Why is a man with Noam Chomsky's intellectual accomplishments

[CoffeeAnnan]

literally frozen out of our Press and Media?

Here is a man who is quite literally an intellectual giant of our time and a man who is also a moral force to be reckoned with and the pygmies in our media do not have the time for him while they can dissect the comings and goings of actresses or actors or murderers or rapists ad nauseam. What is the matter with these people?

[Deja Q]

1. Our society is about money. Not art. Not intelligence. MONEY.

[deutsey]

12. Ding ding ding! Same goes for Howard Zinn, Cornel West,

Arundhati Roi (sp?) and others who are highly intelligent, eloquent, and possess a great deal of moral authority.

Yet, with few exceptions like CSPAN, you won't see them in the US corporate media.

Don't for a second assume that's some sort of accidental oversight.

[LWolf]

122. And perhaps for the candidate they supported?

Why wasn't this an issue in the '04 primaries? Pandering to corporate media is not exclusively practiced by republicans, unfortunately.

[leftofthedial]

14. that's it in a nutshell

Why would the RW corpo-Intel propaganda machine willingly give air to the views of the most accomplished and articulate critic of it and its masters?

[indepat]

21. Money and absolute power which corrupts absolutely

[ck4829]

2. You want to know why?

RW'ers call the media 'liberal' now.

If Chomsky appeared on as much as a commercial, and all you heard was his voice for exactly 3 seconds.

THEN

RW'ers all over the country would explode, and not metaphorically either.

[Telly Savalas]

101. Rather than ideological bias, I think it's anti-intellectualism.

Unlike folks like O'Reilly and Hannity, if you heard Chomsky's voice for 3 seconds, it's unlikely you'd even be getting a complete sentence. The media is soundbite driven which isn't really Chomsky's bag.

[Uncle Joe]

191. I agree, on CBS's website last week

they did coverage on Bernie Ebbers being sentenced and the headline was not so much that greed or selfishness did him in, it was because he was so smart. They left the impression that intelligence can lead to corruption.

[Zorbuddha]

220. The seeds of anti-intellectualism have been planted since WWII

...to lay the groundwork for the success of the jingoistic politics that have allowed the military industrial complex to ride roughshod on the planet.

All the piggies are heroes in an anti-intellectual environment.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. Because when they interview someone from the left

they mean Joe Lieberman.

[geek tragedy]

4. Because he's deceptive with his facts (footnotes can be used to

deceive as well) and has made some intellectually and morally bankrupt claims and decisions in the past (comparing the Khmer Rouge to the French resistance, writing the forward for a book denying the Holocaust and supporting the author of that book).

He is a far, far, far left fringe character.

[endarkenment]

10. oh great lets trot out all the bogus rightwing attacks

on chomsky and have that endless thread for a diversion.

[Moochy]

112. Bash the chomsky

Makes sense that he'd get bashed and by whom.

[rooboy]

11. Fringe character?

He's widely quoted and revered around the world. It's only in the US that he's ignored.

[Incitatus]

13. What book?

I didn't know he did that, what book?

[endarkenment]

15. please ignore this diversion

the chomsky attack is a rightwing meme that has floated across usenet for over a decade. It goes nowhere.

[geek tragedy]

23. Because the truth is terribly inconvenient for Chomskyites. eom

[iconoclastNYC]

26. Your use of the term Chomskyites shows how poisioned you are.

I suppose anyone who's seen F911 is a Mooreophile?

[SheepyMcSheepster]

32. maybe you should get to know some Chomskyites

just a joke from another thread........sorry had to do it.
:silly:

[K-W]

42. The fact that yours is an uninformed smear is rather obvious EOM

[geek tragedy]

70. "I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas

chambers or even denial of the Holocaust."

Noam Chomsky, your hero.

[K-W]

73. He is right. You are just trying to confuse people.

There is nothing inherently racist about questioning a version of history. Certainly the circumstances of this particular history make it suspicious, Chomsky wouldnt disagree with that, but circumstantial evidince is circumstantial evidence.

Someone could question the holocaust without being an anti-semite.

[geek tragedy]

77. Do you think there are NO anti-semitic implications in Holocaust denial?

Do you REALLY think that?

[K-W]

81. You are completely missing the point.

There is no reason an academic could not come to a mistake on the issue of the holocaust earnestly, without racism. Thus the fact of holocuast questioning or denial is not, in itself proof of racism.

Of course the circumstances around the issue make anyone who denies the holocaust a strong suspect for anti-semitism, but you are making an unjustified leap in claiming that holocaust denial cannot possibly exist without anti-semitism as a motivating factor.

[geek tragedy]

86. He is claiming that Holocaust denial has NO anti-semitic implications.

The Holocaust is a proven, known, and legal FACT that is not disputed outside of racist, rightwing, neo-Fascist circles. See the David Irving trial.

Chomsky did the best he could to defend Holocaust denial, even while not agreeing with it. That's a giant moral and intellectual blind spot.

[K-W]

93. Chomsky never defended denial. That is rediculous.

He defended the right to free speech and he cautioned against labeling people anti-semites without concrete proof.

You could go and read Chomsky's own words on the subject to see what he actually thinks of denial, but youd rather believe lies.

[geek tragedy]

97. "I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas

chambers or even denial of the Holocaust."

Only a blind man could make such a statement.

[K-W]

103. You keep repeating that quote, even though It doesn't support you.

Care to back it up with another quote that proves your interpretation right. Perhaps some context for the sentence you are pretending was made as a stand alone statement.

[geek tragedy]

106. The quote speaks for itself. Chomsky is not merely stating that

Holocaust-denial isn't absolute proof of anti-semitism. He's stating that he sees "no implications."

Let's put it this way:

Do you think someone being a rightwing fundamentalist Republican has "no implications" regarding their willingness to vote for Bush?

[K-W]

108. You are taking one quote out of context and misinterpreting it.

It doesnt mean what you think it means which would be obvious if you had actually read Chomsky's entire text on the matter.

[geek tragedy]

113. Words have meaning. "No implications" means "no implications"--not

"fails to rise to the level of absolute proof."

Chomsky is very careful about the language he uses. It defies logic that he would commit a gaffe like that.

[K-W]

119. He didnt committ a gaffe, you did. This is all your misunderstanding.

This is all your insistance of interpreting an out of context quote as meaning something Chomsky never intended.

[geek tragedy]

128. He chose language that does not mean what you say he intended to say.

By the way, check out this essay:

http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/VidalNaquet81b/

Proof that Chomsky shows wanton disregard for the truth.

[bornskeptic]

149. You're misquoting Chomsky.

He said "no implication", not "no implications". From the dictionary.com definition of imply:

1.To involve by logical necessity; entail: Life implies growth and death.
2.To express or indicate indirectly: His tone implied disapproval.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=imply

Chomsky is using the first definition of imply, whereas adding the s makes it sound like he is using the second definition.

[geek tragedy]

161. I'm using Chomky's own language.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=implication

<snip>
im·pli·ca·tion Audio pronunciation of "implication" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mpl-kshn)
n.

1. The act of implicating or the condition of being implicated.
2. The act of implying or the condition of being implied.
3. Something that is implied, especially:
1. An indirect indication; a suggestion.
2. An implied meaning; implicit significance.
3. An inference. See Usage Note at infer.

impli·cative adj.
impli·cative·ly adv.


Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Main Entry: im·pli·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "im-pl&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the act of implicating : the state of being implicated
2 : the act of implying : the state of being implied
3 : something implied

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
<snip>

Note that Chomsky, in his apologism for a known anti-semite, also says that Faurisson is an "apolitical liberal," that he sees "no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson's work" and that there is "no credible evidence" that Faurisson is an anti-semite.

Chomsky either:

a) Lied his ass off; or
b) Talked out of his ass, reading neither the material he defended nor the evidence he dismissed.

[hfojvt]

129. What about this way?

"I see no right-wing fundamentalist Republican implications in belief that Jesus is the son of God."

[geek tragedy]

134. False counter-example.

Most Christians are not right-wing fundamentalist Republicans.

The great majority Holocaust deniers DO have an anti-semitic agenda and make patently anti-semitic claims.

[Moochy]

138. naah

That wouldnt be the M.o.

Its safer to just stay smugly entrenched in ones own prejudices.

[indigo32]

186. I would defend ANYONES right to free speech

but I would NEVER go so far as to defend holocaust denial as not being anti-semitic... EVEN if it is LOGICALLY possible. I just wouldn't say it. I'm amazed, I never knew this about him.

[question everything]

83. But does he himself deny the Holocaust?

Considering he was born in Israel, and is promoting the earlier, Bolshevik-style living in Israel, that would be strange, I think

[geek tragedy]

89. He doesn't deny it, but he defends Holocaust denial/revisionism

as having NO anti-semitic implications.

Which is astonishingly ignorant. Your typical Holocaust denier is just as anti-semitic as your average SS officer.

[K-W]

96. You just agreed with Chomsky completely.

"Your typical Holocaust denier is just as anti-semitic as your average SS officer."

The word typical is key here.

Chomsky never argued that denial isnt related to anti-semitism, just that not every example of holocaust revision or denail is garunteed to be anti-semitism.

[geek tragedy]

98. Would you agree that there are anti-semitic implications in being

a member of the Nazi party?

[K-W]

107. It is a proven fact that some Nazi's werent anti-semites.

But yes, since it was a party organization, every member was complicit.

Thus your comparison is not valid.

[geek tragedy]

116. Ugh. I give up--people aren't willing to honestly debate

the plain meaning of what he said.

[K-W]

120. I have said nothing that isnt honest, I see now you want to smear me too.

The plain meaning of what he said was clear to anyone who has read more than one sentance of his writings on the subject and understands the context of the quote you misunderstand.

