Looks like Pejman was right. The battle plan is drawn.

Noam Chomsky: A Life of Disgust (Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent)

The Terrorism of Culture (The Culture of Terrorism)

Where do I sign up?

Posted by: Quana on May 12, 2002 02:22 AM

This rocks. Since, due to the fact that there were no courses available during the summer termm at a time I could take them, I am free (of school anyway) until August, this sounds like a good way to keep my critical skills honed -- which might be almost enough to assuage the pain reading the Choam's work will cause me. Now, what about a website? I take it free sites like Tripod or Geocities are out of the question (popup ads, ugh).

Posted by: Andrea Harris on May 12, 2002 03:01 AM

A waste of time. I have Chomsky friends who, no matter what they are told, read, take note of, still go to the Chomsky Bible because it fulfills their weekly needs to get refreshed at the Church of Chomsky, to show that they have not strayed from Truth.
Chomsky is basically an anarchist at heart and since Aerican now pretty much is the Roman Empire of its time, the one state in so commanding a postion, Chomsky needs must go after it.
Attacking America for Chomsky is an act of self-loathing. Although there is clearly much that any superpower does or has done that remains less than ethical or moral, Chomsky refuses to see the Good that America has done.
I don't think I need elaborate all that we have done but suffice it to declare loud and clear that America has done mnore for good in this world than any other state (nation/empire) to date. And that, alas, is never mentioned by the Chomp.
Who reads and adores Chomp? The Lefties, the Young, the would-be anarchists--these are the folks that despise the GOP (hey, so do I), but believe the Dems are weak, spineless, do litte--hey, so do I. These are the folks who want a Revolution so long as they don't have to do much but protest at a globalization meeting.
Chomsky has tenure at a school that takes more money from the governmnent than the average university, and yet he remains on, distinguished in his field and tossing out pronouncements such as that his university ought to disenfranchise itself from Israeli holdings in stocks and bonds...yet never asking that Aemrica boycott Arab oil.
My problem with devoiting time and energy to Chomp is that there are many out there that need a leader to tell them why they too are playing with revoution in thought but never in action and why they need to embrace an idiotic position instead of trying to change things through a process called democracy, which, as Chomp would say, is controlled by the media but which now has its alternative in the independent sources that are,and alas will remain, amateurish and plain silly.
In the 60s (yes, I was around then) we had the SDS and that is what these folks today are looking for. We also had the Drop Out and go your own way and eschew a system that would never much change--but this Woodstockian vision seems unappealing.
I had been blogging for a a group--new--that became a communal blog: political, Leftist etc. But I was chastised for posting pro-Israel pieces. Why did I post this sort of thing?Because two guys would daily post anti-Israel and anti-Jewish stuff. I served as a counterbalence.
Alas, I was told that I could not support Israel because a true revolutionary position is to support the underdog--the Palestinians (let alone the zillion Arabs in the region). I told them to count me out. I did not believe a group advocating True Democracy and Truth and Beauty could tell is Believers what they can and can not post. That, I said, was hardly democracy.
In the end, Orwell was right.

Posted by: fred lapides on May 12, 2002 08:11 AM

I would agree w/ Fred Lapides that Chomsky himself and his acolytes will not be affected by anything anti-Chomsky.

However, the NYT story indicated that the Chomsky-ites are proselytizing for their godhead, recommending his book 9-11, frex, as something to read to learn more about what happened. A web-site that debunks Chomsky would be a good counterpoint for folks who would read him and say, "That flies in the face of what I know in my gut to be true. Who IS this guy?"

(Look at it this way. A hardened anti-Semite will not be affected by the ADL's web-site. But someone who was recommended the Protocols of the Elders of Zion for "background reading" on the Middle East might find out the validity of that particular tract by going to the ADL's web-site.)

Just a thought.

Posted by: Dean on May 12, 2002 10:47 AM

I'm a neophyte to all of this, but in the name of all that is fair I say, do it!

Posted by: Charlie on May 12, 2002 02:36 PM

I am inclined to concur with Fred on this. I believe that strategic marginalization is more important then actually debating him on the issues. I mean, if he can play hard and loose with the facts, we can play hard and loose with the ominous silence. Rather then addressing his book sales as massive, we should say nothing. Rather then addressing his grevious factual errors, we should stick to the point that he is a linguist, not a philosopher. We should point to his overwhelming lack of credentials (would that be underwhelming array of credentials?) The pressures of a broad question of his ability to preach the Church of Chomsky, followed by a deafening silence of any of his supporters will leave him as marginalized as Arafat without a shower in Ramallah :)

Nevertheless, should we proceed to war, you have a loyal footsoldier in the counterrevolution.

Posted by: Brian on May 12, 2002 03:09 PM

I write the Osama's bin bloggin' satire, (osamabinladen.blogspot.com), where Chomsky has been recently declared an official "Friend of Osama." (I also write a non-satirical blog at hobbsonline.blogspot.com.)

I'm all for taking Chomsky down. A coordinate blog attack sounds like a good way to do it. Tell me what to do.

Bill Hobbs
Nashville, TN

Posted by: Bill Hobbs on May 12, 2002 06:49 PM

Call it "Foam Chomsky" - as in, he's foaming-at-the-mouth mad.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs on May 12, 2002 06:53 PM

His last name has a lot of potential. How about:
Chumpsky
Chimpsky
Dumbsky

BTW, does anybody know more about him being "the most quoted intellectual"? Is it an urban legend? How did they figure it out? When people are quoting him while criticizing/deconstructing him, are those quotes counted?

Posted by: Scott on May 13, 2002 09:45 AM

I think it's critical to point out that the goal should NOT be to dissuade hard-core Chomskites. That would be a practical impossibility, and therefore a waste of time (as Mr. Lapides points out). The real danger people like Chomsky present is the perpetuation of their flawed thinking in the young and impressionable (who have more potential for future societal impact). The goal should be to prevent (or limit) the swelling of Chomsky's ranks (not to mention his head) by deflating his nonsense with concise, concentrated doses of truth amd common sense.

The impression I get is that Chomsky has not generated anything original in some time -- that is, he keeps re-hashing the same nonsense. It would be a great start to set up a simple site that lays out the core Chomsky doctrines, and then destroys them in detail.

Side note: as long as the CONTENT of the site posessed a reasoned tone, quality writing, and unassailable logic, I would have no problem with a name like "chomskysucks.com" or something similar. The whole point is to get the attention of impressionable youth (the likely victims of Chomskization), and a name with shock and/or amusement value probably wouldn't hurt. (Although "chomskylies.com" would be less juvenile and almost as effective.)

Posted by: Phaedrus on May 13, 2002 11:33 AM

If we can avoid drinking our own bathwater, there is virtue in the proposed exercise for all those opposed to Chomsky's ideas (or confused lack thereof) in deconstructing them and noting the inconsistencies, fantasies and fallacies.

While some of the learned may be beyond this, not all of us are. While Dr. Weevil has graciously given me more credit than I deserve, I am honored that my efforts may have helped to inspire others to take on one of the primary enemies of reason. I would personally be reluctant to take on Mr. Chomsky alone for fear of being outgunned on a purely intellectual level, but happy to engage with the support and encouragement of others.

I think I read once that someone traced the decline of Greece to the point where sophistry became more important than the reasons why they were arguing. For some strange reason, this strikes me as relvant when discussing the gnoams of zilch.

Incidentally, everyone knows about the ChomskyPirate, don't they?

Posted by: charles austin on May 13, 2002 04:30 PM

As an MIT grad (1973) I am delighted to see you take on the old fraudster. Lysenko, indeed! For what it's worth, I would encourage you to take the high road. The facts speak loudly enough by themselves.

Posted by: Doug Levene on May 14, 2002 09:39 AM

Anyone serious about bringing Chomsky down a few notches has to link to this.

http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl

The Chomskybot. An adventure in obfuscatory phraseology.

I think too that much attention must be given to Chomsky's adventures with genocide. His defense of Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson, his writings for the Institute for Historical Review, and his extensive denial of accounts of the Cambodian genocide are sledgehammers to smash what miniscule credibility the cunning linguist has left.

Posted by: Arieh Rosenblum on May 14, 2002 09:40 AM

I would love to help on something like this. I've already got 22 articles bashing Chomsky going back to 1999 (http://www.leftwatch.com/faq/people/noam_chomsky.html), but would love to see a site devoted specifically to pointing out Chomsky's errors.

Posted by: Brian Carnell on May 14, 2002 09:44 AM

I have only one problem with your idea. It's a bit to narrow. What I would suggest you should do is to start a site that concentrates on Chomsky's views and anyone that shares them. By that I mean that the site would concentrate on Chomsky style literature regardless of the author. This way you can devote a major part of the site to refuting all of Chomsky's theories while giving the site a wider appeal. This way anybody looking for Chomsky's style material will venture onto your site. It's sort of killing two birds with one stone. First, you specifically target Chomsky and second anybody who is looking for Chomsky style material will know that not only the person that they were looking for is a farce, but Chomsky too.

