This issue isn't going away...

[Don Hudson]

GateKeeper, Hadji;

I didn't intend a panning of the journals and tried to tone it down by recognizing the differences between such journals of both the left and the right, and academic journals which intend to ask questions as much as provide "answers", but my dislike of the Policy Review focus does come through a tad.

I also considered hanging back and discussing the article and may still do that but the kicker is twofold - by arguing one provides legitimacy to views (with which one may agree or disagree but), which are based upon political opinion regardless of how justified, such as the article's clear, strong views and definitions of what is "anti-American" and the other is that one cannot engage a hegemonic argument except on a he-says, she-says basis and I don't have the time for the back-and-forth. In other words, one cannot, prima facie, justify a view that criticism of American policies is in and of itself, anti-American, even though one may state it with all the vigour and passion such views typically enjoy. So, I thought, why argue it? I am anything but "anti-American". Like anyone here, I will express views about varying topics which may not be in accord with others' views. Are they then "anti-Don-ism, or anti-Mitchism? Of course not.

However...

Interestingly, to take it on for a moment, the article does NOT mention what IS NOT anti-American when it comes to putting pen-to-paper, so to speak, so...are all criticisms anti-American if one raises an eyebrow towards Washington or are there a few reserved non-sacred areas in which one may offer criticism which will be taken under consideration and not dismissed out of hand as "anti-American" or are we really free to offer our thoughts without getting labeled by the right? Personally, I think the notion is just plain silly - who ever heard of anti-Italianism, anti-Great Britainism, or, (cough), anti-Canadianism, (who'd notice THAT?)

The notion of "anti-Semitism" sometimes gets invoked for the same reasons - some legitimate questions and criticisms are offered at the risk of the author. I think what offends me most about such notions is that they masquerade as a defence with integrity when they are really simply a technique for controlling and focussing the dialogue. On that basis alone, such labels require immediate dismissing.

It IS anti-NNN to issue statements without justifications, out of an abiding prejudice, mis-information, ignorance or a willingness to obscure facts or information, (dis-information). Those are very gray areas of course, and are somewhat dependant upon both the author's and the audience's politics. We all "know" what hate-literature is, but do we know what constitutes an "anti-American" stance? I submit fewer do than invoke the phrase.

If patriotism means one cannot offer one's views on one's government without being labeled an anti-NNNN and dismissed as having nothing positive to say, then we don't have freedom of speech anymore and we certainly don't have respect for the broader discourse on how a nation is conducting itself. That is one of the primary theses of the article among others. Also, Policy Review ran a distinct article on the notion of anti-Americanism which I will read more closely and see how the issues are portrayed and otherwise dealt with. The right dismisses most of what Chomsky has to say perhaps because they are "the right" but also perhaps because they may be....right. I suspend the question in favour of curiosity but I am not sanguine that Policy Review is going to provide me with an unbiased answer, but that is the entire point, after all, of my original post in which I appeared to dump on the Journals without responding to the article.

If I dismissed the article by attacking the publication it appeared in perhaps that was only a step removed from the author's approach in the Policy Review article on anti-Americanism. I don't know - I'll have to return to the article and read more, to do these comments justice but on the face of it, America seems to wear its heart on its sleeve quite often and is tender when it comes to some legitimate knocks.

That it is likely the most brilliant civilization extant and in history, in terms of accomplishment, capacity and vision, there is no doubt. I recall the Sinclair article as it was first read on radio in Toronto because I was living there at the time and it still brings a lump to the throat. Too many make the mistake of assuming that criticism means "I don't like you/it/them" when, as I have been saying for years even with regard to the company I worked for and thoroughly enjoyed, that criticism is the deepest form of loyalty, for if one doesn't give a rat's behind, one is silent and just accepts what is.

Anyway, that was kind of my first response. I appreciate the comment and question as they are "what" based and not dismissive of opposing views.

[Mitch Cronin]

You know, I promise myself I won't get involved in this discussion anymore and you go and say that. You make IMO one of the most outrageous comments I've ever read on these boards and use that list as one of the justifications for your statement. When that list is brought into question this is your response?

Un-freaking-believable.

Wow. ...

No sir. The list itself was not one of the justifications of my statements. The accurate portion of it's contents, and the overall statement made by those contents were. I made the statement that has you so upset prior to ever seeing that list... the list happened to be the first hit I got off Google when I went hunting for "list of US attrocities" to show you and woxof (since both of you seemed to me to be remarkably oblivious to the notion)

I am not responsible for the accuracy of a copied, pasted, and source linked list.