[geek tragedy]

133. His point was that there is no evidence that Faurisson was an anti-semite.

He was coming to defend Faurisson's personal reputation and honor.

http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/VidalNaquet81b/

[Zen Democrat]

211. Here's what Wikipedia says about the distortions of Chomsky's statements.

Chomsky is Jewish, you know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Distortion_of_truth.2C_misuse_of_evidence
The Faurisson affair

In 1979, Robert Faurisson published a book which claimed the gas chambers at Auschwitz did not exist. ..... He was then convicted of defamation and subjected to a fine and prison sentence. Chomsky was one of many who signed a petition to give Faurisson “free exercise of his legal rights”. Chomsky then wrote an essay called “Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression” in defense of freedom of speech. He claimed that Faurisson did not seem in his eyes to be a Nazi, saying he seemed to be "a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort". He admitted to ignorance on the content of Faurisson's work, saying that "I do not know his work very well." Nonetheless, he concluded, "largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him" that there was no basis for claiming Faurisson was either a neo-Nazi or an anti-Semite. He also argued that not believing in the Holocaust is not in itself proof of anti-Semitism (he later elaborated: “ if a person ignorant of modern history were told of the Holocaust and refused to believe that humans are capable of such monstrous acts, we would not conclude that he is an anti-Semite”).

......

Chomsky's statement that “I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust.” has resulted in his critics describing him as sympathetic to holocaust denial. Werner Cohn's book “Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers” (ISBN 0964589702) <44> being a prime example. Chomsky has replied to Werner Cohn's allegations once, in a thousand-word open letter that concludes: “That Cohn is a pathological liar is demonstrated by the very examples that he selects.”

......

In the 1992 film “Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media”, Professor Chomsky defends himself, explaining that he took up defense of Faurisson when he was taken to court: “I do not think the state ought to have the right to determine historical truth and to punish people who deviate from it. I'm not willing to give the state that right...” A student, interrupting, asks: “Do you deny that gas chambers existed?” Chomsky replies: “Of course not, but I'm saying that if you believe in freedom of speech then you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like, I mean Goebbels was in favour of freedom of speech for views he liked, right, so was Stalin. If you're in favour of freedom of speech that means you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise, otherwise you're not in favour of freedom of speech.”

[geek tragedy]

213. Chomsky said there was "no basis" for calling Faurisson pro-Nazi

and anti-Semitic.

That's a stinking lie.

[tommcintyre]

215. So I'm a Chomskyite, Clintonista, etc, and you're a Rovebot?

I have exposed myself to some of Chomsky's work, and agree with many of his points; but disagree with others.

I voted for Clinton (twice); but am very unhappy with some of his DLC (pro-corporate) mistakes he made.

You have come out against Chomski on some points. I'm sure Karl Rove agrees with you. So you must be a Rovebot?

Can you see how incredibly stupid it is to paint people with such a broad brush because they support one or more positions of an individual?

[geek tragedy]

223. There are people (like you) who say that his points have some merit.

Then there are those who say "Noam Chomsky is AWESOME! He sees and speaks truths that very few other people can even grasp! Noam Chomsky can do or speak no wrong!"

He's a sacred cow for many--and sacred cows make the best hamburger.

[geek tragedy]

37. Robert Faurisson's book. Chomsky signed an appalling

petition on his behalf and denied that this Holocaust denier with links to Neo-Nazi groups was anti-semitic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_Affair

Petition text (remember, this is for a lying Nazi propagandist):

<snip>
Dr. Robert Faurisson has served as a respected professor of twentieth-century French literature and document criticism for over four years at the University of Lyon-2 in France. Since 1974 he has been conducting extensive historical research into the "Holocaust" question.

Since he began making his findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to a vicious campaign of harassment, intimidation, slander and physical violence in a crude attempt to silence him. Fearful officials have even tried to stop him from further research by denying him access to public libraries and archives.

We strongly protest these efforts to deprive Professor Faurisson of his freedom of speech and expression, and we condemn the shameful campaign to silence him.

We strongly support Professor Faurisson's just right of academic freedom and we demand that university and government officials do everything possible to ensure his safety and the free exercise of his legal rights.
<snip>

Yep, that's right. Chomsky signed a petition that questions the existence of the Holocaust.

About Faurisson, the pig-filth author, Chomsky states:

<snip>
Let me add a final remark about Faurisson's alleged "anti-Semitism." . . . is it true that 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. <9>
<snip>

[iconoclastNYC]

40. You must hate the ACLU

They fight for the right to burn the flag and the rights of the KKK afterall.

Chomsky was fighting for freedom of speech. PERIOD.

[geek tragedy]

64. They don't sign petitions that question whether the Holocaus happened.

Nor do they deny that Nazi Holocaust-deniers are anti-semitic, or describe Nazi Holocaust deniers as "apolitical liberals."

[K-W]

68. Nor did Chomsky.

He supports freedom of speech only.

He didnt deny that Holocaust-deniers as a group are not anti-semetic, he denied that you could conclude that someone was an anti-semite knowing only that they disagree with mainstream history on the holocaust. That, this fact alone doesnt garuntee a racist motive.

[geek tragedy]

82. Chomksy said that Holocaust denial has NO ANTI-SEMITIC IMPLICATIONS.

No serious person really believes that statement. If you hear someone stating that the Holocaust is a myth, OF COURSE you're going to suspect them of anti-semitism.

[K-W]

87. No, he didnt say that.

He said that it is possible to be wrong about the history of the holocaust without being an anti-semite, he didnt deny that holocaust denial was in most cases related to anti-semitism.

[geek tragedy]

92. "I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas

chambers or even the denial of the Holocaust."

Those are his words.

[K-W]

100. Those are some of his words that you cherrypicked.

And I have already explained to you how you are misreading them.

[geek tragedy]

110. The words speak for themselves. He did not say that Holocaust denial

was less than absolute proof. He said that Holocaust denial had "no implications" of anti-semitism. I understand the difference. Presumably an eminent linguist would as well.

[K-W]

123. I have explained this to you several times.

Yet you continue to refuse to consider the quote in context.

[geek tragedy]

136. His context was to defend an anti-semite against charges of anti-semitism.

Anyone who's read the book in question or knows anything about Faurisson knows he's a Jew-baiting pig.

http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/VidalNaquet81b/

<snip>
1. The preface in question partakes of a rather new genre in the republic of letters. Indeed, Noam Chomsky has read neither the book he prefaced, nor the previous works of the author, nor the criticisms addressed to them, and he is incompetent in the field they deal with: "I have nothing to say here about the work of Robert Faurisson or his critics, of which I know very little, or about the topics they address, concerning which I have no special knowledge."<5> These are indeed remarkable qualifications. But since he needs to be able to affirm a proposition and its opposite, Chomsky nonetheless proclaims, a few pages further on, his competence. Faurisson is accused of being an anti-Semite: "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 " (Preface, p. xv). He has also read his critics, specifically my article in Esprit (September 1980), and even the personal letters I sent to him on the subject, "a private correspondence which it would be inappropriate to cite in detail here." A fine case of scruples, and a fine example as well of double language, since Chomsky did not realize that the book he was prefacing contained unauthorized reproductions of a series of personal letters,<6> and he himself does arrogate the right of summarizing (while falsifying) my own letters. I shall simply say to him: "Kindly publish-- I give you my authorisation-- the entirety of that correspondence. It will then be possible to judge whether you are qualified to give me lessons in intellectual honesty."

2. Chomsky-the-Janus-faced has thus read Faurisson and not read him, read his critics and not read them. Let us consider the issues in logical order. What has he read of Faurisson which allows him to bestow so fine a certificate? For is he not "a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort" (pp. xiv- xv)? Since Chomsky refers to nothing in support of this, it is impossible to know, and I shall simply say: Faurisson's personal anti-Semitism, in fact, interests me rather little. It exists and I can testify to it, but it is nothing compared with the anti- Semitism of his texts. 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?
<snip>


He said "no implications." That term has a meaning, regardless of what Chomsky's cultists try to maintain.

[papau]

90. Quelques commentaires élémentaires sur le droit à la liberté d'expression

Chomsky composed Quelques commentaires élémentaires sur le droit à la liberté d'expression, "Some elementary comments concerning the right of free expression."

And indeed In it he declared that everyone should have the right of free speech, including fascists and anti-Semites.

What you forget is that he then says in the rest of the 2500 words that Faurisson is never a fascists and anti-Semites - and is best described as "a sort of apolitical liberal."

Chomsky does then say that his views are "diametrically opposed to those of Faurisson."

But perhaps - in context - folks are correct to see this last statement as not a "truth"

[K-W]

46. You are lying.

The petition supports the freedom of speech, not holocuast denial.

And all Chomsky is saying is that being wrong about history isnt alone proof of anti-semitism.

[Bouncy Ball]

182. Best, most succinct post on this sub-thread.

Thanks for nailing it!

[geek tragedy]

196. Why did Chomsky LIE about Faurisson by calling him an "apolitical

liberal" and stating that his work contained nothing anti-Semitic?

Do you think that apolitical liberals write that the Holocaust was a giant Zionist hoax and that Jews were responsible for WWII?

Noam Chomsky does.

Do you think apolitical liberals consider Anne Frank's diary to be a hoax and that the Nazis made Jews wear Gold Stars . . . to protect German troops?

Noam Chomsky does.

[papau]

Well said :-) Only when being anti-Zionist does Chomsky go nuts and

reject his ability with logic in favor of doing a dump on Israel.

His early years rejecting all sides as just being variations on the upper class screwing the common man (Allies vs Nazi) seems to have calmed down in the last few years, although he still says that (and in some part I agree with him - but it is hard to get him to admit that there can be large large differences between the two sides that are worth a person on the left giving his all for).

[geek tragedy]

228. He also has trouble condemning Nazi Germany and the USSR as

especially dangerous and oppressive entities--because then the need to combat such entities would form an alternative narrative to his view that EVERYTHING the US does is about power, domination, greed, and evil.