Posted by: Mario Rodriguez on May 14, 2002 09:48 AM

We're in. Just tell us what to do.

By the way, we recommend taking the low road. Chomskysucks.com would catch the attention of all those little Rage against the Machine-heads looking up Noam because some guy they bought a dime bag off told them he was cool.

As a name for the site, how about Noam More!

Posted by: John on May 14, 2002 09:55 AM

Four thoughts:

1) When I studied Artificial Intelligence, Chompsky's work in linguistics was important. He posited the sentance "Colorless Green Ideas Sleep Furiously" to demonstrate how hard it is for computers to understand language. His sentance also shows how easy it is for computers to generate syntactically correct yet valueless work. Note: His own linguistic work demonstrates how worthless is his own repetitous, automaton-like, artificially-intelligent political writing.

2) Regarding the minions, I concur with Dean that while there will always be a core of his faithful believers. But we don't have to make life easy for any of them.

3) A clear, yet not derogatory name for the site: NoChompsky.

4) This organization effort by drweevil is valuable, and can and should be leveraged to other "dispensers of deception", such as Robert Fisk, Alec Baldwin, or Hillary Clinton. Yes, we need more than a blog, we need a full-featured site. An analogy exists in the Open Source community, which has collaborative boilerplate sites such as SourceForge.Net, which makes it trivial for anyone to establish a software development project. I suggest we use the experience of building "NoChompsky" to form a new full-featured punditry model.

Posted by: Carter Smith on May 14, 2002 10:34 AM

1. It would be a lot of work. Chomsky is a literary squid, spitting out clouds of black ink to confuse and annoy his critics.

It's not as bad as you say. He does emit gallons of pollution, but it's basically all the same thing. He cites the same examples in every speech, lecture or article. The United States could be fighting a war against Martian invaders in 20 years, and he'll still be whining about the World Court and Nicaraguan harbors. Look at his current strategy, for instance. He doesn't -- can't -- address Osama Bin Laden; he just mutters that 9/11 was bad and immediately segues into "but that doesn't matter because the United States is the worst terrorist nation in the world" so he can go on with his Americahating.

Posted by: David Nieporent on May 14, 2002 11:32 AM

I think this as a whole is a great idea. However, I do agree with Mario in that increasing the scope of the site to some degree would make sense. Keep in mind though that David Horowitz already has his group focusing on Chomsky a great deal. However, there are people that have become reflexive anti-Horowitz that this group could easily fill in the gap to reach those readers.

Posted by: Chris Short on May 14, 2002 11:41 AM

Two comments, one serious, one not.

1. Go for it! This is the Internet, and we can fact-check Chomsky's rumpus. Someone's gotta do it.

2. Want to have some real fun with the Chomskybot? Put the URL for the Chomskybot in the Dialectizer, and select the "Elmer Fudd" dialect. Oh, that screwy linguist!

Posted by: Baby M on May 14, 2002 12:01 PM

Please put as much effort into this project as possible since it will no doubt frustrate and demoralize the participants. Perhaps it will even drain whatever is left of their sex drive, avoiding the embarrassment and shame certain to be felt by potential offspring. It also beats trying to decide if Toohey is more evil than Taggart or squeezing zits onto a bathroom mirror.

There are some tactical concerns, however, to be considered. For example, how is one to perpetuate the myth that Chomsky sympathizes with Holocaust deniers when he is on the record, in print and online debunking such obscenity as far back as 1969? On this he wrote, "to even enter into the debate [denial of the Holocaust] is to lose one's humanity" (a risk that should trouble few here as they've never had any) or from his defense of the civil liberties of Faurisson where he wrote, "It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers."

Another block to stumble over is Chomsky's alleged "predictions"- such as the trouble encountered by Ronald Radosh and David Horowitz in their tantrum about the potential of a "silent genocide" in Afghanistan. A fair researcher would note that Chomsky's "prediction" was not his, but a review of the pleas by the UN World Food Program, Oxfam, and other organizations for the US to halt the bombing to allow food delivery for the millions of Afghans who depended on it for survival. While there was no media interest in this story then or now (on principle) a few reports hinted at some of the results. A wire story from UPI on January 8:

"An acute food shortage has forced thousands of malnourished Afghans to eat grass and thousands more may face starvation if they do not receive help, international aid agencies warned Tuesday...The report said that even in areas where relief has arrived, "supplementary foods such as lentils, oil and corn Soya blend are needed to meet the nutritional requirements of malnourished populations." WFP began distributing food coupons to over 50,000 families (approximately 340,000 people out of a total population of 430,000) in the western Herat region this week. But the International Rescue Committee, one of the aid agencies working in Afghanistan, warned that about 10,000 people in the northern mountainous region of Abdullah Jan have been forced to eat grass...WFP is also taking food to another 10,000 starving people in Badhgis district of western Afghanistan who face a similar situation. The Red Cross estimates that 300,000 to 400,000 families could still be in remote mountain areas and in desperate straits."

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=08012002-024722-3570r

As the formula goes, each Afghan family is assumed to hold 6.8 people, therefore 300 to 400,000 families in the "remote mountain areas" in "desperate straits" is equal to between 2 and 2.7 million people. As expected, the concern for their fate may be measured by the quantity of follow-up coverage in the "free press."

While I don't expect obstacles such as facts or commitment to honesty to inhibit this project, I welcome the opportunity to laugh at wanna-be debunkers that have more ambition than talent.

Posted by: southpaw on May 14, 2002 12:11 PM

I nominate Southpaw for Satirist-in-Chief of the project. He's got the whole Chomsky schtick down pat: the snideness, the cheap-shot character attacks tossed in as asides, the red herring quotes -- the entire mechanism of evasion and preening self-righteousness. Bravo, Southpaw! None are Chomskier than thou!

Posted by: Barry on May 14, 2002 01:01 PM

A great idea, and it's pretty doable even if you merely collected what's already out there in warbloggerland. A few suggestions:

-Add a category to the site/blog listing Chomsky's admirers, especially (or exclusively) the hate spewing, anti-semitic, anti-American, or conspiracy theorist wackjobs out there. Guilt by association works. If the KKK came out in support of any politician, they'd have an uphill job getting elected.

- I concur with other posters: keep to the high road. Gettin' down in the mud is fun, but not very influential, and influence is what you want. Not with Chomsky's supporters, but with the average Joe or undecided young college wannabe- radical.

- Perhaps an editorial board or something to review additions/posts to the site? At the very least, a willingness to pull anything posted that isn't well-grounded in fact. There's enough of Chomsky's petards out there to hoist him upon, no need to push the bounds of reasonableness.

- Some form of webboard or comments section for wannabe-participants to collaborate on dissections, so long as everyone can tolerate (or better, ignore) the certain flood of Evil Gnoams that will attack.

Go for it, guys. Even if it doesn't get the word out as well as we all hope, it would be a nice database for anyone dealing with the Looney Left. They all steal Chomsky's arguments anyway. It'd be nice to have a quick source of debunking material.

Posted by: Tom on May 14, 2002 01:19 PM

Oops, I see you already made the suggestion of listing Chomsky fans. I retract.

(It was a long post, and I have to read snippets between getting real work done. Sometimes I miss details.)

Posted by: Tom on May 14, 2002 01:30 PM

Tom wrote:

"Add a category to the site/blog listing Chomsky's admirers, especially (or exclusively) the hate spewing, anti-semitic, anti-American, or conspiracy theorist wackjobs out there. Guilt by association works. If the KKK came out in support of any politician, they'd have an uphill job getting elected."

I would advise against any and all species of argumentum ad hominem - it doesn't matter who supports Chomsky, Chomsky should be irrelevant to whether or not Chomsky's arguments are sound. Cheap Stalinism will get you nowhere.

Tom contradicts his first point with his second:

"- I concur with other posters: keep to the high road. Gettin' down in the mud is fun, but not very influential, and influence is what you want. Not with Chomsky's supporters, but with the average Joe or undecided young college wannabe- radical."

Fair enough, debate the facts. But how successful is such an enterprise likely to be when there hasn't been a successful anti-Chomsky blog yet? That is to say one that isn't full of straw men and evasions. Even a pro like Walter Shapiro in USA Today made himself look foolish to anyone who bothered to read to page 16 in the book he was trying to trash.

Posted by: Mike on May 14, 2002 01:44 PM

so all you people do is Insult Noam Chomsky...whatelese can we expect from people that have never read him. Typical GOP humps

Posted by: c on May 14, 2002 02:14 PM

Pej must have hit a nerve; the Gnoams are coming out already. That's a good sign.

Mike says:
"Chomsky should be irrelevant to whether or not Chomsky's arguments are sound."

And? A list of Chomsky supporters has nothing to do with Chomsky the man, and everything to do with the ideas he puts forth, unless they're just in love with him no matter what he says. By your own argument, a laundry list of co-ideologues are well within the bounds of discussion, if only to point out the collective mindset. It would be more accurate to accompany each name/group with a short description of why they agree with Chomsky, of course. I'd be in favor of that, actually.