Would you apply that standard to ALL such linked articles?

[Guest woxof]

Yes cargo agent...quite the response. Most of the list would be easily discredited by any unbiased historian. And..."not responsible for the accuracy" is the apparent reply to the so-called proof of the accusation.

Meanwhile the posting of that list reminds me of what is the well thought out article posted by Hadji Ramjet....for those who thought it was too long....

"America-bashing has sadly come to be “the opium of the intellectual,” to use the phrase Raymond Aron borrowed from Marx in order to characterize those who followed the latter into the twentieth century. And like opium it produces vivid and fantastic dreams.

This is an intellectual tragedy. The Marxist left, whatever else one might say about it, has traditionally offered a valuable perspective from which even the greatest conservative thinkers have learned — including Schumpeter and Thomas Sowell. But if it cannot rid itself of its current penchant for fantasy ideology of the worst type, not only will it be incapable of serving this purpose; it will become worse than useless. It will become a justification for a return to that state of barbarism mankind has spent millennia struggling to transcend — a struggle that no one felt more keenly than Marx himself. For the essence of utopianism, according to Marx, is the refusal to acknowledge just how much suffering and pain every upward step of man’s ascent inflicts upon those who are taking it, and instead to dream that there are easier ways of getting there. There are not, and it is helpful to no party to pretend that there are. To argue that the great inequalities of wealth now existing between the advanced capitalist countries and the Third World can be cured by outbreaks of frenzied and irrational America-bashing is not only utopian; it is immoral.

The left, if it is not to condemn itself to become a fantasy ideology, must reconcile itself not only with the reality of America, but with its dialectical necessity — America is the sine qua non of any future progress that mankind can make, no matter what direction that progress may take.

The belief that mankind’s progress, by any conceivable standard of measurement recognized by Karl Marx, could be achieved through the destruction or even decline of American power is a dangerous delusion. Respect for the deep structural laws that govern the historical process — whatever these laws may be — must dictate a proportionate respect for any social order that has achieved the degree of stability and prosperity the United States has achieved and has been signally decisive in permitting other nations around the world to achieve as well. To ignore these facts in favor of surreal ideals and utterly utopian fantasies is a sign not merely of intellectual bankruptcy, but of a disturbing moral immaturity."

By Lee Harris

The utopian leanings of latter-day radicalism

[chockalicious]

The list may be accurate or not, seeing as that seems to be the sticking point on whether or not debating the respective positions on the US.

I think the numbers may be skewed but these and many other shady actions can be attributed to the US. Many of these events are in the public consciousness and even though I think the sourcing is whack, I do believe that complicity of the US in many of these events is accurate.

The thing I keep in mind is that many of these events have to be viewed in the context of the times they were happening. In a lot of cases the decisions made were because the people at the time thought that the alternative of doing nothing meant that communism would take over. It is easy now to look back and see how wrongheaded many of these actions were but at the time, for may it was the right thing to do.

Unfortunately history does not happen in a vaccuum and many of these actions have repercussions today. Would Haiti be in such a mess if the US had not propped up the Duvalier regime? Would Iran be different if the US had not overthrown the government and installed and supported the Shah?

Given the choice I throw my lot in with the US and would take their influence over any other country.

[Cargo Agent]

The thing I keep in mind is that many of these events have to be viewed in the context of the times they were happening. In a lot of cases the decisions made were because the people at the time thought that the alternative of doing nothing meant that communism would take over. It is easy now to look back and see how wrongheaded many of these actions were but at the time, for may it was the right thing to do.

Unfortunately history does not happen in a vaccuum and many of these actions have repercussions today. Would Haiti be in such a mess if the US had not propped up the Duvalier regime? Would Iran be different if the US had not overthrown the government and installed and supported the Shah?

Exactly the point I was trying (and obviously failed) to make.

Well said.

[Mitch Cronin]

Exactly the point I was trying (and obviously failed) to make.

Well said.

Ahhhh, so that's what "Un-freaking-believable. " meant.

[Don Hudson]

I think the numbers may be skewed but these and many other shady actions can be attributed to the US. Many of these events are in the public consciousness and even though I think the sourcing is whack, I do believe that complicity of the US in many of these events is accurate.

The thing I keep in mind is that many of these events have to be viewed in the context of the times they were happening. In a lot of cases the decisions made were because the people at the time thought that the alternative of doing nothing meant that communism would take over. It is easy now to look back and see how wrongheaded many of these actions were but at the time, for may it was the right thing to do.