[papau]

239. True - but that is part of the elites control everything on both sides

which in moderation I agree with - but it is still a long way from the "economic slavery" of the US to the horrors of the USSR and Nazi Germany.

[GeekMonkey]

53. This doesnt show he supported the author's premise

only his right to state the premise


a classic non starter

[geek tragedy]

67. The petition questioned whether the Holocaust happened.

Chomsky also defended Faurisson--claiming he was an "apolitical liberal" who showed "no signs" of being anti-semitic.

[K-W]

72. That is a lie.

The petition was about freedom of speech.

He didnt defend anyone, he took issue with the logic that holocaust deial is always evidence of anti-semitism.

Chomsky's stance on the academic himself is that he should be ignored because his ideas are wrong.

[geek tragedy]

74. The petition referred to the "Holocaust" question. That is revisionist

speech.

Chomsky, great intellectual that he is, denies that Holocaust denial is a sign of anti-semitism.

Which is pure idiocy.

[K-W]

76. You continue to spread false information.

The petition may have referred to the holocaust issue, but signing it was not endorsing any position on the holocuast.

Chomsky made a perfectly logical argument that you are pretending was outrageous.

[geek tragedy]

80. They put scare quotes around "Holocaust." Do you think that

Holocaust denial has NO anti-semitic implications? Would the fact that someone's a Holocaust-denier be any kind of evidence that they don't like Jews in your book?

[K-W]

85. It would be circumstantial evidence. Not concrete evidence.

Which is the only point Chomsky is making. You would nead more evidence to PROVE that someone was anti-semitic, since a mistake about history could be reached without racism.

If you want to know Chomsky's opinion on the holocaust, he has made it clear in many speeches and text.

[geek tragedy]

94. So you agree that it's inaccurate to say that there are NO implications

of anti-semitism in Holocaust denial.

In fact, I suspect that if Pat Buchanan or David Duke had said that, your reaction would be much different.

Btw, you know that Holocaust denial essentially calls the surviving Jews of Europe a bunch of liars, right? It's per se anti-semitism.

[K-W]

117. No, I dont agree, because you are using the word differently.

Chomsky was speaking of what you can imply about a person simply because they as individuals deny or question facts about the holocaust.

Think of it this way. One could believe in the holocaust, one could agree with the mainstream numbers, but simply beleive that the Jews were shot, not gassed.

Would someone who made this historical mistake be an anti semite?

[geek tragedy]

125. No. But that is a much different dispute than denying the Nazis

engaged in a campaign to wipe out Jews and implicitly claiming that the concentration camp survivors are a bunch of damn liars.

The fact of the Holocaust is so overwhelmingly proved and established by the historical record that it takes a willful disregard for the truth to believe it didn't happen.

As a matter of law in several countries such as the UK, Canada, France, and Germany, no honest person can claim the Holocaust didn't happen.

It is fair to presume that anyone who denies the Holocaust has a sinister ideological agenda.

[tommcintyre]

210. It was purely a stand on the principle of free speech, no more.

One of those, "I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," things.

Ignore it. It is a case where his honesty/integrity is used against him.

Very sad.

[geek tragedy]

229. It wasn't an act of integrity to downplay the racist and pro-Nazi

implications of the Holocaust denial movement and of Faurisson himself.

As I've noted, he could have just said "Well, Faurisson is a racist, fascist Jew-baiting asshole, but even racist, fascist, Jew-baiting assholes are protected by principles of free speech.

Instead, he produced evasive, shifty, and willfully blind pronouncements of Faurisson being an "apolitical liberal" whose work showed "no sign" of anti-Semitism.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

18. Ummmmmmmmmmm

that is an interesting impression of the man..........

[rooboy]

22. One quick search seems to indicate that YOU are the liar.

Chomsky didn't write the foreword to a book denying the Holocaust - the author TOOK a Chomsky essay and USED it as the foreword to his book. Chomsky doesn't deny the Holocaust at all - he just defends the right of free speech for everyone, including Holocaust deniers if necessary.

At least I now know enough to put you on ignore and not Chomsky.

[Incitatus]

25. Chomsky

Another RW character assassination trick, why am I not surprised.

[geek tragedy]

39. He called the Nazi author an "apolitical liberal" who showed

no signs of anti-semitism. The petition he signed questioned whether the Holocaust ever happened. It was filth.

[alarcojon]

78. We really should ignore people who don't know what they're

talking about. David Horowitz, is that you? :eyes:

[Moochy]

140. ROFL David Horowitz

You mean Ingored? He posts all over this thread...
:rofl:

[geek tragedy]

143. Oh please. Do you think Brad DeLong is a rightwinger too?

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Politics/chomsky.html

Chomsky is shunned by liberals as well as conservatives.

[Bouncy Ball]

183. And another very good post that sums up

this sub-thread nicely!

:thumbsup:

[K-W]

36. You are spreading right wing propaganda and lies.

There is nothing deceptive about his writing. He presents evidence and makes arguments. If you dont agree with his arguments, fine, but he is perfectly upfront about his ideas.

I dare you to find one case where he made a morally bankrupt decision or claim.

As far as the Khamer Rouge/French Resistance, please find me the actual quote and we can see just how morally bankrupt it is.

As far as the book forward, that is just a lie.

Noam Chomsky wrote an essay about freedom of speech because the author of the book in question was being charged in France with presenting a false history. Chomsky agrees that the history he presented was false, but doesnt think any government has the right to enforce a version of history. He thinks it is a violation of the freedom of speech. The editor of the volume included that essay about free speech which had nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the book.

[geek tragedy]

75. Do you think that Holocaust denial is evidence of anti-semitism?

Noam Chomsky doesn't. Which makes him a loon.

[Bouncy Ball]

184. You refuse to really comprehend what people are writing to you.

Which makes you a know-nothing with a complete lack of reading comprehension.

Your lies are not working here, there's obviously too much truth in this thread for you to combat effectively.

Maybe a forum where people don't know anything about Chomsky might swallow this stuff.

[geek tragedy]

197. No, there's a lot of denial and mindless worship of a charlatan.

Would you say that a person who calls the Holocaust a myth invented by Jews, says that Jews started World War II, says that Anne Frank's diary was a hoax, and says that the Nazis made Jews wear Gold Stars in order to keep German soldiers safe--would you describe such a person as an "apolitical liberal" whose work shows "no signs of anti-Semitism."

Noam Chomsky does.

The fact that you can't defend such practice without resorting to non sequiturs indicates your blind faith.

[rinsd]

153. Here's a pretty even handed look at Chomsky and the Khmer Rouge

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

[K-W]

165. Doesnt seem at all evenhanded to me. EOM

[H5N1]

38. He wants all countries in the Middle East treated fairly

What could possibly be wrong with that?

[Wetzelbill]

49. He didn't support the content of the book, just the man's right

to speak freely. He's said he don't agree with the author's conclusions, but he supports free speech and his forward was about free speech not the content of the book.

[geek tragedy]

69. Do you agree with this statement:

"I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust."

[semillama]

88. What Choamsky likely is saying here is:

that you can't automatically jump from an assertion that the holocaust didn't exist to an anti-semitic motive. He is saying that you cannot automatically assume one stems from the other based on the information available to him at the time. You need more information. While highly unlikely, it is within the realm of speculation that the author, bearing no ill will towards Jews, finds evidence to deny the Holocaust compelling. This is based solely on a cursory glance at what the fuss is about.

Now, this is not saying that the author is not an anti-semite, nor that the Holocaust did not happen. The Holocaust did happen, and as far as I know, this guy is probably an anti-semite. But I agree with Choamsky that he shouldn't be censored for his views.

Of course, this will all be interpreted as me defending a holocaust denier and being an anti-semite.

[Wetzelbill]

132. "WILL BE INTERPRETED "is not the same as "DEFENDING"

therefore you are a loon and Chomsky is an anti-dentite. :sarcasm:

[semillama]

179. "Dentists secretly run the country!" n/t

[Kathy in Cambridge]

240. A RABID anti-dentite

:rofl:

[geek tragedy]

172. Chomsky also defended Faurisson himself against charges

of anti-semitism.

His excuse for spreading such bullshit? That he really had no idea what he was talking about, never having read the guy's work or bothering to learn anything about him.

Some public intellectual. He and Horowitz are mirror images of each other.

[Wetzelbill]

99. yeah I do, I see none in that either

Pure stupidity, but not necessarily anti-semitism.

Teddy Roosevelt said no indigenous people in the history of the world were treated as well as American Indians. He denied a genocide ever took place. Does that make him racist against Indians? No, it makes him ignorant of history, but not a racist. (I am an Indian, btw)

Jewish people often deny the Palestinian Exodus, the denial of it doesn't necessarily mean they are racist, they just have a ignorant or biased view of it.

Hey the guy's book is total shit, I agree. But, it doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to put forth his research on the subject and speak his mind on it. It also doesn't necessarily mean Chomsky supports the author's opinions if he supports the man's right to say what he wants. The guy takes the historical view that the Holocaust didn't exist. That isn't necessarily anti-semitic on its own. Now if the guy wrote that the holocaust didn't exist, but Jews were filthy rats that needed to be exterminated, then that is anti-semitism no doubt. But he doesn't.

You and I never quite see eye to eye do we? :)

[geek tragedy]

104. Do you agree that there are NO IMPLICATIONS OF ANTI-SEMITISM

in Holocaust denial.

"No implications" is not the same thing as "not absolute proof."

Being a linguist, he should know the difference.

[Wetzelbill]

121. yeah, you know it all

you win.

[geek tragedy]

142. Look up "implication" in a dictionary. I know that much.

Either Chomsky doesn't know what "implication" means or he made an intellectually and morally indefensible statement.

