Monday, July 12, 2004

Meet Chomsky's Foil

Another Chomsky clone has surfaced although this one seems to be part of the far right. Her name: Patricia Richardson. Just like Chomsky she believes that Holocaust denial is not anti-Semetic, go figure. Here is how the Jerusalem Report put it:

It's disconcerting to hear Yiddish -- the language her Transylvanian-born immigrant grandparents preferred to English -- trip so lightly off the tongue of someone who represents a party rife with religious prejudice and theories of Jewish world domination. But to Richardson, who won her seat in the June 10 local elections in the Epping Forest district of Northeast London, it's not at all meshuga. "There is no anti-Semitism within the party," she insists, speaking to The Report by phone from her family home in Loughton, Essex. Richardson insists the BNP has moved on since it evolved out of the neo-Nazi National Front in the early 1980s, and now boasts a benign manifesto based simply on stronger law and order, freedom of speech, total withdrawal from the European Union, and an end to all immigration. Her membership makes perfect sense, she says, "because Jewish people who are British and have lived here for all their lives are in as much danger from all the PC, the overt Europeanizing, as anybody else."

That's not a view shared by the majority of the community, who regard the changes within the BNP, its leadership littered with convicted race-hate criminals, as purely cosmetic. "It is still an extremist and racist party," says Neville Nagler, director general of the Board of Deputies, the representative body of U.K. Jewry. He describes the community as "disgusted" with Richardson.


Just goes to show it's not only the loony left that produces self hating Jews.

30 Comments:

At July 12, 2004 at 11:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yet again you are confusing Chomsky's position on the Holocaust with his stand for free speech. Chomsky has never denied the Holocaust happened, but he will support the right of idiots to deny that the Holocaust happened. For true freedom of speech to work on the subject of the Holocaust you have to let the David Irvings have their say along with the Primo Levis. Certainly the truth is that 6 to 8 million European Jews lost their lives to the Nazi death machine (along with millions of Roma, handicapped people, and gays to name a few.) However under the rules of free speech all that can be denied, and that is the burden of free speech.

 
At July 12, 2004 at 11:43 PM, Blogger Dhimmi said...

It is not me who is misrepresenting Chomsky's position but you who are misrepresenting mine. I never said Chomsky is a Holocaust denier. I said, "Just like Chomsky she [Patricia] believes that Holocaust denial is not anti-Semetic". From Chomsky's own pen:

"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." (Noam Chomsky, Search for the Truth, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_Affair)

 
At July 13, 2004 at 7:21 AM, Blogger LukaB said...

Nice one Dhimmi.

Almost took the bait myself over at Benjamin's.

By the way, what is 'Search for the Truth' by Chomsky?
Is it an article, a book, what?
I can't seem to find 'it' anywhere, whatever 'it' is...

So what is your view on Holocaust denial?
Is somebody who denies the Holocaust automatically an anti-Semite?

I think not.
Anti-Semitism is, according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary,
"hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group"

Only questioning the Holocaust or denying it or especially as Chomsky says "the claim that the Holocaust ... is being exploited " does not fall under the above definition.

I think Fyodor put it nicely over at Benjamin's:
"I will also add that holocaust denial is not synonymous with anti-Semitism. While the two may overlap to a large enough degree to make me wonder about anyone who denies the holocaust, they are not one and the same.

Saying that Jews are inferior or sinister as a group, now THAT's anti-Semitism."

 
At July 13, 2004 at 11:11 AM, Blogger Dhimmi said...

Holocaust denial is in fact anti-Semitism. There are a couple of reasons, but mainly it boils down to the fact that no Holocaust Denier has ever presented his/her case without using dubious sources and doctored evidence. Another problem is that often times what Holocaust deniers try to use as proof that the Holocaust did not happen is that they claim 'Jews are inherent liars so they must be lying about the Holocaust', Faurisson is a great example. Basically behind every Holocaust Denier is a hidden agenda. Also to date there has not been a Holocaust Denier is not an anti-Semite.