You bring up a good point, (unintentionally?) supporting my "high road" opinion. We need to stay focused on the message, not the man. Our opponent isn't Noam, but anyone and everyone who espouses the same beliefs (thus my interest in listing those people). That Noam is one of the most prolific simply makes him the most opportune target.

Posted by: Tom on May 14, 2002 03:04 PM

So, the East Timor atrocity is another Chomsky lie? Too bad the National Security Archive at George Washington University has published the some recently obtained records of conversations between Suharto, Ford and Kissinger regarding the 1975 invasion that corroborates Chomsky's account. A summary of their findings:

Ford and Kissinger Gave Green Light to Indonesia's Invasion of East Timor, 1975:
New Documents Detail Conversations with Suharto

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the World Wide Web previously secret archival documents confirming for the first time that the Indonesian government launched its bloody invasion of Portuguese East Timor in December 1975 with the concurrence of President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Since then, the Suharto regime that sponsored the invasion has disintegrated, and East Timor has achieved independence, but as many as 200,000 Timorese died during the twenty-five year occupation.
Twenty-six years ago today, President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger met with Indonesian President Suharto during a brief stopover in Jakarta while they were flying back from Beijing. Aware that Suharto had plans to invade East Timor, and that the invasion was legally problematic—in part because of Indonesia's use of U.S. military equipment that Congress had approved only for self-defense—Ford and Kissinger wanted to ensure that Suharto acted only after they had returned to U.S. territory. The invasion took place on December 7, 1975, the day after their departure, resulting in the quarter-century long violent and bloody Indonesian occupation of East Timor. Henry Kissinger has consistently denied that any substantive discussion of East Timor took place during the meeting with Suharto, but a newly declassified State Department telegram from December 1975 confirms that such a discussion took place and that Ford and Kissinger advised Suharto that “it is important that whatever you do succeeds quickly.” Two key documents released today were declassified by the Gerald R. Ford Library at the request of the National Security Archive; Archive staffers located other documents at the National Archives. Today’s revelations include:

When Suharto told Ford and Kissinger that he was about to order an invasion, the response was only to caution that "it would be better it it were done after we returned" (the invasion began the next day).
Kissinger told Suharto that the use of U.S.-supplied arms in the invasion—equipment that under U.S. law could not be used for offensive military operations—“could create problems,” but indicated that they might be able to “construe” the invasion as self-defense.
On 12 August 1975, a few days after a coup attempt in East Timor, Kissinger observed that an Indonesian takeover would take place “sooner or later”.
Six months into the occupation of East Timor, Kissinger acknowledged to senior State Department officials that U.S. military aid had been used “illegally” and hinted at his own doubts about the invasion: Washington had “not very willingly” resumed normal relations with Jakarta.

“This important set of documents reveals the overriding importance that the Ford administration attached to maintaining friendly relations with Indonesia in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. defeat in Vietnam. Ford and Kissinger plainly viewed the maintenance of warm ties with the Suharto regime as a foreign policy priority that far outweighed any secondary concerns about the possible Indonesian use of force in East Timor--even though the use of such force would … constitute a clear violation of American laws. The callous disregard for the human rights and political aspirations of the East Timorese are rather breathtakingly exposed in these newly released documents.” --- Robert J. McMahon, Professor of History, University of Florida, and author of The Limits of Empire: The United States and Southeast Asia Since 1945 (1999)

The documents can be viewed at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62/

Posted by: Beth on May 14, 2002 03:29 PM

Tom writes:
"And? A list of Chomsky supporters has nothing to do with Chomsky the man, and everything to do with the ideas he puts forth, unless they're just in love with him no matter what he says. By your own argument, a laundry list of co-ideologues are well within the bounds of discussion, if only to point out the collective mindset."

Well, not really. For example- Persons A and B both believe that abortion is wrong. Both are convinced of their positions based on religious beliefs, with the exception that Person B is a member of the KKK. Assume further that Person A is an activist and is frequently cited by Person B as a voice worth hearing. The fact that Person B is profoundly evil has nothing to do with the moral status of Person A or the value of A's argument. More, Person A has no responsibility to distance himself from the views of B, as only an intellectual fraud would try to smear A with B. A "laundry list of co-ideologues [is] well within the bounds of discussion" but it doesn't prove anything.

Posted by: Mike on May 14, 2002 03:55 PM

A much needed project. I support this effort fully.

It is well past time to take on these rats on their own terms and with great energy and vigilance. Take a page from David Horowitz who tirelessly upturns the bilious mis-information casually excreted from moral midgets such as Chomsky.

Posted by: Tim Peck on May 14, 2002 04:40 PM

The Chomsky fans that are posting to this site might be able to find instances where he is right (e.g. the posting by beth on the East Timor situation) but the conclusions that his fans draw do not apply: that anyone who isn't with Chomsky must be a right-wing fanatic or someone who has "false consciousness" (broadly defined). There are many libertarian arguments against state power and in this regard Chomsky isn't saying anything new. The problem with Chomsky is that he throws off apparently causal links between two events without considering that correlation is not causation. For example, he states (correct me if I'm wrong) that foreign aid from the US increases the political oppression in the recipient countries, ergo foreign aid from the US causes grave human suffering. This MAY be true, but simply saying two event are linked does not mean that they are. There is a correlation between stork migration and number of live births in Germany, but we don't conclude that the stork brings babies...

There are many statements by Chomsky that are empirical in nature and his casual linkage of events doesn't pass muster with individuals who do empirical research. Show that his arguments are meaningful in a statistically significant manner instead of asserting the "truth" just because it fits a pre-conceived notion of how the world works.

Posted by: EcoDude on May 14, 2002 05:20 PM

A technical comment: for an effort such as this, a heavily cross-referenced, continually refined, community edited and fact-checked reference site, isn't a Wiki more applicable than a blog? Having a blog-type frontpage is a good idea for keeping up with new developments; but a wiki would seem to make more sense for the reference portion of the site. A wiki makes it very easy for a community of not-necessarily-web-savvy contributors to collaboratively create, refine, cross-reference, and navigate large quantities of information. For successful examples, see http://www.wikipedia.com/ and the original WikiWikiWeb at http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FrontPage. UseModWiki (http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UseModWiki) is one popular wiki engine that I've found very easy to set up.

Posted by: Avdi Grimm on May 15, 2002 09:53 AM

Since you brought it up, people interested in attacking Chomsky for his defense of Robert Faurisson ought to trouble themselves to read the text in question:

Some Elementary Comments on
The Rights of Freedom of Expression
Noam Chomsky
Appeared as an avis to Faurisson's Memoire en defense

The remarks that follow are sufficiently banal so that I feel that an apology is in order to reasonable people who may happen to read them. If there is, nevertheless, good reason to put them on paper -- and I fear that there is -- this testifies to some remarkable features of contemporary French intellectual culture.

Before I turn to the subject on which I have been asked to comment, two clarifications are necessary. The remarks that follow are limited in two crucial respects. First: I am concerned here solely with a narrow and specific topic, namely, the right of free expression of ideas, conclusions and beliefs. 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. Second: I will have some harsh (but merited) things to say about certain segments of the French intelligentsia, who have demonstrated that they have not the slightest concern for fact or reason, as I have learned from unpleasant personal experience that I will not review here. Certainly, what I say does not apply to many others, who maintain a firm commitment to intellectual integrity. This is not the place for a detailed account. The tendencies to which I refer are, I believe, sufficiently significant to merit attention and concern, but I would not want these comments to be misunderstood as applying beyond their specific scope.

Some time ago I was asked to sign a petition in defense of Robert Faurisson's "freedom of speech and expression." The petition said absolutely nothing about the character, quality or validity of his research, but restricted itself quite explicitly to a defense of elementary rights that are taken for granted in democratic societies, calling upon university and government officials to "do everything possible to ensure the [Faurisson's] safety and the free exercise of his legal rights." I signed it without hesitation.

The fact that I had signed the petition aroused a storm of protest in France. In the Nouvel Observateur, an ex-Stalinist who has changed allegiance but not intellectual style published a grossly falsified version of the contents of the petition, amidst a stream of falsehoods that merit no comment. This, however, I have come to regard as normal. I was considerably more surprised to read in Esprit (September 1980) that Pierre Vidal-Naquet found the petition "scandaleuse," citing specifically that fact that I had signed it (I omit the discussion of an accompanying article by the editor that again merits no comment, at least among people who retain a commitment to elementary values of truth and honesty).

Vidal-Naquet offers exactly one reason for finding the petition, and my act of signing it, "scandaleuse": the petition, he claims, presented Faurisson's " 'conclusions' comme si elles etaient effectivement des decouvertes [as if they had just been discovered]." Vidal-Naquet's statement is false. The petition simply stated that Faurisson had presented his "finding," which is uncontroversial, stating or implying precisely nothing about their value and implying nothing about their validity. Perhaps Vidal-Naquet was misled by faulty understanding of the English wording of the petition; that is, perhaps he misunderstood the English word "findings." It is, of course, obvious that if I say that someone presented his "findings" I imply nothing whatsoever about their character or validity; the statement is perfectly neutral in this respect. I assume that it was indeed a simple misunderstanding of the text that led Vidal-Naquet to write what he did, in which case he will, of course, publicly withdraw that accusation that I (among others) have done something "scandaleuse" in signing an innocuous civil rights petition of the sort that all of us sign frequently.