Unfortunately history does not happen in a vaccuum and many of these actions have repercussions today. Would Haiti be in such a mess if the US had not propped up the Duvalier regime? Would Iran be different if the US had not overthrown the government and installed and supported the Shah?

Given the choice I throw my lot in with the US and would take their influence over any other country.

Chock;

The statements are true enough of history and the process of writing history, (two different things, both are interpretive gestures and not necessarily "fact"), but such understandings are part of the general social discourse and as such are too general to be of strong use at the level we are discussing these issues - I think statements that take us somewhere are helpful in "placing" such notions for subsequent criticism, agreement, etc.

On throwing one's lot "to the US", that is the natural outcome of many decades of policy planning by the US before and after WWII. Indeed, why would anyone in his or her right mind do otherwise?

The US has not risen to the position it has without specific policy-planning initiatives which were created and carried out, with obvious variations along the way, by successive administrations over the last hundred years, perhaps more. This partially explains why even the hope as expressed in the Obama Presidency must at some point, come to terms with this reality and why Obama, try as he individually may, will have to face US economic and policy history.

I take Chomsky seriously not because he is a "friend of the left" but because of his ability to research, collate and express notions based upon such research as they apply to US foreign policy decisions and actions as well as internal economic policies. Concurrent with this predisposition, is what I take to be Chomsky's single-minded capacity to express these notions with an abiding sense of concern for ordinary people, with an active diffidence towards and suspicion of, the structures of power.

If one compares the world views of a William Buckley for example, or a Newt Gingrich, against the understandings, expressions of concern by Chomsky, one swiftly sees that the former gentlemen uniformly and uniquely represent narrow power and money interests. Because they cannot argue that this is not true, "power" simply argues Chomsky's credibility, a specious approach even in such Journals as I mentioned in the earlier posts, but it sells because the notion of "socialism" is equivalent to "communism". It isn't a big leap to an early dismissal once these notions are introduced into a seemingly "academic" discussion.

To place these notions in, as you correctly observe, their historical context, permit me an extended quote from Chomsky's, "Profit Over People". That "context" by the way, has not changed measurably since the beginning of the last century:

From "Neoliberalism and the Global Order, ca 1996" [1]

"The neoliberal Washington consensus is an array of market oriented principles designed by the government of the United States and the international financial institutions that it largely dominates, and implemented by them in various ways - for the more vulnerable societies, often as stringent structural adjustment programs."

"The basic rules, in brief, are: liberalize trade and finance, let markets set price ("get prices right"), end inflation ("macroeconomic stability"), privatize. The government should "get out of the way" - hence the population too, infofar as the government is democratic, though the conclusion remains implicit. The decisions of those who impose the "consensus" naturally have a major impact on global order. Some analysts take a much stronger position. The internatinal business press has referred to these institutions as the core of a "de facto world government" of a "new imperial age." "

"Whether accurate or not, this description serves to remind us that the governing institutions are not independent agents but reflect the distribution of power in the larger society. That has been a truism at least since Adam Smith, who pointed out that the "principal architects" of policy in England were "merchants and manufacturers," who used state power to serve their own interests, however "grievous" the effect on others, including the people of England. Smith's concern was "the wealth of nations," but he understood that the "national interest" is largely a delusion: within the "nation" there are sharply conflicting interests, and to understand policy and its effects we have to ask where power lies and how it is exercised, what later came to called class analysis.

"The "principal architects" of the neoliberal "Washington consensus" are the masters of the private economy, mainly huge corporations that control much of the international economy and have the means to dominate policy formation as well as the structuring of thought and opinion. The United States has a special role in the system for obvious reasons. To borrow the words of diplomatic historian Gerald Haines, who is also senior historian of the CIA, "Following World War II the United States assumed, out of self-interest, responsibility for the welfare of the world capitalist system." Haines is concerned with what he calls "the Americanization of Brazil," but only as a special case. And his words are accurate enough.

"The United States had been the world's major economy long before World War II, and during the war it prospered while its rivals were severely weakened. The state-coordinated wartime economy was at last able to overcome the Great Depression. By the sar's end, the United States had half tof the world's wealth and a position of power without historical precedent. Naturally, the principal architects of policy intended to use this power to design a global system in their interests.

"High-level documents describe the primary threat to these interests, particularly in Latin America, as "radical" and "nationalistic regimes" that are responsive to popular pressures for "immediate improvement in the low living standards of the masses" and development for domestic needs. These tendencies conflict with the demand for a "political and economic climate conducive to private investment," with adequate repatriation of profits and "protection of our raw materials" - ours, even if located somewhere else.