As for the 'Search For Truth', sorry my mistake I quoted it wrong, it's an article about him entitled, Noam Chomsky's Search For Truth. Apparently the quote in question comes from a letter that Chomsky wrote to W.D. Rubinstein, which in turn Rubinstein had published (see the Werner Cohn piece).

 
At July 13, 2004 at 11:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which Werner Cohn piece, or are you referring to his (possibly ghostwritten) book?

Actually, if you change where Richardson lives, and the political party she is in, she would make a very good Kach or Kahane Chai member...

-The Anonymous guy known elsewhere as Strelnikov

 
At July 13, 2004 at 4:22 PM, Blogger Dhimmi said...

"Actually, if you change where Richardson lives, and the political party she is in, she would make a very good Kach or Kahane Chai member..."

Except for the fact that Kahane Chai party wasn't founded by Neo-Nazis, doesn't claim that Jews dominant the world, and doesn't claim that Holocaust never happened. Also the above statement is entirely incorrect by the mere fact that if she were to change where she lives, I guess the above author is referring to Israel, then she can't join the Kahane Chai political party because it has been banned. (See: http://www.ict.org.il/counter_ter/law/lawdet.cfm?lawid=2)

 
At July 13, 2004 at 10:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, but banned outfits still have a way of gaining members. But moving back to the important issue; vis. which Werner Cohn article?

 
At July 13, 2004 at 11:54 PM, Blogger LukaB said...

You can find Wehrer Chon's piece on Chomsky here:

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

You can find Chomsky's reply in Outlook (Canada) at:

http://www.chomsky.info/letters/19890601.htm

And Chomsky's reply to Lawrence K. Kolodney who questioned him on Cohn and the 'infamous' above qoute at:
http://www.chomsky.info/letters/1989----.htm
[you can get some background on 'the qoute' here also]

Make up your own mind.


As for my opinion on Chomsky's qoute, him being an anti-Semite because of it etc.
I believe he wrote it in a private correspondance with
Rubinstein and going public with his comments is wholly inappropriate.

That said, I'll stick to the above.

I don't know of anybody who denys the Holocaust and is not an anti-Semite. And you are correct to say that "often times what Holocaust deniers try to use as proof that the Holocaust did not happen is that they claim 'Jews are inherent liars so they must be lying about the Holocaust',..." but this does not mean that _everybody_ who might deny the Holocaust is an anti-Semite.

For an example, let's say that I'm right now denying the Holocaust happened just and only to piss you off. [and without any evidence, I might add]

While wholly inappropriate and unsubstantiated, it does not make me an anti-Semite, does it?

I know it's a fine point, but if you're going to quote a comment Chomsky made in private communication and as far as I know did not give permission to be published, and with the volumes and volumes of his work that is available, it is a fine point that you have to make.

When you accuse a person of being an anti-Semite, you should bring more to the table, in my opinion of course. If you can only find a couple statements that _might_ be anti-Semitic in over 90 books and 1000 articles and who knows how many speeches and interviews by a man, that is, for me anyway, grasping for straws.

I much prefer when you use factual analysis to disprove what he said or wrote and not name calling.

Though you are of course entitled to it.

"As for the 'Search For Truth', sorry my mistake..."

Yes. I knew where it was from but most people just shut up once I pose the above questions. Let's call it 'The Wikpedia misunderstanding' :)
You are the first one that actually made the effort to find out. Good.

 
At July 14, 2004 at 1:08 AM, Blogger Dhimmi said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At July 14, 2004 at 1:31 AM, Blogger Dhimmi said...

What's interesting about the Lawrence K. Kolodney piece is how Chomsky chooses to ignore Cohn's rebuttal of his claims:

http://chomskywatch.blogspot.com/2003/04/chomsky-says-hes-untouchable.html

As for anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, just ask yourself this: "Would there be Holocaust Denial if there was no anti-Semitism?" I personally think not.

 
At July 14, 2004 at 4:24 AM, Blogger LukaB said...

Dhimmi,

I've come to expect better of you.

If you check the Outlook reply, you'll see it's dated June 1, 1989.

If you check the Kolodney piece, you'll see that the letter was written some time between 1989 and 1991.

Cohn's rebuttal to which you link is dated 2001.