I do not want to discuss individuals. Suppose, then, that some person does indeed find the petition "scandaleuse," not on the basis of misreading, but because of what it actually says. Let us suppose that this person finds Faurisson's ideas offensive, even horrendous, and finds his scholarship to be a scandal. Let us suppose further that he is correct in these conclusions -- whether he is or not is plainly irrelevant in this context. Then we must conclude that the person in question believes that the petition was "scandaleuse" because Faurisson should indeed be denied the normal rights of self-expression, should be barred from the university, should be subjected to harassment and even violence, etc. Such attitudes are not uncommon. They are typical, for example of American Communists and no doubt their counterparts elsewhere. Among people who have learned something from the 18th century (say, Voltaire) it is a truism, hardly deserving discussion, that the defense of the right of free expression is not restricted to ideas one approves of, and that it is precisely in the case of ideas found most offensive that these rights must be most vigorously defended. Advocacy of the right to express ideas that are generally approved is, quite obviously, a matter of no significance. All of this is well-understood in the United States, which is why there has been nothing like the Faurisson affair here. In France, where a civil libertarian tradition is evidently not well-established and where there have been deep totalitarian strains among the intelligentsia for many years (collaborationism, the great influence of Leninism and its offshoots, the near-lunatic character of the new intellectual right, etc.), matters are apparently quite different.

For those who are concerned with the state of French intellectual culture, the Faurisson affair is not without interest. Two comparisons immediately come to mind. The first is this. I have frequently signed petitions -- indeed, gone to far greater lengths -- on behalf of Russian dissidents whose views are absolutely horrendous: advocates of ongoing U.S. savagery in Indochina, or of policies that would lead to nuclear war, or of a religious chauvinism that is reminiscent of the dark ages. No one has ever raised an objection. Should someone have done so, I would regard this with the same contempt as is deserved by the behavior of those who denounce the petition in support of Faurisson's civil rights, and for exactly the same reason. I do not read the Communist Party press, but I have little doubt that the commissars and apparatchiks have carefully perused these petitions, seeking out phrases that could be maliciously misinterpreted, in an effort to discredit these efforts to prevent the suppression of human rights. In comparison, when I state that irrespective of his views, Faurisson's civil rights should be guaranteed, this is taken to be "scandaleuse" and a great fuss is made about it in France. The reason for the distinction seems obvious enough. In the case of the Russian dissidents, the state (our states) approves of supporting them, for its own reasons, which have little to do with concern for human rights, needless to say. In the case of Faurisson, however, defense of his civil rights is not officially approved doctrine -- far from it -- so that segments of the intelligentsia, who are ever eager to line up and march off to the beat of the drums, do not perceive any need to take the stance accepted without question in the case of Soviet dissidents. In France, there may well be other factors: perhaps a lingering guilt about disgraceful behavior of substantial sectors under Vichy, the failure to protest the French wars in Indochina, that lasting impact of Stalinism and more generally Leninist doctrines, the bizarre and dadaistic character of certain streams of intellectual life in postwar France which makes rational discourse appear to be such an odd and unintelligible pastime, the currents of anti-Semitism that have exploded into violence.

A second comparison also comes to mind. I rarely have much good to say about the mainstream intelligentsia in the United States, who generally resemble their counterparts elsewhere. Still, it is very illuminating to compare the reaction to the Faurisson affair in France and to the same phenomenon here. In the United States, Arthur Butz (whom one might regard as the American Faurisson) has not been subjected to the kind of merciless attack levelled against Faurisson. When the "no holocaust" historians hold a large international meeting in the United States, as they did some months ago, there is nothing like the hysteria that we find in France over the Faurisson affair. When the American Nazi Party calls for a parade in the largely Jewish city of Skokie, Illinois -- obviously, pure provocation -- the American Civil Liberties Union defends their rights (though of course, the American Communist Party is infuriated). As far as I am aware, much the same is true in England or Australia, countries which, like the United States, have a live civil libertarian tradition. Butz and the rest are sharply criticized and condemned, but without any attack on their civil rights, to my knowledge. There is no need, in these countries, for an innocuous petition such as the one that is found "scandaleuse" in France, and if there were such a petition, it would surely not be attacked outside of limited and insignificant circles. The comparison is, again, illuminating. One should try to understand it. One might argue, perhaps, that Nazism and anti-Semitism are much more threatening in France. I think that this is true, but it is simply a reflection of the same factors that led to the Leninism of substantial sectors of the French intelligentsia for a long period, their contempt for elementary civil libertarian principles today, and their current fanaticism in beating the drums for crusades against the Third World. There are, in short, deep-seated totalitarian strains that emerge in various guises, a matter well worth further consideration, I believe.

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. In support of the charge of anti-Semitism, I have been informed that Faurisson is remembered by some schoolmates as having expressed anti-Semitic sentiments in the 1940s, and as having written a letter that some interpret as having anti-Semitic implications at the time of the Algerian war. I am a little surprised that serious people should put such charges forth -- even in private -- as a sufficient basis for castigating someone as a long-time and well-known anti-Semitic. I am aware of nothing in the public record to support such charges. I will not pursue the exercise, but suppose we were to apply similar standards to others, asking, for example, what their attitude was towards the French war in Indochina, or to Stalinism, decades ago. Perhaps no more need be said.

Cambridge, Massachusetts
October 11, 1980

Clearly some intellectual gymnastics have been performed to turn the above into a pro-Holocaust denial position. Thus we have a follow-up written for The Nation:

His Right to Say It
Noam Chomsky
The Nation, February 28, 1981

An article in the New York Times concerning my involvement in the "Faurisson affair" was headlined "French Storm in a Demitasse." If the intent was to imply that these events do not even merit being called "a tempest in a teapot," I am inclined to agree. Nevertheless, torrents of ink have been spilled in Europe, and some here. Perhaps, given the obfuscatory nature of the coverage, it would be useful for me to state the basic facts as I understand them and to say a few words about the principles that arise.

In the fall of 1979, I was asked by Serge Thion, a libertarian socialist scholar with a record of opposition to all forms of totalitarianism, to sign a petition calling on authorities to insure Robert Faurisson's "safety and the free exercise of his legal rights." The petition said nothing about his "holocaust studies" (he denies the existence of gas chambers or of a systematic plan to massacre the Jews and questions the authenticity of the Anne Frank diary, among other things), apart from noting that they were the cause of "efforts to deprive Professor Faurisson of his freedom of speech and expression." It did not specify the steps taken against him, which include suspension from his teaching position at the University of Lyons after the threat of violence, and a forthcoming court trial for falsification of history and damages to victims of Nazism.

The petition aroused considerable protest. In Nouvel Observateur, Claude Roy wrote that "the appeal launched by Chomsky" supported Faurisson's views. Roy explained my alleged stand as an attempt to show that the United States is indistinguishable from Nazi Germany. In Esprit, Pierre Vidal-Naquet found the petition "scandalous" on the ground that it "presented his 'conclusions' as if they were actually discoveries." Vidal-Naquet misunderstood a sentence in the petition that ran, "Since he began making his findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to...." The term "findings" is quite neutral. One can say, without contradiction: "He made his findings public and they were judged worthless, irrelevant, falsified...." The petition implied nothing about quality of Faurisson's work, which was irrelevant to the issues raised.

Thion then asked me to write a brief statement on the purely civil libertarian aspects of this affair. I did so, telling him to use it as he wished. In this statement, I made it explicit that I would not discuss Faurisson's work, having only limited familiarity with it (and, frankly, little interest in it). Rather, I restricted myself to the civil-liberties issues and the implications of the fact that it was even necessary to recall Voltaire's famous words in a letter to M. le Riche: "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."

Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East?, where I describe the holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history"). But it is elementary that freedom of expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously defended. It is easy enough to defend those who need no defense or to join in unanimous (and often justified) condemnation of a violation of civil rights by some official enemy.

I later learned that my statement was to appear in a book in which Faurisson defends himself against the charges soon to be brought against him in court. While this was not my intention, it was not contrary to my instructions. I received a letter from Jean-Pierre Faye, a well-known anti-Fascist writer and militant, who agreed with my position but urged me to withhold my statement because the climate of opinion in France was such that my defense of Faurisson's right to express his views would be interpreted as support for them. I wrote to him that I accepted his judgment, and requested that my statement not appear, but by then it was too late to stop publication.

Parts of my letter to Faye appeared in the French press and have been widely quoted and misquoted and subjected to fantastic interpretations. It was reported, for example, that I repudiated my comments after having learned that there is anti-Semitism in France, and that I was changing my views on the basis of clippings from the French press (in the same letter, I had asked Faye to send me clippings on another matter). My personal letter to Faye was incomprehensible to anyone who had not read Faye's original letter to me; a telephone call would quickly have clarified the facts.

