectivists, and it looks like Nazis.

This is no coincidence. His use of language has always been distorting. He claims that workers should control the factories -- that they do not own - and be required to pay union dues - without end. But he calls the conduct of the owners 'criminals' because they demand to be freed of the unions. His methods are to go off on tangents, make specious logical connections, stretching your attention span, and then come back as if he has proved a point -- like religion, really. His goal is to hobble those who create the wealth, and put into control, those who work for those who created the factories.

Funny, if he is so correct, why is the internet so cheap, and available, and allows him to have his writings posted? If he had his way all the ISP's would be unionized, and programmers would have to submit to having their pay negotiated by a few in control of the union.

There is a kind of person who preaches power to the people, but wants the people to follow -- and to follow him, when he has finally gotten control of the people.

I have been to Dachau - I have seen the giant fields, surrounded by bared wire -I have seen the ovens, and the tall smoke stacks which carried off the ashes from the burning bodies. I have seen the gas chambers, and the entrance gate which says in German "Work Shall Set You Free". It happened.

Mr. Chomsky seems to want to free the workers -- too. He denies the holocaust. His name is shown with the above names - what does Mr. Chomsky really want?

Oh lord, every couple of years, someone trots out that stupid thing Chomsky did in writing to support Faurisson's right to publish his beliefs.

It's all very easy to attack Chomsky regarding that one statement, rather than actually and intellectually criticize the great body of his work (both political and otherwise).

I'll be the first person to say that Chomsky can find meaning where there isn't any, but why do people make such lame attempts to attack him when it's so damn clear they haven't *actually* read more than a few sentences?

People love to attack Chomsky as though he were a great devil, intent on some great master plan. Have you ever actually talked in person with him, or asked him direct questions? He's a fscking human being, interested in a great many things. He's made mistakes, and he'll be the first to admit that.

After posting the page from the British Fascists I was able to finally get a hold of the piece Chomsky supposedly published in the prime Holocaust Revisionist magazine, The Journal of Historical Research back in the mid '80s. You can find it on this location. What it is is a reprint of a long and somewhat confusing letter he wrote to the Camera, a Colorado newspaper. What is not clear is if he gave permisssion to reprint it; the Journal itself is unclear.

Apparently he gave support to a Holocaust Revisionist French professor named Faurisson who was criminaly charged and academically disciplined for publishing a book on the theory. Chomsky frames it entirely as an issue of academic freedom, and his complaints against Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. He does not in it deny the Holocaust. In fact, the British article says he does not; I'm inclined to take them at their word (for once). The article itself is kind of whiny and filled with complaints about outfits like the Anti-Defamation League spreading lies about him. It has all the earmarks of an academic feud: huge attention to minutia and "he said, I said", losing the main thrust of the argument for long stretches. It fits in very nicely with the paranoicly detailed tone of the Journal and other crank publications.

Other than the extreme creepiness of an outfit like the British Union of Fascists praising a Jewish Marxist as a stand-up guy, I begin to think there is both more and less than meets the eye here. Less in that, technically speaking, I have found not found much evidence that Chomsky denies the reality of the Holocaust. More in that of all the academic freedom issues to pursue, why this one? Why give aid and comfort to these guys? Their research is a joke, their agendas perfectly obvious, their faux scholarly airs as ridiculous as the Three Stooges at Oxford. Some things are too important to leave to knee-jerk reactions.