How could Chomsky have ignored a rebuttal that was posted 10-12 years _after_ he wrote the letter to both Outlook and Kolodney?

Why Cohn waited 12 years to post his rebuttal, I don't know and won't speculate but you can guess my opinion :)

[A technical question: Why can't I post a reply to some of your posts? Finkelstein, for example, and the one you linked to here...]

"As for anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, just ask yourself this: "Would there be Holocaust Denial if there was no anti-Semitism?" I personally think not."

Won't get into whether this is true or not as it is beside the point.
Perhaps just quickly...
If there was no anti-Semitism, there would be no Holocaust and all there would be would be Holocaust denial.
[English is not my first language, I hope this makes sence]
But I agree that the main reason for people to claim the Holocaust did not happen is anti-Semitism. [I'm guessing that is what you were trying to say above]


Now back to the main point of our discussion - is a person denying the Holocaust automatically an anti-Semite?

Didn't want to but I'll qoute Chomsky [from the Kolodney piece]:
"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."

...

"Similarly, numerous scholars deny that the Armenian genocide took place, and some people, like Elie Wiesel, make extraordinary efforts to prevent any commemoration or even discussion of it."

...

"In these and numerous other cases, one needs more evidence before concluding that the individuals are racists. Thus in the case of Wiesel, it is quite likely that he is merely following the instructions of the Israeli government, which doesn't want Turkey embarrassed."

...

"You ask whether one wouldn't at least suspect the motives of someone who denies genocide (the Holocaust, in particular). Of course. Thus, I do suspect the motives of Wiesel, Bernard Lewis, the anthropological profession, the American Jewish Congress and ASI, Faurisson, Western intellectuals who systematically and almost universally downplay the atrocities of their own states, and people who deny genocide and atrocities generally. But I do not automatically conclude that they are racists; nor do you. Rather, we ask what leads them to these horrendous conclusions. There are many different answers, as we all agree."

Dhimmi, as I said before, I agree that most people or practically all people who deny the holocaust are anti-semites, but Chomsky's example above and my example above are just two examples where one can deny the Holocaust yet he is not an anti-Semite.
Same goes for Wiesel denying the Armenian genocide - this doesn't make him an anti-Armenian racist; we need further proof to make an accusation like that.

So it is _possible_ to both deny the Holocaust _and_ to not be an anti-Semite.

Why don't you want to aknowledge this quite basic and logical point?

 
At July 14, 2004 at 10:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Because, LukaB, the Faurisson affair and Cambodia are the only things the anti-chomskyites can nail the man on. However, the Faurisson affair has a lot more power because it has been made into evidence that Chomsky is a "self-hating" Jew, which explains his criticism of Israel's domestic and foreign policies. On top of that, the person who made the "connections" between Chomsky, Faurisson, and the "Anarcho-Nazi" "La Vielle Taupe" (the Old Mole) group was himself a pro-Israeli Jewish academic, so the person not knowing all the facts could assume Cohen was this Simon Wiesenthal hunting Nazis in academia. If it were true that Chomsky's "anti-Semitism" was in fact an illusion, then
there goes much of their case against Chomsky as moral hypocrite and possibly mentally ill. So the Faurisson case must be made into a "Flying Dutchman"; an incident which must kept alive because it would be quickly forgotten as a cut-and-dried historical event of minor magnitude.

-Strelnikov

 
At July 14, 2004 at 1:12 PM, Blogger Dhimmi said...

Luka,

It did not take Cohn 12 years to respond if you read the article it states, with comments by me, that:

Until recently this text by Guillaume, which includes a comment from Chomsky, was difficult to obtain. Now an anti-Semitic organization has put it on the Internet, at least for the time being [Dhimmi: hence Cohn recent post] ... After I publicized the existence of this document [Dhimmi: this is the non-response that Chomsky is claiming Cohn did not make], Chomsky called me a "pathological liar" for my trouble. His own followers have now been incautious enough to put these comments by Chomsky on the web as well, at least for now.

However since there are no dates I will make updates to that post.