The uproar that ensued is of some interest. In Le Matin (socialist), Jacques Baynac wrote that my fundamental error was to "defend, in the name of freedom of expression, the right to mock the facts" -- "facts" determined, presumably, by some board of commissars or a reconstituted Inquisition. My lengthy discussion on the implications of this doctrine was from the occasionally recognizable version of the interview with me published in Le Matin. In Le Monde, the editor of Esprit, Paul Thibaud, wrote that I had condemned "the entire French intelligentsia," launching a "general accusation" against "les Francais" without qualifications. Alberto Cavallari, Paris correspondent for the Corriere della Sera went further still, claiming that I had condemned all of "French culture." The article is notable for a series of fabricated quotes designed to establish this and other allegations. What I had written was that though I would make some harsh comments about "certain segments of the French intelligentsia... certainly, what I say does not apply to many others, who maintain a firm commitment to intellectual integrity...I would not want these comments to be misunderstood as applying beyond their specific scope." Similar qualifications are removed from the doctored "interview" in Le Matin, enabling the editors to allege that I describe France as "totalitarian."

Cavallari went on to explain that my rage against "French culture" derives from its refusal to accept the theory that linguistics proves that "the Gulag descends directly from Rousseau" and other imbecile ideas he chooses to attribute to me for reasons best known to himself. In Nouvel Observateur, Jean-Paul Enthoven offers a different explanation: I support Faurisson because my "instrumentalist theory of language, the 'generative grammar'...does not allow the means to think of the unimaginable, that is the holocaust." He and Cavallari, among others, explain further that my defense of Faurisson is a case of the extreme left joining the extreme right, a phenomenon to which they devote many sage words. In Le Matin, Catherine Clement explains my odd behavior on the ground that I am a "perfect Bostonian," "a cold and distant man, without real social contacts, incapable of understanding Jewish-American humor, which relies heavily on Yiddish." Pierre Daix explains in Le Quotidien de Paris that I took up left-wing causes to "clear myself" of the reactionary implications of my "innatism." And so on, at about the same level.

To illustrate the caliber of discussion, after I had noted that Vidal-Naquet's comment cited above was based on a misunderstanding, he reprinted his article in a book (Les Juifs, F. Maspero), eliminating the passage I quoted and adding an appendix in which he claims falsely that "the error in question had appeared only in an earlier draft," which I am accused of having illegitimately quoted. The example is, unfortunately, quite typical.

A number of critics (for example Abraham Forman of the Anti-Defamation League in Le Matin) contend that the only issue is Faurisson's right to publish and that this has not been denied. The issue, however, is his suspension from the university because of threats of violence against him, and his court trial. It is of interest that his attorney, Yvon Chotard, who is defending him on grounds of freedom of expression and the right to an attorney of one's choice, has been threatened with expulsion from the anti-Fascist organization that is bringing Faurisson to trial.

As Faye predicted, many showed themselves incapable of distinguishing between defense of the right of free expression and defense of the views expressed -- and not only in France. In The New Republic, Martin Peretz concluded from my expressed lack of interest in Faurisson's work that I am an "agnostic" about the holocaust and "a fool" about genocide. He claims further that I deny freedom of expression to my opponents, referring to my comment that one degrades oneself by entering into debate over certain issues. In short, if I refuse to debate you, I constrain your freedom. He is careful to conceal the example I cited: the holocaust.

Many writers find it scandalous that I should support the right of free expression for Faurisson without carefully analyzing his work, a strange doctrine which, if adopted, would effectively block defense of civil rights for unpopular views. Faurisson does not control the French press or scholarship. There is surely no lack of means or opportunity to refute or condemn his writings. My own views in sharp opposition to his are clearly on record, as I have said. No rational person will condemn a book, however outlandish its conclusions may seem, without at least reading it carefully; in this case, checking the documentation offered, and so on. One of the most bizarre criticisms has been that by refusing to undertake this task, I reveal that I have no interest in six million murdered Jews, a criticism which, if valid, applies to everyone who shares my lack of interest in examining Faurisson's work. One who defends the right of free expression incurs no special responsibility to study or even be acquainted with the views expressed. I have, for example, frequently gone well beyond signing petitions in support of East European dissidents subjected to repression or threats, often knowing little and caring less about their views (which in some cases I find obnoxious, a matter of complete irrelevance that I never mention in this connection). I recall no criticism of this stand.

The latter point merits further comment. I have taken far more controversial stands than this in support of civil liberties and academic freedom. At the height of the Vietnam War, I publicly took the stand that people I regard as authentic war criminals should not be denied the right to teach on political or ideological grounds, and I have always taken the same stand with regard to scientists who "prove" that blacks are genetically inferior, in a country where their history is hardly pleasant, and where such views will be used by racists and neo-Nazis. Whatever one thinks of Faurisson, no one has accused him of being the architect of major war crimes or claiming that Jews are genetically inferior (though it is irrelevant to the civil-liberties issue, he writes of the "heroic insurrection of the Warsaw ghetto" and praises those who "fought courageously against Nazism" in "the right cause"). I even wrote in 1969 that it would be wrong to bar counterinsurgency research in the universities, though it was being used to murder and destroy, a position that I am not sure I could defend. What is interesting is that these far more controversial stands never aroused a peep of protest, which shows that the refusal to accept the right of free expression without retaliation, and the horror when others defend this right, is rather selective.

The reaction of the PEN Club in Paris is also interesting. PEN denounces my statements on the ground that they have given publicity to Faurisson's writing at a time when there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism. It is odd that an organization devoted to freedom of expression for authors should be exercised solely because Faurisson's defense against the charges brought against him is publicly heard. Furthermore, if publicity is being accorded to Faurisson, it is because he is being brought to trial (presumably, with the purpose of airing the issues) and because the press has chosen to create a scandal about my defense of his civil rights. On many occasions, I have written actual prefaces and endorsements for books in France -- books that are unread and unknown, as indeed is the case generally with my own writings. The latter fact is illustrated, for example, by Thibaud, who claims that I advocated "confiding Vietnamese freedom to the supposed good will of the leaders of the North." In fact, my writings on the war were overwhelmingly devoted to the U.S. attack on the peasant society of the South (and later Laos and Cambodia as well), which aimed to undermine the neutralization proposals of the National Liberation Front and others and to destroy the rural society in which the NLF was based, and I precisely warned that success in this effort "will create a situation in which, indeed, North Vietnam will necessarily dominate Indochina, for no other viable society will remain."

Thibaud's ignorant falsifications point to one of the real factors that lie behind this affair. A number of these critics are ex-Stalinists, or people like Thibaud, who is capable of writing that prior to Solzhenitsyn, "every previous account" of "Sovietism" was within the Trotskyite framework (Esprit). Intellectuals who have recently awakened to the possibility of an anti-Leninist critique often systematically misunderstand a discussion of revolutionary movements and efforts to crush them that has never employed the assumptions they associate with the left. Thibaud, for example, cannot understand why I do not share his belief that Lenin, Stalin and Pol Pot demonstrate "the failure of socialism." Many left or ex-left intellectuals seem unaware that I never have regarded Leninist movements as having anything to do with "socialism" in any meaningful sense of the term; or that, having grown up in the libertarian anti-Leninist left, familiar since childhood with works that Thibaud has still never heard of, I am unimpressed with their recent conversions and unwilling to join in their new crusades, which often strike me as morally dubious and intellectually shallow. All of this has led to a great deal of bitterness on their part and not a little outright deceit.

As for the resurgence of anti-Semitism to which the PEN Club refers, or of racist atrocities, one may ask if the proper response to publication of material that may be used to enhance racist violence and oppression is to deny civil rights. Or is it, rather, to seek the causes of these vicious developments and work to eliminate them? To a person who upholds the basic ideas professed in the Western democracies, or who is seriously concerned with the real evils that confront us, the answer seems clear.

There are, in fact, far more dangerous manifestations of "revisionism" than Faurisson's. Consider the effort to show that the United States engaged in no crimes in Vietnam, that it was guilty only of "intellectual error." This "revisionism," in contrast to that of Faurisson, is supported by the major institutions and has always been the position of most of the intelligentsia, and has very direct and ugly policy consequences. Should we then argue that people advocating this position be suspended from teaching and brought to trial? The issue is, of course, academic. If the version of the Zhdanov doctrine now being put forth in the Faurisson affair were adopted by people with real power, it would not be the "Vietnam revisionists" who would be punished.

I do not want to leave the impression that the whole of the French press has been a theater of the absurd or committed to such views as those reviewed. There has been accurate commentary in Le Monde and Liberation, for example, and a few people have taken a clear and honorable stand. Thus Alfred Grosser, who is critical of what he believes to be my position, writes in Le Quotidien de Paris: "I consider it shocking that Mr. Faurisson should be prevented from teaching French literature at the University of Lyons on the pretext that his security cannot be guaranteed."

In the Italian left-liberal journal Repubblica, Barbara Spinelli writes that the real scandal in this affair is the fact that even a few people publicly affirm their support of the right to express ideas that are almost universally reviled -- and that happen to be diametrically opposed to their own. My own observation is different. It seems to me something of a scandal that it is even necessary to debate these issues two centuries after Voltaire defended the right of free expression for views he detested. It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers.