For such reasons, the influential planner George Kennan advised that we should "cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives and human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization" . . . - though such slogans are fine, in fact obligatory, in public discourse.

"I am quoting the secret record, available now in principle, though largely unknown to the general public or the intellectual community."

And towards the end of the article:

"There is much more to say about these matters, but one conclusion seems fairly clear: the approved doctrines are crafted and employed for reasons of power and profit. Contemporary "experiements" follow a familiar pattern when they take the form of "socialism for the rich" within a system of global coprorate mercantilism in which "trade" consists in substanial measure of centrally managed transactions within single firms, huge institutions linke to their competitors by stratgtegic alliances, all of them tyrannical in internal structure, designed to undermine democratic decision making and to safeguard the masters from market discipline. It is the poor and defenseless who are to be instructed in these stern doctrines."

[NOTE: Though he writes in his Memoirs 1925-1950 [2] that he resigned, in 1949 George Kennan was fired as head of the State Department Policy Planning Staff and replaced by Paul Nitze. The following is from another Chomsky work entitled, "Perspectives on Power", entitled, "The Great Powers and Human Rights: the Case of East Timor" [3]:

"I've been asked to speak about the great powers and human rights. That's actually a very brief talk."

"There are two versions of the story. The official one is familiar: upholding human rights is our highest goal, even 'the Soul of our foreign policy', as President Carter put it. And if we are at all at fault, it is in maintaining this noble standard too rigorously, to the detriment of the famous 'national interst'.

"A second version is given by the events of history and the internal record of planning. It was outlined with admirable frankness in an important state paper of 1948, (PPS 23) written by one of the architects of the New World Order of the day, the head of the State Department Policy Planning Staff, the respected statesman and scholar, George Kennan. In the course of assigning each region of the world its proper role within the overarching framework of American power, he observed that the basic policy goal is to maintain the 'position of disparity' that separates our enormous wealth from the poverty of others; and to achieve that goal 'We should cease to talk about vague and . . unreal objective such as human rights, the raising of the liiving standards, and democratization', recognizing that we must 'deal in straight power concepts', not 'hampered by idealistic slogans about 'altruism and world - benefaction'.

"Clearer minds have never veered far from such precepts, in internal discussion or, more importantly, in action.

"The thinking of statesmen is not uniform, of course, and we should not overlook the variations within the spectrum. Thus Kennan was removed from his position shortly after because he was considered too soft and moralistic for this tough world, replaced by the more realistic Paul Nitze, who outline the framework of world order a few months before the outbreak of the Korean War in another important state paper, (NSC 68, April 1950).

"There are two forces in the world, NSC 68 explained: the 'slave state' and the defender of 'civiliztion itself'. They are polar opposites, by their very nature.

. . . .

"Nitze's hard-headed conception served as the foundation for the 'rollback' policy that replaced the more compassionate approach of his predecessor, who failed to grasp properly the nature of the forces of light and of evil. The unending conflict between thse opposite extremes - soft-hearted moralism and tough-minded realism - cannot be ignored when we consider the great powers and human rights.

"The lessons of history and the documentary record tell us a good deal abou tthat topic. But unfortunately,what they tell us is politically incorrect, to adopt a term of contemporary ideological warfare, so they must be relegated to the memory hole. And so they are, with marvellous facility, along with the thousands of pages of documentation that show how effectively and consisstently the guiding values are implemented; even articulated, unless the wrong ears are listening. I might mention that although the unusual importance of the two state papers just cited is fully recognised in the scholary literature, their actual contents and wording tend to be evaded, and they are little known beyond, as the curious can readily discover. As for hat they imply, that is beyond the pale."

[1] Chomsky, Noam. (1999). Neoliberalism and the Global Order, Profit Over People. Seven Stories Press, New York, NY.

[2] Kennan, George F. (1967). Memoirs 1925 - 1950. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, Toronto

[3] Chomsky, Noam. (1997). Perspectives on Power; Relfectrions on Human Nature and the Social Order. Black Rose, Montreal, New York, London

[chockalicious]

Hi Don

I only have a cursory knowledge of Chomsky however on a lot of issues I find myself lining up withwhat he is saying and he is correct in what he says in your posting.

If I had to paraphrase what you posted of Chomsky's above I would probably use the words of another cultural touchpoint - Tony Montana in Scarface - "first you get the money, then you get the power"

I don't mean to sound like a nihilist (or maybe a fatalist?) but throughout history and empires, this has always been, and IMO will continue to be, how the world works. I just don't see this changing.