[bornskeptic]

160. Let's do that.

implication
1.The act of implicating or the condition of being implicated.
2.The act of implying or the condition of being implied.
3.Something that is implied, especially:
a.An indirect indication; a suggestion.
b.An implied meaning; implicit significance.
c.An inference. See Usage Note at infer.

imply
1.To involve by logical necessity; entail: Life implies growth and death.
2.To express or indicate indirectly: His tone implied disapproval.
3.Obsolete. To entangle.

http://dictionary.reference.com/

It's clear to me that Chomsky is using the first meaning of imply, while you seem to think he is using the second.

[geek tragedy]

164. Chomsky's full quotes:

(Remember, Faurisson is a NOTORIOUS Jew-hater. That fact is not disputed by anyone nowadays.)

"Let me add a final remark about Faurisson's alleged "anti-Semitism." . . . is it true that 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."

"I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust. . . . I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson's work."

Faurisson suggests that the Germans made Jews wear Gold Stars . . . to protect German soldiers. Guess who Faurisson blames for WWII? That's right, The JOOOOOOOOOS!

Chomsky is a liar.

[Sparkman]

194. This poster is misrepresenting Noam Chomsky's views, period. Ignore.

[geek tragedy]

195. Do not address arguments. Keep drinking Kool Aid. Nooooaaaam.

Nooaaaaamm.

As Prof. DeLong noted, debating Chomsky Cultists is like teaching Plato to pigs: you won't accomplish anything except annoying the pig.

[Ron Green]

65. It's spelled "foreword." n/t

[Nederland]

114. Don't forget his Afghan lies

where he claimed that the US was systematically starving Afghan civilians when it was in fact supporting the Red Cross efforts to feed people.

[geek tragedy]

209. He used the term "silent genocide." Oops. eom

[Rich Hunt]

146. excuse me...

But he never defended a Holocaust denier - only that person's right to freedom of expression.

Good lord, the gossip lines are lighting up today.

Another day, another 50 pieces of misinformation leaking out.

[geek tragedy]

227. There are about fifty posts in this thread with quotes from him

contradicting you.

[Bouncy Ball]

180. I'm not a "Chomskyite" and I can see geek tragedy's attack

for EXACTLY what it is.

Anyone else smell that putrid smell in here?

Yep.

[Name removed]

214. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bouncy Ball]

218. Contribute to trying to get you to

disentangle your brain from all those right-wing memes?

I see others here have had a good go at it. And something still stinks around here. It happens whenever a right wing screed turns up.

[geek tragedy]

222. Noam Chomsky is not the personification of the progressive movement.

Many progressives and liberals reject his hokum.

Sorry, missy, but I'm not a Stepford DU'er like you.

[Bouncy Ball]

230. WHO SAID HE WAS?

LOL!!! The OP asks why he's not on TV more and you sit there saying we are saying he is the "personification of the progressive movement???"

Dude. Reading. Comprehension. Look into it.

:rofl:

[geek tragedy]

233. Seriously, take your harassment and your accusations of me

being rightwing and shove them. God, I have absolutely no use for Stepford lefties.

[Bouncy Ball]

238. And I have no use for

people like you thinking they are flying under the radar.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

242. Amen, sister!

:yourock:

[Sparkman]

192. How many, please name, books of Noam Chomsky's have you read?

I have read:
TURNING THE TIDE, US INTERVENTION IN CENTRAL AMERICA AND THE STRUGGLE FOR PEACE.

911

Both are so envolved, so grand in their scope, that maybe some minor percentage of Noam's facts are erroneous, BUT PLEASE DON'T CONDEM THE GUY UNLESS YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE SUBJECT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.
AND if you haven't read Chomsky, shame.

[bryant69]

5. He's not good television?

I personally don't agree with Chomsky all that often - but it is wierd when someone like Ann Coulter can get on TV and someone like him is shut out. There are two possible answers - one is a consistent effort to keep smart passionate liberals off the air (in favor of hollywood celebreties and moderate reporter types). The second is that he might not be good television.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[iconoclastNYC]

20. Good point.

I agree with both your points, he isnt that great in person. He kinda mumbles in interviews. On live tv or taped live tv he'd be aweful. And lets not forget he's not american, he's russian i believe, and he's this old man with grey hair who's not has his face pulled 3x to remain 'telegenic'

[Minstrel Boy]

34. Maybe the problem is your television.

I've seen many extended interviews with him on Canadian television, and he's a compelling guest.

That Ann Coulter can be called "good television," if even only for her freak entertainment value, says to me the problem lies with the American military-infotainment complex, not Chomsky.

[bryant69]

43. Ah

Well to each their own. But someone telling you something you already agree with is automatically good televison (for you). The question is whether it translates to a larger audience.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Minstrel Boy]

61. Well

I see your point, but without wanting to sound snotty about it, there is a qualitative difference between the information programming on American and Canadian television. (And, so I'm led to believe, between information programming on American television and that of the rest of the industrialized world.)

It may be an exceptional event when an intellectual gets airtime in the United States, but not most other places.

[endarkenment]

6. ok so have you read any of his books?

I like noam, I like what he has to say, but damn his books are nearly unreadable.

On the other hand why would the MSM care to publicize a guy who has been pointing out and documenting just what whores they are for the last 20 years?

[iconoclastNYC]

24. Which books?

I've read 5 and except for "Manufacturing Consent", they are all good.

Are you talking about his books on linguistics? I've never read any of those but I bet they are boring as hell like most esoteric subjects tend to be.

"Profit Over People" has got to be one of the best attacks on the neo-liberal economic order, also known as the "Washington Consensus". It's less than 200 pages if I remember. It took me about 3 days to read.

[endarkenment]

31. its just my opinion

I find his earlier books (the manufacturing consent era) almost impossible to read. The later stuff is better. Like I said, I like what he has to say, I just have a hard time getting through it. Last book of his I read was Hegemony or Survival and I thought it was both not a very good read and not nearly as good as Sorrow of Empire (Chalmers Johnson) or Imperial Hubris (anonyomous but everyone knows who he is) that covered the same ground.

[Wetzelbill]

54. Have you read "The Managua Lectures: Power and Ideology?"

That is a great book. Flat out amazing. I may have gotten the title a bit off, but if you look up Chomsky and see a similar title like that, I highly recommend it.

[CoffeeAnnan]

29. My favorite among Chomsky's works is Manufacturing Consent,

a gereat deconstruction of how our media perceives its role as the gatekeepers of accepted terms of discourse!

[iconoclastNYC]

44. I read a third of it.

And was just overwhelmed with the redundancy. How far do you have to go to prove something? He made his point in the first three chapters.

There is a documentary on it tho that is much more compelling....i downloaded it from EMULE.

[Wetzelbill]

55. I own the Doc

It's not bad. Redundant though, as you said. It is good though.

[K-W]

57. Making good arguments and being ignored produces redudency

at least in my writing experience.

[Village Idiot]

51. Read "Hegemony or Survival - America's Quest for Global Dominance"

Eminently readable...an outrage on every page...

"I lauged, I cried..."

"I cried some more..."

"I wept uncontrollably until I fell down and collapsed in a paroxism of RAGE!"

[endarkenment]

56. As I said elsewhere

I read that, it was better than some of his earlier books, but I found Imperial Hubris and Sorrow of Empire much better.

[Wetzelbill]

52. you have to be pretty well versed in a subject before you read them

too. He's not for everybody. For example, if you know nothing about the Arab-Israeli conflict and you pick up "Fateful Triangle" then you are completely in the dark within a few pages. I did that, and I knew a little about the Arab-Israeli Conflict too. It took me months of my own private study, plus a college course before I even knew what he was talking about, haha.

[endarkenment]

147. I'm generally pretty well versed

it isn't that the books in question were over my head or left me in the dark, these were not books on linguistics, it was that they were bloody tedious reads, and I'm in general agreement with most of his positions and ideas. Those books are eye-stoppers. Snore-o-matics. Manufacturing Consent is a prime example. As somebody else mentioned: by the third chapter he'd run out of anything to say. Unfortunately he didn't also run out of pages on which to say it. His later books get better.

[Wetzelbill]

152. oh I didn't mean to imply that you were I was......

just sort of adding that on to what you were saying. I understood that you meant they were boring. What I was getting at was that in addition to some of his books being dry a person needs to have some knowledge on the topic beforehand otherwise they won't get it. It was meant to kind of get back to the OP's question of why he is shut out of the media. Because he can be a boring and difficult read. That was what I was getting at. My bad if you thought I was saying you weren't prepared enough to read them. Not my intention at all. Yes, his later books are much better to read. He ones when they transcribe his interviews are very easy to read, in fact.

[endarkenment]

156. ok so we are in violent agreement

and besides now that this thread has descended into vomiting up the rightwing attack on noam, I've changed my mind:

All of chomsky's books are the most thrilling exciting books I've ever read.

[Wetzelbill]

158. it got ugly pretty fast huh?

Chomsky is a vital voice, for sure. Really, it's best to get a solid view on a subject from several different sources, then put it all together and figure it out yourself. I can't see why people get so jacked up about Chomsky. He brings out the worst in the people who don't like him. Gosh, the guy is just presenting his view and he backs it up with research. Well, anyway, it was nice reading your replies and all. take it easy.

[lizzieforkerry]

7. The right wing has spent years convincing people

that liberals were too intellectual and that was a bad thing. I've been told David Brock's book does a good job explaining this but I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

[iconoclastNYC]

17. That book is great

I just read it a month ago.

I didn't really see a focus on anti-intellectualism in the book, more like that the new neo-cons were emergent because of some sort of cliquey type thing that they were the cool conservatives and that paleocons just didn't get it.

Brock's friends were all the upper echelons of neoconservatives. I think those people breed the anti-intellectualism in the ran and file red state people. Brock's friends were all highly educated members of the media and think tanks, etc.

For a good book on the right-wing fanning the flames on anti-intellectualism check out "Whats the mater with kansas"

[lizzieforkerry]

27. I think I got my author's confused

I was referring to What's the Matter with Kansas. Who wrote it?