Others, fooled by obvious and blatent distortions, were treated to further explanation:

The Faurisson affair

Date unavailable (circa 1989-1991)
Text of personal letter
Noam Chomsky queried by Lawrence K. Kolodney

Kolodney's query:
Recently, I have come across allegations concerning actions you took with respect to the Faurisson affair. Although I thought the issue was essentially settled, a new pamphlet, entitled "The Hidden Alliances of Noam Chomsky" by one Werner Cohn has been making its way around. It claims to rebut your most recent public statement in "The Nation" on the subject, and contains some disturbing allegations.
1. Is it true that you stated that you saw "no anti-semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust"? Did you mean this in a purely formal sense? In any other way, it seems strange to me that you wouldn't at least suspect the motives of someone who does seriously attempt to deny that event.

2. Is it true that you published the French version of "The Political Economy of Human Rights" with Faurisson's publisher? Doesn't this go beyond the scope of merely defending free speech to subsidizing anti-semitic speech?

3. What's the story behind La Vielle Taupe [the publisher of Faurisson]? The pamphlet I mentioned paints it as a kind of Larouchite organization, with roots in the stalinist [sic] left but now with an idiosyncratic right wing ideology.

Chomsky's reply:
Dear Mr. Kolodney,
The issue of the Faurisson affair is very far from settled, in two respects. First, the actual issue has not yet even been addressed. Recall the facts. A professor of French literature was suspended from teaching on grounds that he could not be protected from violence, after privately printing pamphlets questioning the existence of gas chambers. He was then brought to trial for "falsification of History," and later condemned for this crime, the first time that a modern Western state openly affirmed the Stalinist-Nazi doctrine that the state will determine historical truth and punish deviation from it. Later he was beaten practically to death by Jewish terrorists. As of now, the European and other intellectuals have not expressed any opposition to these scandals; rather, they have sought to disguise their profound commitment to Stalinist-Nazi doctrine by following the same models, trying to divert attention with a flood of outrageous lies. So, the issue has not been settled, or even addressed.

Second, as to the minor matter of my role, that has also not been addressed, though it has been the subject of a flood of lies and deceit on the part of those who want to disguise their own commitments, and on the part of groups like Americans for Safe Israel (ASI), which have their own agendas, namely, to defame and discredit anyone who does not meet their standards of support for Israeli militancy. ASI, which published the ludicrous pamphlet to which you refer, has a long record of attacking Americans and Israelis who depart from their right-wing extremism, with scandalous lies and fabrications, a record that is well-known. ASI was also the sponsor of Rabbi Kahane, the advocate of the Nuremberg laws who was denounced as an outright Nazi by Israeli supreme court justices and Israeli scholars, and barred from the Israeli political system as an outspoken Nazi, which indeed he was. People who choose to pay attention to pamphlets published by pro-Nazi organizations of course have a right to do so. I believe in freedom of speech. But it is hard to take them seriously.

The pamphlet in question is beneath discussion. In fact, I have discussed it once, in the Canadian Jewish journal Outlook (see below), where Cohn presented what he took to be his strongest arguments -- including one that you cite. Each argument was based on total fabrication and absurdity, as easily demonstrated. He never dared to respond. Those, recall, were his own choice of his strongest arguments.

Turning to your questions, I'll begin with the third. For details about Vieille Taupe, I suggest that you contact them. The publisher still exists, to my knowledge. I don't know much about them, but enough to know that what you quote from Cohn is idiotic. The roots of the organization are not "stalinist left" but libertarian left. It was associated with the French (more or less anarchosyndicalist) group of Alfred Rosmer (Griot) and others, whose journal was Revolution proletarienne. This was one of the very few groups in France that was not only anti-Stalinist, but anti-Leninist, and anti-Marxist by conventional standards (little being known among intellectuals beyond the Leninist variant). As to their recent history, I know less, but I have never seen the slightest indication that they are Larouchite. Again, for information, I suggest that you contact them. Surely no one can take Cohn and ASI seriously, given their record of abusive defamation of mild liberals, lies, jingoist extremism, and advocacy of Nazi doctrine.

Your second question is a factual one: did I, as Cohn asserts, choose to publish the French edition of PEHR with VT, as a gesture of solidarity? Note that even if that were true, he could not possibly know it, which is sufficient to prove to any rational person that he is a liar. Out of curiosity, I contacted the publisher -- who, of course, arranges all translations; I can't even keep track of the myriad translations of books of mine, let alone arrange or plan them. I discovered that they indeed had a contract, with Albin Michel, a mainstream French publisher. But they had no record of whether the book had ever appeared; nor do I, or Herman. They had had no communications with Vielle Taupe.

Now your first question. The "statement" to which you refer is a distortion of something that I wrote in a personal letter 11 years ago, when I was asked whether the fact that a person denies the existence of gas chambers does not prove that he is an anti-Semite. I wrote back what every sane person knows: no, of course it does not. A person might believe that Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews in some other way without being an anti-Semite. Since the point is trivial and disputed by no one, I do not know why we are discussing it.

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.

The point is considerably more general. Denial of monstrous atrocities, whatever their scale, does not in itself suffice to prove that those who deny them are racists vis-a-vis the victims. I am sure you agree with this point, which everyone constantly accepts. Thus, in the journal of the American Jewish Congress, a representative of ASI writes that stories about Hitler's anti-gypsy genocide are an "exploded fiction." In fact, as one can learn from the scholarly literature (also Wiesenthal, Vidal-Naquet, etc.), Hitler's treatment of the gypsies was on a par with his slaughter of Jews. But we do not conclude from these facts alone that the AJC and ASI are anti-gypsy racists. 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. Until the last few years, despite overwhelming evidence before their eyes, scholars denied the slaughter of some 10 million native Americans in North America and perhaps 100 million on the [South American] continent. Recent studies of US opinion show that the median estimate of Vietnamese casualties [resulting from the Vietnam War] is 100,000, about 1/20 of the official figure and probably 1\30 or 1\40 of the actual figure. The reason is that that is the fare they have been fed by the propaganda apparatus (media, journals of opinion, intellectuals, etc., "scholarship," etc.) for 20 years. We (at least I) do not conclude from that fact alone that virtually the whole country consists of anti-Vietnamese racists. I leave it to you to draw the obvious analogies.

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. In short, denial of even the most horrendous slaughter does not in itself establish the charge of racism, as everyone agrees. Since that is obvious and undeniable, one naturally questions the motives of those who deny the truism selectively, and produce charges such as those you relay.

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. Since the points are again obvious, a rational person will proceed also to question the motives of those who pretend to deny them, when it suits their particular political purposes. In this respect too the Faurisson affair is far from "settled," as you put it; in fact, the issues have yet to be addressed. In fact, they will never be addressed, because they reveal too much about Western intellectual culture.

Let me repeat. You open by saying that you thought the Faurisson issue is settled. You are incorrect. It has yet even to be addressed, either the major issue that Western intellectuals are desperate to suppress for the obvious reason that it sheds too much light on their actual commitments; or the marginal issue of my own defense of traditional libertarian values that are utterly scorned in Europe, if they are even understood, which I doubt.

Sincerely yours,

Noam Chomsky

Letter to Outlook
June 1, 1989
Letter to the editor of the Canadian Jewish journal Outlook, in response to allegations made by Werner Cohn
Reprinted in Milan Rai, Chomsky's Politics (Verso, 1995), pp. 200-201
Editor
Outlook
6184 Ash St., #3
Vancouver BC V5Z3G9
June 1, 1989

Dear Sir,

Observing the performances of Werner Cohn is a curious experience. An occasional phrase has a relation to reality, but it takes an effort to imagine what may lie behind the discourse.

In Outlook, May, Cohn presents a fevered account of a second existence that he has conjured up for me, in France, where I pursue my secret life as a neo-Nazi, hoping that no one outside of Paris will notice. He gives two proofs. The first is what he calls his 'most crucial source': 'a joint article by Chomsky and his friend Pierre Guillaume, "Une mise au point",' in Guillaume's book Droit et Histoire. The second is that 'Chomsky could have published the French version of his Political Economy of Human Rights (written with Edward Herman) with a commercial publisher, but, in order to show solidarity with VT [Vielle Taupe], Chomsky insisted on publishing the book with it.'

Since I never wrote a 'joint article' with Guillaume, I was curious, and after a search, found the book in question. Indeed, it contains the chapter 'Une mise au point', written in first-person singular by Guillaume, with no hint of any collaboration with me. I am mentioned in it, and fragments of a letter of mine are quoted in which I discuss changes in the U.S. intellectual climate since the 1960's (with typical veracity, Cohn describes this as my 'comments on Guillaume's version of the Chomsky-VT relationship', which is nowhere mentioned). By Cohn's intriguing logic, I am also the co-author of his various diatribes -- perhaps in my third life, which he will expose in the next instalment. Cohn asserts that I found 'nothing to correct in Guillaume's' account. He has not the slightest idea what my reaction to the article is. Recall that this 'joint article' is his 'crucial source'.

