Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers - Disturbing

[Edelweiss]

I just read had a look at a German Neo-Nazi newspaper and I was shocked, they are recomending to buy Chomsky's books, and apparently Chomsky even gave an interview for the "Nationalzeitung"!!! After some Internet research I found this essay:

http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html

I didn't read the whole essay, but from what I read it's not some cheap zionist propganda, it's a balanced analysis of his connections with the far right. How can Chomsky write a preface to a Neo-Nazi book? And what's the point in his demanding of free speech for Neo-Nazis? Really, Chomsky has lost a lot of credibility and relevance for me know.

[truthaddict11]

thats shocking but wasnt chomsky born jewish plus you cant belive everything you read

[j]

I did not read the whole thing either, but a good portion of it. I'm not sure if I can buy the neo-nazi Chomsky connection. I think I need to do a bit of research on this. It did not appear to be zionist propaganda but works very well in that function. I'll get back to y'all later on anything I discover on the neo-nazi Chomsky connection.

j

[RedCeltic]

Chomsky can not be anti-Semetic or conected to any neo-Nazis, as he himself was born Jewish and has called Zionists "Neo-Nazis" .

[evil chris]

well my first reflex is to say "bollocks!"

It doesn't actully put forward evidence.Just imples knowalge of such things.

Secondly and in response to orginial poster, whats wrong with free speech for the Right?



*(important spelling/grammer mistake)*


(Edited by evil chris at 1:19 am on July 25, 2002)

[Edelweiss]

Anti-semitic or not, still Chomsky's dealings with the far right are very questionable I think. Why is he giving interviews for them and is writing prefaces for their books? Why is he making himself an advocate for their cause by demanding free speech for holocaust deniers? Not that I would say that they didn't deserve to speak, but i just don't get his intentions.

[red senator]

This book seems to be written by a zionist who is just disgusted with chomsky for being against zionism. It sees anti-zionism as something only nazis and anti-semites are capable of. This is just a zionist jew trying to discredit the anti-zionist movement.

From what I read, the argument is based on hearsay from neo-nazis and the fact that Chomsky wants freedom of speech for everyone.

[AgustoSandinoSegundo]

Chomsky should be lauded, not for dealing with nazis, but for being objective in his application of free speech, something malte and many of his cohorts on this site could never appreciate.

[Edelweiss]

after reading Chomsky's response (http://monkeyfist.com:8080/ChomskyArchive/essays/outlook_html) to the essay, I have calmed down a bit. Most of the essay is sipmply a hoax. Still my above questions are remaining for me.

[Reuben]

very interesting.

Chomsky is jewish and actually describes himself as a '1930s zionist' due to his belief in a bi-national state.

I think he has gone as far as defending the right of Nazis to speak. Though i would like to know why he wrote a preface for a Nazi book. I really do not believe he is of the far right.

[samaniego]

It would be you guy's to misinterpret Chomsky on this one seeing how you guy's have no idea of what freedom of speech is. Chomsky is defending the authors right to publish and say what he want's, he is no way supporting the authors point only his right to say it. I seen interviews on this including the video manufacturing consent in which Chomsky himself states the comments I just made. Don't be so quick to judge, without the whole story.

[Edelweiss]

Here's the link to the interview that Chomsky gave to the "Nationalzeitung":
http://www.dsz-verlag.de/Artikel/NZ26/NZ26_1.html
The interview is in German, he mainly speaks against US/Isreal policy in it.
The only explaination I have for that is that Chomsky didn't knew that the interviewer was from a German nationalist newspaper. But how can that happen to a man like Chomsky? He should check his interview partners twice.

[Reuben]

if he did say what he is quoted as saying about new york, which he denies, I would be VERY worried

[Fires of History]

His preface is based on this quote: “We might ask how the Times would react to an Arab claim that the Jews do not merit a 'second homeland' because they already have New York, with a huge Jewish population, Jewish-run media, a Jewish mayor, and domination of cultural and economic life,” which he says is sourced from “Lies of Our Times.” Yet I have been unable to find this article anywhere, not on the internet or in any book of his I own. If anyone has the full text of this article, I would greatly appreciate if they would post it here. Having read enough Chomsky, I think his point was simply that the existence of one Palestinian state in Jordan is irrelevant to the formation of a new Palestinian state, just as the creation of a new Israeli state would be irrelevant if one had already existed somewhere else in the world. Keep in mind, he was suggesting what a possible Arab reaction to similar claims might be. I think that’s his point here, nothing more, but we’ll have to wait to read the entire article to make a final judgement, and indeed to see if he said that at all. I certainly don't trust a word Cohn says now.