[iconoclastNYC]

28. Thomas Frank

and excellent read....gets a little redundant at the end.

[lizzieforkerry]

33. Thank you..So much to read, so little time!!

[iconoclastNYC]

8. To answer what is no doubt a rhetorical question....

He's critical of the ruling elite. He speaks trutfully about the CIA (big no-no), he criticizes the MSM, he knows the true history regarding our foreign policy adventurism.

And he does so in a very dispassionate, calm, logical, and EFFECTIVE manner. He doesn't fit into the looney left stereotype.

He's dangerous.

[Wetzelbill]

60. Right, very right, Dangerous is the proper term

My professor, who used to be the Ambassador to Oman and also worked under both Jay Garner and Jerry Bremer in Iraq, told me that Chomsky was a dangerous writer. He said this after I wrote a paper about Iraq, Neo-cons and privatization. He said, that if I stayed a little more logical and calm, I could be a dangerous writer like Chomsky. He called him "dangerous" in a complimentary way, my prof was against the Iraq war, but he's such a respected expert on the Middle East that he was asked to help with the Iraqi reconstruction. Not a war-hawk but pretty much a state department/academic foreign policy type. Not quite status quo, but not overly liberal either.

Chomsky doesn't fit the loony stereotype because he is virually irrefutable. His body of evidence and research is massive. Now that's not to say that he isn't one-sided. Of course he is. What he does is he takes a point of view and proves it. It's a way of trying to keep our leaders honest. And, he does his best at it too. If he's ignored it's not his fault.

[bullimiami]

9. it shows how very rightwing our media is and has been

for a very long time.

he is one of the few honest people who dare to speak the truth about our government.
the truth is not always pretty.

too bad our minds are not as free as our society supposedly is.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

16. Because Noam

talks about ideas that make most people uncomfortable. The American way of life is not something we enjoy strictly because we reside on this North American continent. He pierces the veil of corporate imperialism, disguised as 'global marketing'. He exposes how our government is co-opted by these corporate interests. How it is assisted by the mightiest military ever seen on earth. None of these things make for easy after dinner conversation.
I agree with him, when I can follow what he's saying, that is! :)
That's my take anyhow...........

[Dakini23]

35. Liberal Media???

I overheard this woman at work talking about how "liberal" the media was and that we shouldn't listen to the lies the media is spewing about the Iraq war and President Bush. She said our president is doing a "great job" and that the war in Iraq is justified and the Americans are liberating the Iraqis and that things are going great there and they have a real democratic future now.

I couldn't believe what I was hearing? Like what planet is she on? Like what delusional drugs was she taking? The media is anything but liberal. The only place you can see people like Chomsky, Zinn, Arundhati Roy, Bill Moyers and my favorite leftist...Amy Goodman (who I had the pleasure of meeting in Las Vegas at a booksigning, of all places :)) Is on Democracy NOW! Link TV Channel 375 Dish Network and the only channel worth watching on TV.

[htuttle]

19. He asks questions we aren't allowed to ask on TV

Questions that go to the heart of our so-called social contract and whether government has the 'consent of the governed'. Especially when that 'consent' can be so easily manufactured by PR agencies and the media.

Phil Donahue stated after his show was cancelled that he was directed to have 2 conservatives on the show for every 'liberal'. Phil himself counted as 2 liberals. By that standard, I imagine that Chomsky would count as about 6-10 liberals, thus requiring a panel of 12-20 conservatives to successfully restore 'balance', and that's too many guests for a one hour show.

[Just Me]

30. Because he pierces through the illusions. n/t

[Village Idiot]

41. Because you are NOT allowed to bad-mouth Israel in the USA.

How DARE He?

It's a sad and tragic fact these days that ANY US-Israel detractor soon finds himself a pariah...

[iconoclastNYC]

47. Another good point.

Any criticism of Isreal is anti semetic.

Focusing on the Isreali history of spying on the USA is conspiracy-theory mongering.

And everyone knows the Isreali occupation of arab lands (in violation of UN Security Council orders) has nothing to do with middle eastern terror or instablity.

[question everything]

115. More of an excuse

but you need to learn more about the history of that part of the word.. for example, that the Kingdom of Jordan annexed the west bank, yes, in violation of a UN resolution, but you did not hear any complains around the world and, had there be a similar message board back in the early 50s, I doubt that you would be so indignant.

Or that the Palestinians living in the Gaza strip under Egypt did not have any nationality, could not even migrate anyplace without a passport.

There would be muslim extreme and attacks today, but they would find another excuse. Bin Laden started his terror attacks against the U.S. because - he said - he did not like the U.S. presence in the Saudi Arabia. Again, terrorists will be terrorist because they cannot or choose not to live simple life of earning a living and raising a family, perhaps cannot do this for the miserable conditions in their homelands, because being a terrorist is so much more macho and full of glory. This is why terrorists can never settle down, even when their so-called demands have been met. Working for a living and paying bills is just so much boring. This is why Arafat could never settle down, no matter what was offered to him.

And this, really, is true for terrorists all over the globe - Japan, Peru, Indonesia and other countries.

But, hey, like terrorists who simplify their "cause" by complaining about Israel and U.S. occupation, so do members on this board.

I did not follow all the messages after the London attacks, was Israel blamed?

[iconoclastNYC]

150. Who was it that taught terrorism to the Muslims?

How did the zionists gain thier jewish state from the British? By blowing crap up!

Yeah you can't ever do anything about terrorism! Thats why the IRA is still blowing things up in the U.K. and ETA in Spain is also now a bigger problem than ever.

[Behind the Aegis]

151. The Jews taught the Muslims terrorism?

That's rich!

[question everything]

169. For lazy people who can just parrot what others say

and are too lazy to pick up some books and read, really read and learn.

Or even see the movie Lawrence of Arabia that describe how the Arabs were terrorizing the Ottoman Empire. Of course, he probably has no idea that the Ottoman Empire was there first.

Or about how the Mufti of Jerusalem was conspiring with Nazi Germany against the British. But, hey, in his/her warped logic, the British were bad an the Nazis were good.

[Lilith Velkor]

155. You have proven iconoclastNYC's point very nicely.

Thanks! :thumbsup:

[question everything]

170. Which is?

A lot easier, and the lazy man out, to reply in a monosyllable than to actually take the time to study and to offer a semi-intelligent reply.

But, hey, it is possilbe that for you intelligence is an unknown entity

[Lilith Velkor]

175. Anything is possible.

Alright, well, the gist of your message seems to be that those no good lazy rotten terrorists from the Middle East would be attacking us no matter what. And you blithely ignore the fact that the U.N. can't even say "that's wrong. please stop" to Israel because the U.S. vetos it every time.

I find a comparison of the present situation to anything that was going on in the early 50s, when most of us were not even born, to be asinine bordering on mendacious.

I see this sort of response all the time whenever the topic is Israel, this kneejerk "with us or with the terrorists" bullshit, and it's just so...childish. Blowing people up is wrong no matter whose team does it, OK?

Sheesh....

[mrfrapp]

45. Partly Self Imposed

Part of the reason you don't see Chomsky on television is because he refuses to take part in bullet point conversations. His opinions and ideas don't work as short soundbites and attempting to boil them down so that they are understandable to those viewers with 30 second attention spans only results in confusion and derision. Believe me the current situation is better. Mainstream exposure would only cause an increase in the sale of Chomsky pinatas.

[iconoclastNYC]

48. I agree with your point about soundbyting.

But for every person who hears him and wants to burn him in effigy maybe 2 people get exposure to his POV and get some unvarnished USA history .

[mrfrapp]

59. I don't disagree

I don't disagree but the problem with that is that he then becomes an object of derision and through association, his ideas would be derided and ridiculed almost without thought. As it is, the right wing can't effectively deride his ideas because very few people know what those ideas are.

It may be slower but it's safer for people to learn about Chomsky and the message by mediums other than network TV. That way, more people can discover why the media is failing us (Chomsky's most important message) without the point being obfuscated by soundbites and hyperbole.

Chomsky understands this and is why he doesn't play along.


If you haven't heard it already, have a listen to the debate between Chomsky and Richard Perle. It's fascinating to hear Perle, supposedly one of the brightests intellects in the neo-con firmament, resorting to ad-hominem and strawman attacks in a desperate attempt to ridicule Chomsky's argument. It's really quite brilliant how Chomsky demolishes Perle.

[iconoclastNYC]

148. Oh that sound juicy.

How can I find that Perle-Chomsky debate?

[mrfrapp]

157. Link

http://www.radio4all.net/index.php?op=program-info&program_id=8409

Enjoy!

[K-W]

50. Indeed, he knows bullshit beats truth in that format.

To truely understand US foriegn policy you need more than 30 second sound bites.

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. If you have not already done so--see the 1993 film

Manufacturing Consent:Noam Chomsky and the Media

It's a good introduction to Chomsky's thinking and answers most of the questions related to the smears against him and other problems with the media.

It's available for purchase at Amazon at:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005Y726/ref=cm_bg_d_27/103-6228440-6335067?v=glance

Also here is the link to his own (free) Audio/Visual library:

http://www.chomsky.info/audionvideo.htm

[julianer]

62. Here's a link

to the famous debate between Chomsky and Richard Perle from 1988.

Perle has to resort to saying that people who place any credence in the veracity of US government documents is foolish!

Definitely recommended listening for learnin' lefties.

[K-W]

66. Perle argues that people should refuse to educate themselves

and should make snap judgements based on thier preconcieved notions and government information. It is really quite amazing to hear that facist at work.

Chomsky argues: here is what I think, here is where I got the information, please go read it yourself and draw your own conclusions

Perle argues: Chomsky is a liar, dont read it yourself, assume you already know everything and take my word for the facts.

[Moochy]

139. Kinda like Faith

Take in on faith that he denies the holocaust, oh and he has horns and eats babies.