Let us turn to his second decisive piece of evidence. When I learned of Cohn's fairy tales about the French translation of the book of Herman and mine, I was intrigued. Of course, it is obvious even without further inquiry that his claims are outlandish. There is no possible way that he could know of my intentions (and those of my co-author, Edward Herman, who somehow seems to have disappeared from the tale; perhaps I invented him as a cover). But we need not speculate on Cohn's mystical ability to read minds.

Standard procedure is to leave translations in the hands of the publisher. I make no attempt to keep track of the innumerable translations of books of mine in foreign languages. Curious about Cohn's allegations, I contacted the publisher, who checked their files and located the contract for the French translation -- with Albin-Michel, a mainstream commercial publisher, to my knowledge. They did not know whether the translation had appeared, never having received a copy. The same is true of my co-author and me.

Note that these are the examples that Cohn selects as the decisive proof of his theses. A rational person will draw the obvious conclusions about the rest. Cohn makes two further claims. He says that in defending the right of freedom of expression in the case of Robert Faurisson, I have always 'indicated' that my '"diametrically opposed" view was more a matter of opinion than of scientific knowledge' (a statement that he appears to attribute to Guillaume); and I have always defended freedom of expression 'in terms that are absolutely incapable of hurting Faurrison [sic].' Consider these allegations.

In Cohn's 'crucial source', cited above, Guillaume quotes my statement that 'there are no rational grounds that allow any doubt about the existence of gas chambers.' Thus Cohn is refuted by his own 'crucial source.' In my own writings, from the earliest until the present, the conclusions of standard Holocaust studies are taken simply as established fact, as Cohn knows perfectly well. In the introduction to my first collection of political essays, 20 years ago, I add that we have lost our humanity if we are even willing to enter into debate over the Nazi crimes with those who deny or defend them. The only particle of truth in Cohn's absurd charge is that I never use the phrase 'scientific knowledge' in dealing with any questions of history; my book with Herman, for example, which is neither science nor mere opinion.

Turning to Cohn's second point, it is taken for granted by civil libertarians that defense of freedom of expression is independent of the views expressed. Thus when I sign petitions (and go far beyond that) in the case of Soviet dissidents, some of whom have absolutely horrendous views, I never allude to this fact in the slightest way. In signing petitions supporting Salman Rushdie, I make no comment about whether his book slanders Muslims. I have no doubt that this practice enrages mullahs in Qom and commissars in the Kremlin as much as it does Werner Cohn, and for the same reasons. Where no civil liberties issues arise, I have been quite explicit about the fact that the views of Faurisson and others are diametrically opposed to my own firm conclusions about the facts, as in the statement quoted in Cohn's 'crucial source'.

The remainder of Cohn's ranting has to do with the alleged views of others, and fanciful comments about France. His conceptions on these matters are, naturally, of no concern to me.

That Cohn is a pathological liar is demonstrated by the very examples that he selects. Knowing nothing about him, and caring less, I am in no position to comment further on what may lie behind this odd and pathetic behavior.

Sincerely yours,

Noam Chomsky

Posted by: Zack on May 15, 2002 01:35 PM

A technical comment: for an effort such as this, a heavily cross-referenced, continually refined, community edited and fact-checked reference site, isn't a Wiki more applicable than a blog? Having a blog-type frontpage is a good idea for keeping up with new developments; but a wiki would seem to make more sense for the reference portion of the site. A wiki makes it very easy for a community of not-necessarily-web-savvy contributors to collaboratively create, refine, cross-reference, and navigate large quantities of information. For successful examples, see http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Zakim_Bunker_Hill_Bridge

Posted by: tom mcalister on May 15, 2002 06:54 PM

I've mildly read some Chomsky while viewing general political essays etc. etc. I'm more interested in the controversy about him at the moment than what he actually says - but it seems to me that often arguments against him are caused by misunderstanding his texts, or simple statements like "Chomsky always lies," or "Chomsky is a holocaust denier," or "Chomsky hates America," etc. etc.

All this means is that I get terribly confused. Is there a currently unrefuted essay that points out something hugely, irrectractably dumb he's said?

If he's spending his life trying to sort out the world that is hard to understand, brutal in too many places, and possibly taken for granted by those with the most power, then I support him.
The other side of the coin is that he IS simply an America hater who is doing anything he can to undermine it. On this latter point I am unable to understand why anyone would be like this, while the former appeals to my sense of intellectual cameraderie. But this is all: where can I find evidence that points to one or the other?

If not, all I can say is that this is all an effective defence against listening to him and accepting what he says.
This is also hard to understand.

Something of a quandary, eh?

Thomas Taylor

Posted by: Thomas Taylor on July 11, 2002 09:43 PM

In response to Thomas Taylor: for criticisms
of Chomsky's views, see
http://www.talene.net/chomsky/links.php?cat=40.

Posted by: Russil Wvong on July 18, 2002 02:30 AM

I'd like to recommend as an anti-Chomsky source an excellent book by David Horowitz entitled "How to Beat the Democrats and other Subversive Ideas." It has a whole chapter on Noam Commie, I mean, Chomsky.

My recommendation:

Ask every member of the NRA you know to take on Chomsky. The NRA is very, very effective at destroying the political reputations of far-leftists. He should be considered public enemy number one. Write letter to Wayne LaPierre and Chuck Heston and Ted Nugent, begging them to assault Noam with the full resources of 5 million members.

Noam will never know hit him... he's never been on the receiving end like that. Also, in the process, the NRA can make sure their 5 million members all hear about what an evil traitor Noam really is. I'd wager that a good many NRA members don't even know who Noam is, or why we should fear and despise him. We can change that!

Posted by: David Gulliver on November 3, 2002 12:15 AM

A man who arouses so much stupid hatred and venom among you yanks must be worth his salt. My next book purchase will be a volume of Chomsky. Tell me which one you would prefer to see burned.

Posted by: Adrian Vogt on November 20, 2002 08:56 PM

Nobody wanted to advise me on the Chomsky book that s/he wanted to see burned first.Perhaps none of those guys who seem to be foaming at the mouth at the mere mentioning of his name ever read a book by him.I wouldn't be surprised.Dr.Johnson once said:"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". I would like to add to that : "and of an illiterate".

Posted by: adrian vogt on December 14, 2002 06:28 AM

Adrian, try "The Chomsky Reader." I've written up a long critical essay on Chomsky's political views: http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/chomsky.html.

Posted by: Russil Wvong on January 28, 2003 08:06 PM

It is about time people recognise what the world is really about. Noam Chompsky does not hate the USA he only shows its incapicity ofr justice,authentic humane acts and a

Posted by: Stephan on April 18, 2003 04:39 PM

Mark Beihoffer, the reclusive hacker of Minnesota's deep underground and Dragonfly-7's lead "architect", has been seen milling around some scenester bars with several luminaries of the local legal industry recently.

He has this to say about the Anti-Noam Chompsky Project; "I don't really know Noam Chompsky, but if I did, I'd probably tell him, If Jesus was here right now, he'd punch you in the face."

Posted by: Sara Sutherland on June 29, 2003 11:35 PM

Chomsky has a right to be critical of us policy. We have a history of corruption. The us could be so much better. We should be the leader of peacekeepers not imperialists. People have a lot more in common than they think if they would stop fighting. If you don't believe that then you are hopeless.

Posted by: James Reller on November 29, 2003 05:56 PM

chomsky on politics is not nessaceraly somthing people need to pay attention to. allthough he is obviously a very bright person and has spent his life analyzing politics, his true passion seems to be in linguistics. so when we here noam chomksy talking about how the media brainwashes people, or however he puts it, this is somthing people should consider. either way i would like to see someone truely discredit what he said by using direct qoutes from one of his published books or articals and then showing an apprpriate amount of evidence that prooves him staments false. also i thouth this was amusing, on the famouse jew online website you can see there is a section for famouse jews who have won the noble prize and chomskly is not listed, he is listed in the embaressments and missfits section, ha!

Posted by: noam chomskies Dad on December 8, 2003 05:40 PM

Blogging is for the mentally challenged with no motivation, or ambition in life but to suck the life and time out of those who are productive, Intended for the depressed social misfits who read this tadpole smegma, fed to us as the primal data of today’s society, Who will in fact as they read this will not be paying attention, because they will be muttering under their breath countless obscene thoughts of what they think of this information.
I despise those who write books with the pretense of informing those college dropouts with fifth grade reading levels who kissed ass enough to get a job paying more than mine, but still do nothing in their life except complain while watching Jerry Springer, and listen to Rush Limbaugh, play golf, and cheat on their taxes…

In a word… Get a life; stop wasting resources and web space with this drivel, manufacturing even more places to go get popup ads and email from penis enlargers, and viagra pushers.