For the context of our discussion on here, I am glad the US has the money and the power as I don't like the alternatives. This is what I meant by "throwing my lot with the US"

I have one minor quibble with your eloquent (and verbose) post. I can't reconcile Buckley with Gingrich.

Whether I agree with the views or not I think Buckley put forth a view that he believed in. He was a serious academic who had serious ideas. I think he represneted more than money and power.

Gingrich is an opportunistic hack who has the morals of a rat..sorry, if you divorce your wife while she is in the hospital undergoing cancer treatment, you are a piece of Sh1t. His is opportunity conservatism and sucking at the teat of power disguised as populism. The fact that anyone floats his name out there as a possible presidential candidate baffles me.

editted for grammar and typos

[Hadji Ramjet]

While Don might care to glorify Chomsky, my under-educated and under-enlightened opinion is that the alleged "world's top public intellectual" (or so said Prospect magazine) is a hypocritical sometime-anarchist sometime-communist anti-Semite.

[Guest rattler]

While Don might care to glorify Chomsky, my under-educated and under-enlightened opinion is that the alleged "world's top public intellectual" (or so said Prospect magazine) is a hypocritical sometime-anarchist sometime-communist anti-Semite.

Based on your comment I thought I would make an effort to find out more about the man, since what we say sometimes yields more about us than anything else I sought out his quotes and found the following site. Some examples of his remaks follow. The site contains 3 pages of quotes and none seem to support your remarks regarding him being an anti-semite. As I am sure I am missing something, perhaps you can point me to something that does.

The site can be found at:

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/avram_noam_chomsky/

The first few quotes are:

Avram Noam Chomsky quote

    “If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.” 

      “The Bible is one of the most genocidal books in history”

      “Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune.”

      “If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion.”

        “The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people”

      “Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.”

        “The country was founded on the principle that the primary role of government is to protect property from the majority, and so it remains.”

[Don Hudson]

Hadjii;

First, I do not accept nor do I take you as under-educated. The quality of your writing belies any such assessment. We differ in political views and you are more than capable of dialogue. Under-enlightened is a personal quality and is a matter which can only be assessed by oneself so I leave that for you.

The word "glorification" means a kind of hero-worship without rationality and usually applies to immature understandings of that which is being "glorified" and of the populist, narrow context in which such glorification is taking place. This contribution cannot be characterized as such. Nor do I quote the man often - I've already stated my thoughts on that matter - I abhor long quotes when one's own thoughts should be front and center. Once one's words are "out there", they are frozen, but one is still responsible for them.

On characterizations such as, "world's top public intellectual", who cares? No one in public life is in control of what others may say; Chomsky rejects such silly, narrow characterizations anyway - means nothing. As for the characterization "anti-Semite", here we go once again - criticism of objects, ideas, peoples, nations whom, or which, are considered to possess some special, sacred status which should, in a politically-correct way, shield them from all commentary is systematically equated with nefarious purposes and summarily dismissed as worthless jingoisms. I reject such a notion, but as I wrote above, we all recognize and sense "hate literature" when we see it. The subtleties are critical to social discourse - the opposite means someone is trying to limit or control the dialogue.

[Hadji Ramjet]

It did come across as a bit harsh and I considered editing/deleting it, but elected not to. My educational background is Science and my life experience doesn't lend itself to indepth knowledge of the area of or criticism of Chomsky's aegis, so I must defer to others in that respect. The Anti-Chomsky Reader (Encounter Books, 2004) comes to mind.

none seem to support your remarks regarding him being an anti-semite

Okay, to start: Werner Cohn, Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia, Chomsky and Holocaust Denial (http://www.wernercohn.com).

Or, Paul Bogdanor, The Devil State: Chomsky's War Against Israel (http://www.paulbogdanor.com).

[Guest rattler]

It did come across as a bit harsh and I considered editing/deleting it, but elected not to. My educational background is Science and my life experience doesn't lend itself to indepth knowledge of the area of or criticism of Chomsky's aegis, so I must defer to others in that respect. The Anti-Chomsky Reader (Encounter Books, 2004) comes to mind.

Okay, to start: Werner Cohn, Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia, Chomsky and Holocaust Denial (http://www.wernercohn.com).

Or, Paul Bogdanor, The Devil State: Chomsky's War Against Israel (http://www.paulbogdanor.com).

Interesting reading, thanks.