[rman]

102. actual links...

http://www.radio4all.net/dl.php/01162004_chomskyperle_1.mp3?file_id=15798&protocol=http&
http://www.radio4all.net/dl.php/01162004_chomskyperle_2.mp3?file_id=15799&protocol=http&

http://www.chomsky.info/audionvideo.htm

[K-W]

63. BTW, there is hope. Read this Chomsky article:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20050704.htm

The thing that suprises me is that none of the information or arguments is new. There is a tremendous amount of resources on the left that didnt exist before, so we dont have to rely on a few voices in the wilderness for the facts the government doesnt want us to have.

It used to be that if you wanted to know how the US was lying its way to war you had to dig up dissidant literature, now we have a vibrant community discussing these issues.

And for those on this thread trying to marginalize Chomsky, notice that his arguments here arent really any different than his older arguments. It was just that before he was one of the only people making that argument.

[flordehinojos]

71. because the art of dumbing down america has been a long tradition with the

bush/pierce family:

"Marvin Pierce, was then vice president of McCall Corporation, publisher of Redbook and McCall's magazines. After his daughter joined the banking oligarchy by marrying into the Bush family (1945), Pierce became McCall's chief executive. Pierce and his magazine's theme of `` Togetherness ''--stressing family social existence divorced from political, scientific, artistic or creative activities--played a role in the cult of conformity and mediocrity which crushed U.S. mental life in the 1950s."

the above quote is from webster tarpley and anton chaitkin
"George Bush the Unauthorized Biography"

and the theme of togetherness ...wow! hasn't that been the golden rule for the bush boys ... they are so into the togetherness that both boys (george and jeb) share one brain and almost the exact same political words, although jeb's speech pattern is more complete than george's they repeat the same message coming out of the one brain.

[papau]

79. Chomsky challenges "guilt by association" by associating with Nazi types

He Plugs as free speech the neo-Nazi Holocaust-denying folks, yet he never questions the science, describing his own professed view that the Holocaust occurred as mere "oppion"..

Indeed he is over the top anti-Israel to the point he mis-represents the very real Deir Yassin atrocity (over 200 non-combatant Arabs killed) and refuses to note the military force in Deir Yassin and the warning given the civilian population, preferring to go with the view that it was a totally unprovoked killing by totally sadistic Jewish types. Indeed the 48 War begins and ends with Deir Yassin for Chomsky, as he never mentions that three days after Deir Yassin, seventy-seven Jewish doctors, nurses, and associated university personnel, traveling in a Red Cross convoy, were killed by an Arab ambush. Yet he while notes the Arab terrorism in Hebron and more than a hundred women and children killed (in the 30's??? - I am writing from memory here) and indeed uses that writing to show his lack of bias - he in his Hebron writings notes a WEEK EARLIER demonstration at the Wall that annoyed ( and thereby justified?) the Arabs a week later in the deaths of the innocents at Hebron.

Indeed Chomsky is of the view that all institutions are the same in their attempt to put down the common man -a classic "it is OK to vote for Bush because there is no difference between GOP and Democratic Party members".

I like Chomsky a lot - his heart is for the common man and he can be one of the best logical thinkers around. But he is a nut too, IMHO, when it comes to Israel, and his idea that those on the left need only whine and need not vote or be active in politics.

[Jack Rabbit]

84. To make way from Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter

I thought everybody knew that.

[rman]

91. see/read "Manufacturing Consent",

where Chomsky mentions various reasons.
One is that TV guests have to conform to "concision" - the ability to say what you have to say in between two commercials. That's easy with anything that is conventional wisdom, but impossible for anything that is not conventional wisdom. Trying anyway makes you sound "like you're from Neptune".

Still Chomsky is a somewhat of a regular guest in the non- (or not-so) mainstream media such as Democracy Now, AAR Majority Report and various small public owned local media.
http://www.democracynow.org/search.pl?query=chomsky


transcript of "Manufacturing Consent" the docu:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/mc/index.cfm

about the book:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufacturing_Consent.html

also see
www.chomsky.info

[KittyWampus]

95. #1 He's A Lazy Intellect Who Relies On His Own Preconcieved Notions & Fits

everything into his rigid, unchanging framework.

#2 He's verbose and obtuse. If you really KNOW what you're saying and have fully processed information, you can express complex concepts in an approachable, concise manner (Think Paul Krugman).

[rman]

105. oh good, more RW spin

-

[alarcojon]

126. If you read some Chomsky

you'll notice that he is constantly asking the reader to check his facts - not to take his word at face value. You'll also notice that he overwhelmingly cites mainstream sources - New York Times, Washington Post, State Department documents, published academic works. And you'll notice that he puts forth hypotheses and tests them - for example in Manufacturing Consent he puts forth a testable hypothesis (his so-called propaganda model) and applies it to American foreign policy versus the foreign policy of our official enemies, and painstakingly documents the vast differences in how the American media treats the two situations. He is an excellent model for how to use your critical thinking skills and how to support your argument.

Is he perfect? Of course not - no one is. But the fact that the right spends so much effort trying to cherry-pick and distort his writings (see the Faurisson affair discussed above) should tell you something.

[K-W]

141. No, lazy intellects conform to the mainstream.

Chomsky is perfectly approachable and consise to me. And I bet I could find plenty of people who are baffled by Krugman, alot of this has to do with taste.

[Nederland]

109. Many reasons

You might want to read this blog and decide for yourself:

http://antichomsky.blogspot.com/

[rman]

118. don't forget to compare

Chomsky's own blog on zmag
http://blog.zmag.org/bloggers/?blogger=chomsky

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

130. I did. It's a right wing Zionist site that adores Bush.

It also calls leftist opposition to Israeli policies anti-semitism.

Crappola.

[alarcojon]

131. They refer to Chomsky as...

"one of the foremost apologists for mass murder and political oppression (when committed by the correct regimes, of course) of the second half of the twentieth century."

:rofl:

You might also reflect on the fact that the very name of the blog, and the subtitle this blog is dedicated to the permanent and total discrediting of the work of noam chomsky and his fellow travelers is a BIG tipoff that the author has taken sides and given up the pretense of objectivity.

You'll forgive me for declining to read further.

[Nederland]

135. Absolutely

The site is biased, as Chomsky himself is. I merely think that one should read both sides of an issue before passing judgment.

[alarcojon]

144. Everyone has some bias

but that is no reason to weigh both sides equally. You buy into standard right-wing talking points when you think that way. I have seen Chomsky "debate" Geraldo Rivera, for crying out loud. Might one side perhaps be a tad better informed than the other? Or what about when Paul Krugman "debated" Bill O'Splotchy?

I would ask you to compare Chomsky's lifetime accomplishments and intellectual standing to this blogger's. And I would ask you to factor in the fact that Chomsky is always imploring the reader to check things out on her own and not just take his word on anything.

I suppose that you could argue that Chomsky is dedicated to the permanent and total discrediting of the work of the BFEE and its fellow travelers, but then the BFEE has damaged the world about a billion times more seriously than anything Chomsky has ever done, even if I were to give your blogger some credit.

[Nederland]

163. Precisely my point

Chomsky is not, IMHO, a person that weighes both sides equally. He presents only those facts that support his arguments, and ignores those that do not.

For example, in What Uncle Sam Really Wants Chomsky begins with a summary of post WWII history, paying particular attention to an obscure document NSC 68 that proposed building a military strong enough to oppose the Soviet Union. From this document Chomsky continues to conclude that obviously the US had opposed the Soviet Union from the very start and is therefore largely responsible for escalating tensions that led to the Cold War.

Now Chomsky has his facts straight. There was a document NSC 68 that proposed the the US build up its military to oppose the Soviet Union. However, what is most compelling is not what Chomsky says, but what he fails to say. He fails to mention the treatment of former German prisoners, the Soviet coup in Czechoslovakia, and (most absurdly) the Soviet blockade of Berlin. How you can claim to summarize post WWII tensions between the US and the Soviet Union without even mentioning the Berlin blockade is beyond me. Its like writing about the Civil War and not mentioning slavery.

Now Chomsky is great in the sense that he digs unfamiliar things up that challenge the conventional wisdom. However, he fails to place information in a context that accurately portrays history. His is a one sided review of history where the US plays the part of a self serving oppressor. It is not at all balanced.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

111. Because he is an Anarchist that recognizes that power is the problem.

The media is part of the establishment power structure.

[WCGreen]

124. Both Chompsky and Zinn tend to stammer and go on

and on like college professors, which, of course, they are.

Neither is telegenic.......

That goes a long way into explaining why they are not featured on the Television....

But I also agree that these two are intelectually labeled "fringe" charactors by the Mainstream and that is an awful tough stream to fight against....

[geek tragedy]

127. For a breathtaking takedown of Chomsky the liar and fraud,

read this:

http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/VidalNaquet81b/

The author DESTROYS Chomsky.

[SteppingRazor]

154. Yawn, yawn. The same old B.S. about Chomsky being an anti-Semite...

Just because he defended the right to free speech for anti-Semites.
I completely agree with him. I may not like what some people have to say, but they have every right to say it.

[geek tragedy]

159. Let me guess, you didn't read the article. Because you didn't address

my point.

He defended a known anti-semite from charges of anti-semitism. And he said that he sees "no implication of anti-semitism" in Holocaust denial.

"Implication" is defined as:

1. The act of implicating or the condition of being implicated.
2. The act of implying or the condition of being implied.
3. Something that is implied, especially:
1. An indirect indication; a suggestion.
2. An implied meaning; implicit significance.
3. An inference. See Usage Note at infer.

1 : the act of implicating : the state of being implicated
2 : the act of implying : the state of being implied
3 : something implied

Yep, according to St. Noam the Genius, the fact that someone is a Holocaust denier does not suggest, imply, or indirectly indicate anti-semitism on their part.