With regards to the Elie Wiesel comment I find it rather humorous. To claim that Elie Wiesel is not anti-Armenian but rather is pro-Turkish is so absurd that it borders on hilarity. I want to know can a person not be anti-Semitic but at the same time be pro-Nazi? Furthermore I don’t know what Elie Wiesel has said about the Armenian Genocide, and I rather not take Chomsky’s word for it, so I really can’t draw parallels.

The basic reason why I can concede to your point is simple because it does not make sense.

As for comments I removed some of them because no one was posting, tell me which ones you want and I will put them up. And speaking of Finkelstein he seems to like publishing letters by people who don't want them published (http://normanfinkelstein.com/id131.htm). Maybe you should tell him something :).

 
At July 14, 2004 at 5:29 PM, Blogger Dhimmi said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At July 14, 2004 at 5:32 PM, Blogger Dhimmi said...

"the Faurisson affair and Cambodia are the only things the anti-chomskyites can nail the man [Chomsky] on."

Just wondering is that an admission that Chomsky has been nailed?

As for the Flying Dutchman comment, that is hardly the case. I was just merely pointing out the fact that a fascist right winger is in agreement with Chomsky on the point that Holocaust denial is not anti-Semitic. Just stating the obvious.

 
At July 15, 2004 at 1:45 AM, Blogger LukaB said...

Dhimmi,

seems one of us has it backwards.


You say:
"It did not take Cohn 12 years to respond if you read the article it states, with comments by me, that:

Until recently this text by Guillaume, which includes a comment from Chomsky, was difficult to obtain. Now an anti-Semitic organization has put it on the Internet, at least for the time being... [Dhimmi: hence Cohn recent post] ... After I publicized the existence of this document [Dhimmi: this is the non-response that Chomsky is claiming Cohn did not make], ..."

No. This was the original Cohn pamphlet to which Chomsky replied in Outlook in 1989.

"[Cohn:]Chomsky called me a "pathological liar" for my trouble."

He called him a pathological liar in this Outlook reply; see the last paragraph of the reply.

"However since there are no dates I will make updates to that post."

There are dates... On the page you linked too, it says December 2001. So it did take 12 or so years for Cohn to respond.
[at least according to the link you provided]



OK. Let me try to reconstruct the timing and you correct me if I get anything wrong.

1. The whole Faurisson thing happens

2. Cohn writes a pamphlet and then a book on supposed Chomsky connections to Neo-Nazis based on some obscure French book [which I have to admit I can't read as I don't speak French]

3. Chomsky replys to Cohns accusations in 1989 in the Canadian magazine Outlook

4. In a letter to Kolodney written somewhere between 1989 and 1991 Chomsky adresses also the 'infamous' qoute and says that Cohn did not dare to respond [obviousely up to the time the letter was written]

[point 1-4 all happened before 1991]

5. Cohn posts a rebuttal in December 2001, as it clearly says on the web page Dhimmi linked to
6. Dhimmi accuses Chomsky of lying about Cohn not responding to his reply
7. Dhimmi sees he's wrong about point 6.
8. Dhimmi stands by Cohn's Dec 2001 rebuttal to which Chomsky has not replied.

As I said, please correct this timeline if I got anything wrong and I'll hold my conclusions untill we can agree on what happened when.


"With regards to the Elie Wiesel comment I find it rather humorous. To claim that Elie Wiesel is not anti-Armenian but rather is pro-Turkish is so absurd that it borders on hilarity."

[let's just for the sake of argument assume that Weisel is pro-Turkey and that he's denied the Armenian genocide - in other words thake Chomsky's word for it. It has no baring on the point we're discussing. If you think we're smearing Weisel, we can talk about John Doe, doesn't matter.]

See, here is the crucial distinction. Nobody said Wiesel is not _anti-Armenian_ or that he is _pro Turkish_ for that matter; Chomsky said Wiesel is not an _anti-Armenian racist_ if we base our conclusions on his denial of the Armenian genocide alone.

There is a big diffrenece between Turkey the state and Turks the nation, same with Armenia the state an Armenians as a nation, Israel and Jews as a nation, Germany and Germans as a nation, etc.