Malte, thanks for the link to Chomsky's reply. I knew this article was highly questionable. And Cohn's appreciation for Zionism and Chomsky's critiques of it make this entire farce make more sense. After all, Cohn's first edition of his work was published by Americans For A Safe Israel, so the logic follows that one's of America's harshest critics of Israel would be subject to such outrageous and harsh libel.

(Edited by Fires of History at 9:59 pm on July 23, 2002)

[kidicarus20]

That article orginally posted is completely unfair. It says Chomsky is all for Free-speech of the neo-nazi's but then it says we can't have free-speech because of things like commercialization fruad or something. But the two are not connected really, and companies can do that they just have to give people their money back or whatever. Everybody has a right to political speech no matter what.

Chomsky has also said that "You can be a holocaust denier and still be against nazism" or something like that. I myself question a lot of the holocaust, what we hear about it, but i'm not right wing.

and chomsky should interview with neo-nazi's if he wants, who cares?

[peaccenicked]

The moral high ground that Chomsky take flies in the face of the law in many European countries. If there is a notion of racist violence and speech, surely Chomsky is wrong in this case. Denying the holocaust is hardly a matter of objective inquiry.

[I Will Deny You]

I started a thread in defense of Holocaust deniers' free speech. But I'm not exactly in the Hitler Youth. It's just that the American left seems to value free speech more than the European left does. I'm not quite sure why this is. Anyway, I agree with Chomsky for saying that Holocaust deniers should not be punished simply for that, but I don't know why he should make such a big deal about it. There are more pressing issues. And if he really did write an introduction to a neo-Nazi book, then he's even more of an idiot that I thought.

He's speaking at a conference with the right-winger Bill O'Reilly, so maybe he's changing. I always said he should just stick to linguistics.

Lindsay

[peaccenicked]

''defaming the memory of the dead'' is against the law in Germany for example. Defaming the memory of millions of gassed Jew's and defending the charge solely on the grounds of defence of free speech is to me a travesty of justice. The evidence is that these deniers are evil. This is a tool of modern fascism. It might be argued that it is just stupid but it is also grossly indecent. There is no getting away from the fact that that Holocaust deniers are sick emotional criminals, worse than Howard Stern.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Chomsky is very very firmly left wing, he would have to have some sort of brain injury to change that stance IMHO.

I admire the man greatly, and I've read dozens of articles just like the ones quoted. Most are ritten by fervently right-wingers and zionists trying to discredit him by any means necessary, just like Norman G. Finkelstein is constantly attacked by zionists. These quotes were either taken out of context, made up on the spot or grossly misinterpreted. I could make a similar case against the Dali Lama if I had all of his work in a searchable archive, a bit of time and a lot of hateful spite.

And everyone deserves freedom of speech, to change that principle to fit what is "acceptable" at any given time is the first step towards the governments domination over what can be said by the general public.

--- G. Raven

[Conghaileach]

I remember hearing somewhere that the Dalai Lama was a misogynist.

[peaccenicked]

the law on press and mass media.
http://www.internews.am/english/laws/link0...42/law042-6.htm (http://www.internews.am/english/laws/link042/law042-6.htm)

[rebel with a cause]

"If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all" - Noam Chomsky

[Fires of History]

Great quote Rebel.

I think any laws about officially sanctioned 'right' or 'wrong' ideas is misguided. And while I agree with the basis of the idea, and hate that people would question the Holocaust, I can't help but wonder what people here would think if the tables were turned.

[peaccenicked]

The debate is not about freedom of speech but its abuse. There is no absolute freedom of speech anywhere.
What do communists think of freedom of speech? It is a human right.
However, libel, slander, defamation, invasion of privacy;
all infringe others rights. Is it not so?