Which is dishonest bullshit.

Show me a person who says that Holocaust denial doesn't suggest a person is biased against Jews, and I'll show you either a liar or a complete fool.

[SteppingRazor]

162. Lovely quote you've taken out of context there...

I should mention at this point that, in fact, I'm really not that big a fan of Chomsky's politics. But like him and Voltaire, I'm all about giving everyone their say, no matter how sad I think their ideas are.

That said, here's the "implication" quote you're no doubt refering to:
"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, if that were all he said, you might even have a point. But luckily for both of us, he clarified later by saying:
"In that context, I made a further point: even denial of the Holocaust would not prove that a person is an anti-Semite. I presume that that point too is not subject to contention. Thus if a person ignorant of modern history were told of the Holocaust and refused to believe that humans are capable of such monstrous acts, we would not conclude that he is an anti-Semite. That suffices to establish the point at issue."


Nevertheless, the one quote that you (and many, many others like you) keep hammering home, and the fact that this Holocaust denier used Chomsky's work as a foreword (without the author's permission), necessitated a full-length explanation, that I think you might want to check out. It's here:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/8102-right-to-say.html

[geek tragedy]

167. Chomsky LIED when he said that there was no evidence that Faurisson

was an anti-Semite. He L-I-E-D.

"Let me add a final remark about Faurisson's alleged "anti-Semitism." . . . is it true that 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."

An apolitical liberal? Oh wait. Chomsky's just warming up his Big Lie machine.

"I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust. . . . I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson's work."

Liar, liar, liar, liar. Anyone who knows anything about Faurisson knows that man is a racist swine.

[SteppingRazor]

168. But from the very quote you cite, you exonerate Chomsky

"...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. ..."

Chomsky hadn't read Faurisson in detail. He didn't know the extent of Faurisson's "theories" regarding the Holocaust. So, no, he's not a liar. Just, perhaps, a bit of a blowhard, writing about something he doesn't know as much about as he should -- and few people will accuse Chomsky of being silent even on the subjects by which he is most benighted.

As for Faurisson himself, I think he paid for his 1979 book (the one with the foreword by Chomsky) more than enough a decade later, when he was beaten almost to death on the street.

As far as Chomsky is concerned, the matter is simple -- being against censorship does not necessarily mean being for the views of every crackpot who comes down the pipe.

[geek tragedy]

171. Would you defend a Holocaust denier against charges of anti-semitism

without reading his work or knowing his background?

Why did Chomsky go to such efforts to defend Faurisson's work and his character if he was so unfamiliar with them? Why didn't the fact that this guy denies the Holocaust raise any red flags?

What he did was like defending someone wearing a Klan robe against charges of racism.

The bottom line is that Chomsky showed a reckless disregard for the truth and/or a willful lack of interest in learning the basic facts.

[SteppingRazor]

173. I'd say far from that...

He wrote a piece defending what he knew of Faurisson -- the man writes literally reams worth of essays and journals every year -- and then was forced into an uncomfortable position when Faurisson used his work to defend himself.

The idea that Chomsky himself is anti-Semitic, or lying about this, simply cannot stand on its own ground. Yes, he wrote a small piece about a man whose writing he knew only a little about. But that's all. I think posters here at DU do exactly the same thing almost every day, every time they comment on a post about some article or another.

As for as defending a Holocaust denier's right to hold that belief and espouse it -- yes, I absolutely will allow anyone the right to speak out on whatever topic they want, no matter how ridiculous. I find the laws against Holocaust denial that are on the books in countries like Holland and Germany to be morally repugnant. Yes, of course the Holocaust happened. Yes, of course those who say it didn't are either ignorant or hate-filled. But also, yes, we should defend completely their right to say what they wish.

[geek tragedy]

174. I don't think Chomsky is anti-semitic nor do I disagree that there should

be free speech.

It is when he starts offering dishonest and misleading apologia for miscreants like Faurisson that he behaves irresponsibly--in an intellectual and moral sense

The Faurisson issue was a HUGE deal. He caught tons of shit for it. Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that he purposefully didn't look into the guys background and work?

If you're going to defend someone--make sure you know enough to make sure they're worth defending.

If you don't know enough about someone to know they're worth defending, STFU.

It is simply dishonest to sit back and pretend that Holocaust deniers don't have a larger, sinister agenda at play.

Stand up for their free speech rights--that's okay. But don't lie and play "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" when you're commenting on the subject.

Chomsky didn't agree with the Nazis--but he did the next worst thing. He pretended that questioning the Holocaust is a morally and intellectually permissible venture that remained distinct from the political and racial context.

[Terran1212]

177. He defended the right of one man's free speech to question the Holocaust

You don't believe in free speech unless you defend it for the opinions you detest the most.

More misinformation.

[geek tragedy]

178. And you obviously can't follow my train of thought.

It is one thing to defend someone's right to speak.

It is quite another to offer a misleading and uninformed defense of fascists, racists, and Nazi propagandists.

Chomksy did the latter--claiming that Holocaust denial is unrelated to anti-semitism and that he had seen nothing of Faurisson's work to indicate that he's anti-semitic.

He didn't condemn Faurisson or his noxious racist filth. He defended them and denied that there was evidence of anti-semitism.

[Bouncy Ball]

185. You have a very strong NEED to believe that about Chomsky.

I can tell. Because in the face of all the facts that have been presented to you here, the succinct analysis and the putting of his words IN CONTEXT, you still seem to have a very strong need to BELIEVE that Chomsky is a Holocaust and/or Nazi apologist.

Why is that? Maybe that's the bigger question. Why do you need to believe that? Because if you didn't believe it, you wouldn't be able to write off what Chomsky says in his other writings? Because it behooves you to demonize a voice of the left?

You might want to have someone look at that. It looks infected.

[geek tragedy]

190. Oh please. It's one example. Just one.

Here's another critique.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Politics/chomsky.html

And another:

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/archives/000155.html

and another:

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001839.html

and another:

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001837.html

(Though that one is more of a swipe at fellow liar Edward Herman).

And, please, please, please call Brad DeLong a rightwinger. I need a good laugh.

[rman]

202. It's an invalid example

Presenting other supposed examples (all from one and the same source) won't make the first example any more valid.

[geek tragedy]

203. He described a vicious racist and Holocaust denier as an "apolitical

liberal" and denied that the man's work had anything anti-Semitic in it.

He said it.

He didn't have to, but he misrepresented Faurisson's views, and in doing so gave aid and comfort to the Holocaust deniers of the fascist right. Whether he is a deliberate liar or just has a reckless disregard for the truth I leave for people to decide.

[rman]

201. You obviously can't follow Chomsky's train of thought

He points out the distinction between a person's right to express his views, and the views expressed.

If you do not want to make that distinction, so be it.

Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked, so was Stalin. If you are in favor of freedom of speech, then you are in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.
...
With regard of my defense of people who express utterly offensive views, (many people say) "you are defending this person's views". I am not, I am defending the right to express them.
The difference is crucial, and the difference has been understood outside of fascist circles since the 18th century.

...I do not think the state ought to have the right to determine historical truth and to punish people if they deviate from it.
...If someone publishes an article that i disagree with, i do not say the state ought to put him in jail.

...i have taken far more extreme positions against people who deny the holocaust then you have... Even to enter into the arena of debate on the question of whether the nazi's carried out such atrocities, is already to lose ones humanity. So i even don't think you ought to discuss the issue, if you want to know my opinion.
-- Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent

By attacking the person instead of what he has to say, you have so far successfully avoided discussing the meaning and consequences of Chomsky's claims and the evidence he presents regarding the media, politics, etc.

[geek tragedy]

208. Is it honest to describe a racist Holocaust denier as an "apolitical

liberal" whose work shows "no sign of anti-Semitism?"

I'm not talking about free speech. One can defend a racist's free speech, but still condemn that speech as racist.

Chomsky deliberately chose to do something else: He pretended that Faurisson wasn't a racist and an anti-Semite and a Nazi-sympathizer.

He LIED about Faurisson's record, views, and character.

[Moochy]

137. Chomsky : not an anti-semite (self-hating?)

:eyes:

/snark on

Some good came of this thread, I got a few more race baiters to add to my ignore list :D

/snark off

[CWebster]

145. There is no room to complain

about the US knee-jerk jingoism of god and country flag waving from those so browbeaten and indoctrinated to the lies, the shameful lies of Israel, my country right or wrong.

Chomsky speaks the truth --it is as simple as that. I have never encountered a stronger soul who can see the undiluted truth, without all the trappings of cultural allegiance. The fact that some react so vehemently - who are incapable of viewing anything outside the blinders of their limited worldview, is only an indication that are made uneasy by someone who shatters their transparent illusions about the sacrosanct state of Israel.

[sintax]

166. Because the US Media does their job well

The point of the media is to shut off all voices that are outside the limited perspective of Dem-Rep politics.

The Liberal-Conservative margins are pretty slim and Chomsky et al go outside that framewok hence the "Propaganda through Silence".

Don't waste time criticizing the US media. The liberal view is Why isn't the media doing it's job? They are. Divorce yourself from the notion that the Media will ever work and you are freed to create your own media, or better yet live a non-mediated existence.

[Zhade]

176. Because the media isn't about the truth anymore.

NT!

[Disturbed]

189. I prefer Tariq Ali.

As a writer and speaker he is more engaging that Chomsky.

BTW geek tragedy is on permanent IGNORE. Shit! Annoying only begins to describe his crap.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

181. i think this thread is

a gigantic distraction away from a very big news day. i suggest that anybody about to get involved in a flame-fest check out one of the various transcripts of the news conference today. Read how Scotty talks when he's in a pot over a slow simmer, it's breathtaking

[Bouncy Ball]

187. Ooo where?

got any links?