By being pro-Turkey (the state9)[denying the Armenian genocide] he may be anti-Armenia but that does not (necessarily) mean that he has hostility toward or discrimination against Armenians as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.

"I want to know can a person not be anti-Semitic but at the same time be pro-Nazi?"

This is the wrong analogy. The correct one would be "Can a person be pro-Germany during WWII but not anti-Semitic?'
[not all Germans were Nazis]

And to answer the question, yes, an Indian in 1940 can be pro-German because he knows the war between the British and German empires will make his independence struggle easier or that his freedom will come sooner as a result. This does not mean he's an anti-Semite or that he condones the anti-Semitic part of Germany during WWII.
[the enemy of my enemy is my friend even though he's a prick and I don't agree with a lot of what he's doing]

"The basic reason why I can concede to your point is simple because it does not make sense."

Show why it does not make sense. Until you do, it stands.

"As for comments I removed some of them because no one was posting, tell me which ones you want and I will put them up."

All of them would be nice :)

Perhaps just add to the update you made at
http://chomskywatch.blogspot.com/2003/04/chomsky-says-hes-untouchable.html
that there's a discussion on the topic on this thread...


"And speaking of Finkelstein he seems to like publishing letters by people who don't want them published (http://normanfinkelstein.com/id131.htm). Maybe you should tell him something :)."

Saw that one, yes.
He did give her a chance to take back what she said...






This has sprawled into a too long a post.
I'll try to sum up.
[You can of course reply to above also, but I'd prefer if we stick to the subject as do you judging from your previous post -- otherwise we're gonna have 10 arguments going on in one post before long]


Summation:
A. Chomsky never denied the Holocaust. He defended the right of Holocaust deniers to speak, as he defends the right of _anyone_ to speak.
[I take it this point is not in dispute.]

B. Chomsky stated that only by denying the Holocaust or a genocide in general, one cannot be branded an anti-Semite or racist.

First the definition of anti-Semitism from the Merriam Webster Dictionary (www.m-w.com):
:hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

Example form Chomsky:
"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."

Example from Luka:
"For an example, let's say that I'm right now denying the Holocaust happened just and only to piss you off. [and without any evidence, I might add]

While wholly inappropriate and unsubstantiated, it does not make me an anti-Semite, does it?"

C. Dhimmi refuted none of the examples above but ignores them.

D. Dhimmi keeps branding Chomsky an anti-Semite even though his reasoning has been proven incorrect.

Luka's conclusion: The reason for this is that if Dhimmy concedes this point then the whole Faurisson_Affair_shows_Chomsky_is_an_anti-Semite theory collapses.
And the Flying Dutchman flies away...

 
At July 15, 2004 at 4:47 PM, Blogger Dhimmi said...

All right this conversation has officially crossed in to the realm of insanity. To claim that there is a difference between someone being pro-Nazi and pro-Germany during WWII is beyond absurd. I can't even begin to comprehend the logic behind that statement. As for the claim about the Indians the short and simple answer: If they denied or still deny that the Jews were being slaughtered by the Nazis than that Indian is anti-Semitic - end of discussion.

A. Correct; however, Chomsky still has not accounted for the fact that he helped edit a known holocaust denier's, Pierre Guillaume, book and denied ever meeting him:

September 28, 1984. The first version of the text which precedes comprised multiple errors of detail and an error of appreciation that Chomsky announced us while reaffirming the constancy and the invariance of its position. We corrected in the text the errors which did not modify the reasoning and give, below, the remarks of Chomsky. (http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/chomsky/PGmisaupoint.html Translation by Google, if you have a problem reading this email Chomsky and tell him generative grammar SUCKS!!)

B. The scenario is beyond absurdity. If there are people out there who actually do not believe that people are incapable of such monstrous acts [such as the Holocaust], I think then they are incapable of much else. We are talking about fully functional human beings not drones who have the mental capacity of a three year old and can't face reality. I give it to you a person who is mentally challenged might not be an anti-Semite. Thanks for pointing that out the oblivious.