[Mitch Cronin]

"Okay, to start: Werner Cohn, Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia, Chomsky and Holocaust Denial"

I haven't read that book, but I'm familiar with the claim and it's just plain silly. Chomsky was asked to write something in support of free speech. He did so and it was used as a "foreward" in a book denying the holocaust. He did not know it was going to be used in that way when he wrote it.

Chomsky certainly doesn't deny the holocaust! He did, however, support the author's right to free speech. He says (and I'm not quoting here, just paraphrasing) if we believe in free speech, then that necessarily includes people you don't agree with. Surely we'd all agree with that!?

[Guest rattler]

Most who are antisemitic are not shy about firmly stating their beliefs.

I therefore tend to support Mitch's position but will continue to research.

Part of the research follows.

Noam Chomsky writes to Lawrence K. Kolodney

http://www.chomsky.info/letters/1989----.htm

An excerpt from his letter:

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.

[Guest rattler]

More research that provides more compeling information that leads one to the conclusion that he is not an anti semite.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006...locaust-denial/

[Don Hudson]

Well, let's take a look at this, among many charges which are focussed on discrediting Chomsky, and why. The stuff is pretty vicious at times and demonstrates just how far integrity of argument can be sacrificed when emotions and hegemonies run one's mind and world view. I've read a huge amount of Chomsky, some Zinn, Said, Finkelstein, and others, and while one can find hypocrisies, errors, perhaps unkind and even sarcastic comments in Chomsky's massive contributions, one does not find even a tiny scent of a human being who "hates" or who is remotely driven by dogma. He is hard to "pin down" only because he refuses to dwell within categories (or silos) of thinking.

The matter (that some obsevers claim Chomsky is an "anti-Semite), is far deeper than is portrayed by any of the reading I have done, (which is not exhaustive by any means). Cherry-picking, brief out-of-context quotes and the absence of a willingness to suspend judging another until one knows more, all signal an writer who has his/her mind made up, the act of writing being a hunt and a selecting of "evidence" from large shelves of information and literary works. The film Manufacturing Consent does have a small section on what became known as the Faurisson affair - the foreward Chomsky wrote and since came to regret it - he defends the rights of the writer to write what he did but of course disagrees with Faurisson's views. From Chomsky's website link:

The Faurisson Affair

Noam Chomsky writes to Lawrence K. Kolodney

Circa 1989-1991

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, 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

[Mitch Cronin]

Interesting presentation by a former "MI-5" counter-intellingence "whistle-blower" in Britain on the BBC.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1...65905982811133#

[UpperDeck]

Question---not an expression of opinion----but do you (as a group) believe that you can, even if only as an intellectual exercise, "question" (parenthesis because I don't mean to "cast doubt") the accuracy of the numbers of dead attributed to the holocaust without the sense that you are walking on eggshells?

That "fear" constitutes the actual restraint of free speech that is frequently an intended consequence of the epithet "anti-semitic"

[chockalicious]

Question---not an expression of opinion----but do you (as a group) believe that you can, even if only as an intellectual exercise, "question" (parenthesis because I don't mean to "cast doubt") the accuracy of the numbers of dead attributed to the holocaust without the sense that you are walking on eggshells?

That "fear" constitutes the actual restraint of free speech that is frequently an intended consequence of the epithet "anti-semitic"

Do you?

[Mitch Cronin]

Another one, Krikey! : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...=911+mysteries#

I still haven't made up my mind, but I'd really like someone to explain this to me:

[Mitch Cronin]

Here's the full pic Malcolm... I just cropped it to be sure one knew what I was asking about.

[Moon The Loon]

Here's the full pic Malcolm... I just cropped it to be sure one knew what I was asking about.

Not having watched the video, are you referring to the angle of the thing from the first pic?

Is this a case of: I don't know what this is, so therefore it must be [fill in the blank]?

What does the video suggest it is? A picture can be worth a thousand words if it's accompanied by a few words of explanation!

[Mitch Cronin]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=13...ful+deceptions#

There's one that gets to the meat of the questions pretty quickly.

[DEFCON]

Just guessing of course, but doesn’t it look like that pillar was cut with 'detonation cord' and at an angle that would promote a collapse in the direction of the cut?

If in fact this photo was taken before heavy equipment etc was brought in to manage the mess, and that does appear to be the case, wouldn’t / shouldn’t a fair & proper investigation have had something to say about curiosities such as this?

It’s pretty concerning considering the haste of the ‘911 Commission’ to conclude their own so-called investigation etc and order the almost immediate destruction of the evidence?