[SlavesandBulldozers]

193. full transcript

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/11/briefing-711/

(i hope you weren't being sarcastic, cause I'll feel like a fool if you were, it's so hard to tell sometimes) :)

[Bouncy Ball]

200. No I most definitely wasn't! Cheers!

[nolabels]

188. First they have to like what you say then...............

the financial aspect come into play. If you don't follow the party line they ignore you. This party line criteria is regardless whatever you have even if it is commercially viable potential. Some people say money and some people say power, recognition and material wealth, they are similar and related but not interchangeable.

Many people also feel threatened unnerved being around people who are perceived with this moniker of intellectual superiority and switch to the spoiled child mode.

The Norm guy is a very smart person but for every asset there is a detriment to be had. Just think how he must feel sometimes. He brings up subjects that don't get any notice till ten or twenty years down the road just for starters :shrug:

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

198. to make room for luminaries like charlie daniels, ted nugent,and pat boone

with limited air time, we need to get the big brains on first to talk about their fields of expertise

[bhunt70]

199. This whole Chomsky defends an anti semite thing is ridiculous.

Chomsky is obviously standing up for the freedom for the author to say whatever he wants even if he disagrees with him.

Let's frame this differently

Person 1 (author): 9/11 was a set up, it didn't happen like they said it did. Bush knew.

Person 2 (chomsky): well, we aren't quite sure about that, maybe, but maybe not. I need more evidence but you go right ahead and say that.

Person 3(those who think chomsky is anti semitic because of his stand for free speech): Holy crap, person 2 is anti american, how can you say that 2 large planes didn't ram into the WTC. They hate our freedoms and so do you!

[geek tragedy]

204. Would you describe a racist Holocaust denier as an "apolitical liberal?"

Noam Chomsky did, and has never retracted that statement.

Chomsky not only defended his right to speech (good) he also defended Faurisson's character and work (extremely fucking bad).

[rman]

216. If i wouldn't, would that make Chomsky an anti-semite?

It's interesting that you use exactly the same arguments that certain critics of Chomsky use, as shown in the documentary "Manufacturing Consent".

Chomsky does not in fact defend the work of Faurisson, let alone his character.

...i have taken far more extreme positions against people who deny the holocaust then you have... Even to enter into the arena of debate on the question of whether the nazi's carried out such atrocities, is already to lose ones humanity. So i even don't think you ought to discuss the issue, if you want to know my opinion.

-- Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent

[geek tragedy]

232. He denies the very clear agenda behind Holocaust denial.

He tries to be too clever. He downplays the fact that the Holocaust denial movement has always been and will always be a tool of the fascist, racist right to delegitimize Jews and to rehabilitate the image of Nazi Germany.

Everyone KNOWS that's what the Holocaust deniers are up to, but Chomsky stuck his head in the sand.

Now, whether this is because he doesn't want to acknowledge anti-semitism because of his strong dislike for Israel, or because the goal of resisting totalitarian governments like Nazi Germany and the USSR provides a more logical and reasonable account for American actions during and after WWII I don't know.

[rman]

206. Wrt the holocaust Chomsky doesn't even consider whether or not Faurisson's

Wrt the holocaust Chomsky doesn't even consider whether or not Faurisson's claims are true. Because that's not the issue.

...I do not think the state ought to have the right to determine historical truth and to punish people if they deviate from it.
...If someone publishes an article that i disagree with, i do not say the state ought to put him in jail.

...i have taken far more extreme positions against people who deny the holocaust then you have... Even to enter into the arena of debate on the question of whether the nazi's carried out such atrocities, is already to lose ones humanity. So i even don't think you ought to discuss the issue, if you want to know my opinion.

-- Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent

[geek tragedy]

212. Chomsky defends the MORAL nature of Holocaust denial.

He claims that there is "no implication of anti-Semitism" in denying the Holocaust?

He FALSELY described Faurisson as an "apolitical liberal."

He FALSELY surmised that there is nothing racist or anti-Semitic about Faurisson or his work.

Holocaust denial is an agenda driven by the fascist and racist right. It mocks and slanders those who testified to Nazi abuses.

Holocaust denial is per se anti-Semitism.

[rman]

219. please comment on this statement

...i have taken far more extreme positions against people who deny the holocaust then you have... Even to enter into the arena of debate on the question of whether the nazi's carried out such atrocities, is already to lose ones humanity. So i even don't think you ought to discuss the issue, if you want to know my opinion.

-- Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent

[geek tragedy]

224. But it's something that non-racist apolitical liberals do.

See the contradiction?

[papau]

225. I never understood why he stops at "his opinion" and never affirms the

historical truth of the holocaust. And he limits his fall back to "I only have my opinion" for only the holocaust - on any other topic he is willing to throw out facts.

I've looked for a straight forward Chomsky statement that based on the evidence he has seen, the holocaust did indeed occur. I have yet to find it. Even in after speech Q&A, he does a self-reference to a prior blurred statement he had made that says something similiar to the statement you quote (taken far more extreme positions against people who deny the holocaust then you have... Even to enter into the arena of debate on the question of whether the nazi's carried out such atrocities, is already to lose ones humanity") - he never gives a straight answer that the holocaust did indeed occur.

curious.

[bhunt70]

221. it's easy, take the subject matter out of the conversation and

you will see it's a free speech issue. I don't agree with the doctor and truthfully I'm not even that much of a fan of chomsky but I am a great fan of Voltaire -

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death that you may say it.

[geek tragedy]

226. I've never disagreed with Chomsky's stand on the free speech issue.

(Well, in Germany I can maybe understand the need to cut off the discussion).

My objection was his weird refusal to just call Holocaust deniers and denial anti-Semitic. It's like denying that a person who claims whites are genetically smarter than blacks is a white supremacist.

It's not like there is a person who hears about Holocaust denial and doesn't think about anti-Semitism.

[bhunt70]

235. you make some good points.

you are correct, it is a rare person that can hear about someone denying the holocaust and immediately think the person is anti-semitic. My point is that I would assume there are such people who deny the holocaust happened to the scale it was purported and I think Chomsky is saying "this guy happens to be one of those people".

I think Faurissan is wrong to hold that view and perhaps chomsky is equally as wrong for pointing out something that is equally as obscure. Ultimately though I think it is all about free speech, I think Chomsky would stand up for the KKK's right to free speech also.

[geek tragedy]

237. I guess the big issue is that his claims about Faurisson are demonstrably

untrue. Faurisson blames WWII on the Jews and calls the Holocaust a Jewish hoax. He regularly publishes screeds against Jews.

Either Chomsky knew that and lied, or intentionally avoided learning what Faurisson wrote so that he could have plausible deniability (I simply refuse to believe that he could catch that much crap for signing the petition, exchange letters with Faurisson, and not be tempted to read even a three-paragraph review of the book).

Either way, not a towering moment in the history of intellectual integrity.


Chomsky was right on the broad issue of free speech, but then he tries to be too clever by half.

[tocqueville]

231. Faurisson is an anti-semite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson

http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/memri/feb_e_05.htm

In defense of Faurisson himself, he wrote:

Let me add a final remark about Faurisson's alleged "anti-Semitism." Note first that even if Faurisson were to be a rabid anti-Semite and fanatic pro-Nazi -- such charges have been presented to me in private correspondence that it would be improper to cite in detail here -- this would have no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the defense of his civil rights. On the contrary, it would make it all the more imperative to defend them since, once again, it has been a truism for years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defense. Putting this central issue aside, is it true that 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. <9>
Chomsky granted permission for the essay to be used for any purpose. Serge Thion then used it as a preface when publishing a book by Faurisson, without Chomsky's knowledge. Later Chomsky requested that the essay not be used in this manner, since he believed the French intellectual community was so incapable of understanding freedom of speech that it would only confuse them further, but his request came too late for the book to be changed. Chomsky subsequently said that asking for the preface to be removed is his one regret in the matter.

Chomsky's essay sparked an even greater controversy. Critics such as Pierre Vidal-Naquet attacked him not for defending the principle of freedom of speech, but for defending Faurisson personally against charges of anti-Semitism. <10>

Other critics held that Faurisson's statements were the archetype of anti-Semitism, and that the logical conclusion of Chomsky's statement would be that Nazism was not anti-Semitic. The main argument for this is that Holocaust deniers are not interested in truth, but "motivated by racism, extremism, and virulent anti-Semitism" (<11> Deborah Lipstadt, in Dimensions, the journal of the ADL).

[SoCalDem]

205. Because truth-tellers are shunned.. Only spinners are welcome

on TV..

Watch any documentary that leans left.. You will see MANY well spoken, educated and good looking people.. Yet the corporate media will only offer us Alan Colmes (geeky)...Donna Brazile (self-avowed pal of Karl Rove)...Bob Shrum (a laughingstock in rightwiing circles)..Ron Reagan (nice, but too laid-back)..and many others whose names escape me at the moment..

The ONLY time a dem is "allowed" to appear regularly is when they are paired with a republican who outranks them by a factor of 10 on the pit-bull scale.

Dems who are allowed on tv must either be willing to "play nice" and not be too mean to rightwingers, or they must be doormats..

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

207. Even if Chomsky had never engaged in political discourse

he would be one of the past century's greatest minds, in my opinion on a level with Freud and Einstein for his contributions to human knowledge. He is a towering figure in the science of linguistics for his concept of deep structure, generative transformational grammer, and the "cognitive revolution" that originated with his work at MIT.

For that alone, his name should be celebrated.

[katinmn]

217. Because they can't deal with the truth

[yurbud]

234. Chomsky can't soundbite because people lack

background knowledge.

To understand a comment of his about something happening now, you need to know the historical context, and most people only know the grade school version, not what Chomsky painstakingly lays out with the primary docs.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[stepnw1f]

236. Check Out The Freeping Attacks...

Gotta love it. Smokin' em out dem holes.

[Bouncy Ball]

241. No shit.

[Moderator]

243. Locking...

This thread has become inflammatory
and it has run its course.