C. I refuted your and Chomsky's bizarre claim that someone can be pro-Nazi but not anti-Semitic.

Time for you to answer some questions do you believe that Faurisson is an anti-Semite?
Do you like Chomsky believe: Robert Faurisson was "a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort", Serge Thion was "a libertarian socialist scholar with a record of opposition to all forms of totalitarianism", and Pierre Guillaume was "libertarian and antifascist on principle"??

Now ask yourself this do any of the scenarios you described above fit these people?

As for the previous post I will make some modes to it and repost it later I will make a link to this discussion as well. I just want to get in touch with Cohn to clear something up!

PS I am not going to put up all the comments I don't have the time to sit there and do that. Also try to keep your posts short; your summary was all that was really needed.

 
At July 18, 2004 at 7:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which means you are shutting people up.

-Strelnikov

 
At July 19, 2004 at 12:28 AM, Blogger Dhimmi said...

I didn't shut anyone up this board is still open.

 
At July 19, 2004 at 12:28 AM, Blogger Dhimmi said...

Chomsky on the other hand has shut people op on his blog.

 
At July 19, 2004 at 2:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And I have been kicked off of a number of right-wing blogs, usually for saying things they don't like, so that doesn't prove anything. If the posts don't go up, you have, in effect, kicked them off.

 
At July 19, 2004 at 4:30 PM, Blogger Dhimmi said...

I only remove posts that are vulgar, rude, and inappropriate. And also I am not going to sit here and go through the some thirty posts and activate all the comment sections, that is a waste of time since no one will really post anything on them and I will have to spend a huge amount of my time. If you or Luka want a certain article to have the comment section up tell me and I will activate it, otherwise don't sit there and berate for not doing something that is so pointless. As for the right wing websites that have kicked you off, I find it very sad indeed, but Chomsky is the main topic of this blog.

 
At July 21, 2004 at 3:13 AM, Blogger LukaB said...

First, an update on the Cohn ramble...

I just noticed that Cohn published a second edition of his book in 1995.

To update the timeline...

Points 1 - 4 are the same.

5.
a) Cohn publishes a second edition of his book with a new preface (http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html#anchor137495).

This would seem a perfect opportunity to respond to Chomsky. He did not. So Chomsky's claim that 'He [Cohn] never dared to respond.' was still true at least up to 1995.

b) Cohn posts a rebuttal in December 2001, as it clearly says on the web page Dhimmi linked to.


The rest stays the same. Let me know when you clear things up with Cohn so we can come to some conclusions about Cohn and his writings.


Dhimmi says:
"As for the claim about the Indians the short and simple answer: If they denied or still deny that the Jews were being slaughtered by the Nazis than that Indian is anti-Semitic - end of discussion."

This was not the topic of discussion nor does it end just because you say so. [well, it does if you close the comments section :)]
If you remember, you asked:

"I want to know can a person not be anti-Semitic but at the same time be pro-Nazi?"

I'll drop the Nazi & Germany distinction to save time.

And I'll state again:

An Indian during WWII can be pro-Nazi in the sence of the conflict between Germany and Great Britain which is making his struggle for independence easier as it weakens GB. In other words, the more the Nazis weaken GB, the better chance he has for freedom. So he is pro-Nazi.

He can at the same time denounce the Nazis for their actions against Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and others.
So he is not an anti-Semite.




Returning to the summation:

A. Good to see that we agree on something :)
So Chomsky is not a Holocaust denier. Finally a conclusion.

As for Guillaume and his book...
Guess we can leave it for the above Cohn debate.

B. You asked me to be short so I'll just point out that you did not (again) reply to:

"For an example, let's say that I'm right now denying the Holocaust happened just and only to piss you off. [and without any evidence, I might add]

While wholly inappropriate and unsubstantiated, it does not make me an anti-Semite, does it?"