My Thoughts???
funny you would ask, " The emporer is not wearing any clothing"

This is my standard answer to any thing fed to me that for one reason or another I do not care about or believe. Undoubtedly some moronic mentally challenged, social misfit who's mouth works faster than his brain, will attack even this comment, Yeah I'm talking about you, get off your ass get a life, try being productive, you morons.
STOP WASTING BANDWIDTH.

this rant brought to you by the letter Q, and the number blah...
Oh crap, breaks over gotta run Ciao

Posted by: Jose Hemaniz on March 18, 2004 01:47 PM

Blogging is for the mentally challenged with no motivation, or ambition in life but to suck the life and time out of those who are productive, Intended for the depressed social misfits who read this tadpole smegma, fed to us as the primal data of today’s society, Who will in fact as they read this will not be paying attention, because they will be muttering under their breath countless obscene thoughts of what they think of this information.
I despise those who write books with the pretense of informing those college dropouts with fifth grade reading levels who kissed ass enough to get a job paying more than mine, but still do nothing in their life except complain while watching Jerry Springer, and listen to Rush Limbaugh, play golf, and cheat on their taxes…

In a word… Get a life; stop wasting resources and web space with this drivel, manufacturing even more places to go get popup ads and email from penis enlargers, and viagra pushers.

My Thoughts???
funny you would ask, " The emporer is not wearing any clothing"

This is my standard answer to any thing fed to me that for one reason or another I do not care about or believe. Undoubtedly some moronic mentally challenged, social misfit who's mouth works faster than his brain, will attack even this comment, Yeah I'm talking about you, get off your ass get a life, try being productive, you morons.
STOP WASTING BANDWIDTH.

this rant brought to you by the letter Q, and the number blah...
Oh crap, breaks over gotta run Ciao

Posted by: Clarence on March 18, 2004 01:53 PM

Given the pathetic (almost comical) lack of understanding of Chomsky's work and thought displayed on this site, it would appear that Chomsky has very little to worry about from this bunch.

Posted by: JM on May 1, 2004 04:21 PM

You wingnuts tired of Chomsky?
Probably decided to go after George Lakoff now?

Posted by: Plig on September 27, 2004 11:21 PM

Chomsky-Haters

Logic and Reasoning: Inside the Mind of an anti-Chomskyite: The Play (Act 1)

B: Have you read Chomsky?

J: No, but I hate him.

B: How do you know?

J: He hates America, he’s a Pol Pot apologist, he thinks the Holocaust never happened, he hates America, he takes things out of context, his knowledge of history is piss-poor and he doesn’t even have a PhD. in history, he hates America, he never says anything good about the U.S., he always supports communists, he hates America, he’s loose with facts and uses questionable sources, and even his linguistics is shoddy. Oh, and did I mention, he hates America?

B: Oh, really? Forgive me for asking, but if you haven’t read him how do you know all of this?

J: Because….uuhhh……well……I….I…….I did read 15 pages of one book once…….and I can tell piss-poor scholarship when I see it. I don’t need to eat an entire pile of shit to know that it tastes bad after a few nibbles.

B: Really? Hmmm, That’s quite interesting. So you got all of this information from 15 pages of one book? Which book were the 15 pages from? I must have missed this one.

J: The book was called 501.

B: And you got all of this information from the first 15 pages of 501?

J: Well, no, of course, not stupid. I’ve gotten some of my information from others who have studied him more thoroughly.

B: Really? Like who?

J: Like Brian Carnell, Brad DeLong, Keith Windschuttle, David Horowitz, Werner Cohen, and many others. It’s so easy to find really great criticisms of Chomsky’s lame-ass work.

B: But none of the people you’ve named are historians. How would they know if they don’t have a PhD. in history?

J: Uhhhh…..well…….uhh…….Anyone can see! You’re being sarcastic! You’re not being logical or rational! Are you attacking me? You and all of the other Chomsky-lovers always do this. You’re taking what I’ve said out of context, just like your hero Chomsky.

B: Excuse me? What are you talking about? I never said anything about liking Chomsky. When and where were my comments not logical or rational? What am I taking out of context? Frankly, I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

J: It’s hopeless! I’ve tried and tried to make you understand, but you just don’t get it. You resort to ad hominem attacks and name calling. You and your type, who think they have some high moral authority, always speak condescendingly to those of us who are rational enough to see through Chomsky’s ignorance and his hatred for America. We have the greatest country in the world and everyone wants to come here. They’re all jealous of our way of life and freedoms. The terrorists want to destroy us and all that we stand for in the world. We only help other countries and they don’t even appreciate it. They spit in our faces and we still hold out a helping hand. Chomsky and his ilk are just encouraging the terrorists. He’s a terrorist! He should be kicked out of the country, or better yet, killed! I’m so pissed I can’t even see straight! Where’s my gun? Goddamnit! Barbara! Where’s my fucking gun?

W: I think it’s in the dryer dear……Oh! Here it is. It was next to the bible under your National Review.

J: Shut up woman! Did I tell you to speak?! Just give me the fucking gun!

B: J, are you okay?

J: Shut up you fucking commie! You hate America too, don’t you?

B: How did you come to that conclusion?

J: Well, look! All you’ve been doing is criticizing everything I say. You’ve made countless ad homenim attacks. You’re so blinded by your love of Chomsky that you can’t even be rational or logical. Why don’t you and your friends start your own ‘We Love the Infallible Chomsky’ blog where you can just sit around with each other and talk about how great Chomsky is? This way you don’t have to listen to voices of reason and you can use your sloppy logic to your hearts content. Why am I even talking to you? You don’t make sense.

B: Okay, thanks J. I’ll talk to you later.

J: Barbara! Bring me another beer and those Amazon.com negative Chomsky review prints. I wanna’ study!

Posted by: Kropotkin Beard on October 9, 2004 10:16 AM

For Russell Wvong: *Remember, you can replace the J character with Russell if it helps.

Projective Test: Therapy with an anti-Chomskyite (Act 1)

T: Good afternoon J.

J: Sorry I’m late. I couldn’t get this dumb-ass Chomsky-lover off of my blog.

T: Oh, you have your own blog?

J: Sure do. You should check it out sometime. Maybe you’d get some more insight into my psyche. (chuckles)

T: Well maybe I’ll just do that. What’s it called?

J: ‘Deep Insight: Exposing the Lies of Noam Chomsky’

T: Wow! That’s a pretty impressive name. You must put a lot of work into it?

J: Not really. All I find myself doing is arguing with irrational, illogical, Chomsky-loving commies who like to make ad hominem attacks on me.

T: But I mean you must have had to spend a lot of time reading and studying Chomsky’s ideas so that you could argue with these folks, right?

J: Shall we start our therapy?

T: Uhhh….okay, sure. Today I’d like to give you what’s known as a word association projective test. I’ll just say some words and you say the first thing which comes to your mind. Try to answer with one word or a short phrase.

J: Okay.

T: Are you ready?

J: Fire away.

T: banana

J: Sandanistas

T: book

J: review

T: study

J: Amazon.com

T: gun

J: love…No! Peace, peace.

T: history

J: memory hole

T: ad hominem

J: hobby

T: terrorists

J: everyone else

T: hypocrisy

J: rap

T: Orwell

J: Citizen Kane. Wait! Did you say oil well? Uhh...Beverly Hillbillies

T: logic

J: Huh?

T: TV

J: Martha

T: projection

J: What?! Are you accusing me of projection?! That’s what those fucking Chomskyites are always saying to me. Did they put you up to this?! What do you want from me?!

T: No, J. Just relax. It’s okay. No one wants anything from you. I only want you to continue with the test. Okay?

J: Well, okay. How much longer is it going to be?

T: Not too much longer. Shall we proceed?

J: Okay. Sorry.

T: Chomsky

J: WHAT?! What the fuck are you doing?! You American-hating-commie-sympathizing-Jewish-Holocaust-denying-liberal media loving-Dan Ratherite-60’s were good-anti-gun-pro-environmental-pro-affirmative action-Michael Moore idolizer! You mother-fu*”+*#+!+

T: Yes, J! Yes J! Express your feelings! Open up! Open up!

J: You son-of-a-bit*`”*#*”*#*”*………………………………..

(After about 15 more minutes of “expressing himself” J begins to calm down. He sits down and begins to shake. He puts his face in his hands and begins to cry uncontrollably.)

T: It’s okay J. It’s okay to let your feelings go. Would you like to talk about it?

J: (Still crying) I don’t know what happened. It just came out. I couldn’t control it. I’m not even sure I remember what we were talking about.

T: Well, I said Chomsky and…..

J: You fucking said what?! You goddamn son-of-a-*+”*#+!*”+#*!............................................................
(The therapist pushes the button under his desk to alert the orderlies. Two big men bust through the door just as J starts after the therapist. As the orderlies are helping J into his straitjacket he continues to yell and scream obscenities interspersed with comments about Stalin, ad hominem attacks, and Paris Hilton. The orderlies then pick him up and head for the door. As they’re going through the door his head turns toward the therapist’s bookcase. He sees that there are about 30 Chomsky books neatly lined up. He becomes speechless. He glances back at the therapist. The therapist gives him a wink and says….)

T: Take him to room 501!

J: No! No! Noooooooo…………………………………

Posted by: Kropotkin Beard on October 9, 2004 10:25 AM