And I just found a debate on this matter in another forum where Dana Garret sums up the problem we seem to be having here nicely [this addresses some of your questions to me also]:
"On the face of it, I agree that the analogy [Chomsky's analogy from above] doesn’t work. Clearly there is a difference between someone who has never heard of the holocaust and denies it occurred and someone who has heard of it and denies its reality. I’m going to make a guess about the reason why Chomsky made this argument ... : I imagine there some individuals reject on principle the possibility that anyone could doubt the fact of the holocaust w/o being anti-Semitic. In order to establish that such an “on principle” rejections are in fact fallacious, it is necessary to consider hypothetical counterexamples that show that the on-principle rejection is in fact not unthinkable. After one establishes that the on-principle rejection is fallacious, one then can proceed to talk about individual cases. "

C. I was refering to examples under B. And you did not refute the claim that someone can be pro-Nazi but not anti-Semitic. [see above]



To your questions:
"do you believe that Faurisson is an anti-Semite?"

I haven't read any of his work nor do I know the man so I can't say for certain.

I've only seen him interviewed in the documentary Manufacturing Consent and came away with the impression that he is an anti-Semite. I cannot prove it though, so I'll say I hold no opinion on the matter (I have my suspicions though).

"Do you like Chomsky believe: Robert Faurisson was "a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort",

No. As I said I have no opinion one way or the other. And I think it was a mistake for Chomsky to brand him an "apolitical liberal" [though he did make the qualification 'as far as I can determine'] as he claims he has not read his work. If he was defending his freedom of speech and that alone, discussing whether Faurisson is an anti-Semite or not was irrelevant and inappropriate.


Serge Thion was "a libertarian socialist scholar with a record of opposition to all forms of totalitarianism", and Pierre Guillaume was "libertarian and antifascist on principle"??"

Don't know much [anything really] about Thion or Guillaume so can't say.

"Now ask yourself this do any of the scenarios you described above fit these people?"

Would have to know something about these people to be able to make this qualification. And I don't want to speculate. The only info I do have on them is from Cohn's piece and we're saving that for later.




To conclude, it seems to me that you consider Chomsky an anti-Semite not because he denies the holocaust (which as you agreed he does not) but because he stated that not everybody that denies the holocaust can automatically be branded an anti-Semite.
Is my impression wrong?

[leaving aside the the branding of Thion, Guillaume and Faurisson]

 
At July 21, 2004 at 2:10 PM, Blogger Dhimmi said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At July 21, 2004 at 2:15 PM, Blogger Dhimmi said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At July 21, 2004 at 4:29 PM, Blogger Dhimmi said...

Your conclusion is faulty because I never said "Chomsky an [is] anti-Semite not because he denies the holocaust ... but because he stated that not everybody that denies the holocaust can automatically be branded an anti-Semite." Wrong, wrong, wrong. Lets get something straight Chomsky might not be a Holocaust denier but there is no doubt in my mind that he lends intellectual support, aids, and does propaganda spots for Holocaust deniers. It's like the difference between a murder and one who aids and abets a murder, draw your own conclusions. Furthermore I have already stated other reason's why I consider the man an anti-Semite and for you to make such a claim is disingenuous.

The Indian debate has run its course. While some groups have allied with enemies in the past, for instance Roosevelt and Stalin that surely does not make the USA pro-USSR just because they fought together during WWII, that does not make them pro -anything. We are talking about people who live and die for the Nazi creed for the sole purpose of spreading their hatred. So the short and simple answer is one is not necessarily pro-anything just because one instance in time they received military aid or otherwise from a certain group. So let me clarify the point can in this day and age can one be pro-Nazi and at the same time not be considered an anti-Semite, or not be considered a Nazi? The simple answer is no.

I like your little duck and dodge move about Faurisson being an anti-Semite, it's very telling. I suggest you start reading a little about Holocaust denial and deniers before you make the claim Holocaust denial is not a form of anti-Semitism. And let me help you out, none of the cases that you or Chomsky has presented above fit the profile of Holocaust deniers. You say you saw Manufacturing Consent does Faurisson look Indian to you? though on second though the guy might be a moron. No active Holocaust denier actually believes that the Holocaust did not happen because they don’t think people are not capable of committing such atrocities that is a bunch of bunk, stick to reality please.

 
At July 22, 2004 at 8:33 AM, Blogger LukaB said...

"[I] have already stated other reason's why I consider the man an anti-Semite and for you to make such a claim is disingenuous."

No, the claim only applied to this post. Good to see my assumption (that is all it was) was wrong.

Back to the summation:

A. Chomsky is not a holocaust denier

B.&C. You again ignored my examples and since this is the third time I have to assume that you agree that a holocaust denier is not neccessarily an anti-Semite.




"I like your little duck and dodge move about Faurisson being an anti-Semite, it's very telling. I suggest you start reading a little about Holocaust denial and deniers before you make the claim Holocaust denial is not a form of anti-Semitism."

I did not duck or dodge anything. I was just trying to show you that you cannot make qualifications without evidence.

And I have absolutely no interest in reading about holocaust denial or deniers. I believe it happened, in the gas chambers, the whole lot and feel no need to reexamine my views on this.

I will make the claim that holocaust denial is not _neccecarily_ a form of anti-Semitism any day to anyone. You have not refuted any of the above examples nor have you persuaded me to think otherwise.

"And let me help you out, none of the cases that you or Chomsky has presented above fit the profile of Holocaust deniers."

You missed the point again.
You stated "Holocaust denial is in fact anti-Semitism."

I presented two examples of this not being true. I never said the above people fit those profiles. You did not refute them.
I thus conclude that "holocaust denial is not _neccecarily_ a form of anti-Semitism".

To qoute Dana again:
"I imagine there some individuals reject on principle the possibility that anyone could doubt the fact of the holocaust w/o being anti-Semitic. In order to establish that such an “on principle” rejections are in fact fallacious, it is necessary to consider hypothetical counterexamples that show that the on-principle rejection is in fact not unthinkable. After one establishes that the on-principle rejection is fallacious, one then can proceed to talk about individual cases."

Now let's move to the "individual cases".

As I said I don't know anything about Thion or Guillaume.
So I'll try Faurisson.

He is obviousely a holocaust denier. Does this make him an anti-Semite?

I'm going to give you a _hypothetical_ possibility:
What if Faurisson is being payed by somebody to write books about the holocaust with the aim of denying it?
Under this scenario, Faurisson is only denying the holocaust to earn money and not because he hates Jews.

I'm not saying this is very likely. I am saying that this is a possibility. And without having further evidence -- Faurisson saying Jews run the world for example -- one cannot brand him an anti-Semite on the accout of his holocaust denial alone.

And this was, I believe, Chomsky's point also.

 
At September 27, 2004 at 1:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

About the Faurisson controversy, could anyone tell me on this forum where Chomsky claims that Faurisson was "nearly beaten to death" by "Jewish thugs"?

I would really like to be able to indicate when and where Chomsky made that statement as I am writing a text about the Faurisson case. If I cannot mention the date and occasion (I read the statement on the Web and can no longer find it) I obviously cannot quote this claim.

Thanks in advance for relevant information.

 
At November 4, 2004 at 7:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The vast majority of people that have coined Noam Chomsky as anti-semetic are simply looking for an intelluctual to label as anti-semetic. I, for one, am a Jew and I hold dual citizenship, Canadian and Israeli.

Upon my countless lunch "chats" with Mr.Chomsky I can fully say that he is not anti-semetic. The issue/ fact in question here is that he doesn't care either way who anyone is. He is a champion of free speech and not popular speech.

We all agree Israel has the right to exist. Why is it the minute that the policies of Israel become openly questioned, the questioning party is automatically branded "anti-semetic?" Not only is this outageous, its simply scandalous.

The moment we succumb to intellectual weakness and start labelling people as "self-hating jew" or "anti-semetic", we fail the society structure we praise. We as citizens of the free world should respect ones' right to free speech and stop misinterpreting it to satisfy our own personal ideas and agends.

If you have doubts about Mr. Chomsky, call him, ask him out for lunch. He'll show up, and he almost always foots the bill.

 
At December 19, 2006 at 5:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I congratulate all Soon Christmas
Here some sites about the Christmases, a lot of interesting here
new year celebration
christmas gift
santa claus email
new year
christmas card
christmas flower
christmas
christmas tree
christmas ornament
christmas song
happy new year
chinese new year

 

Post a Comment

<< Home