From: John K Clark (jonkc@att.net)
Date: Wed Dec 11 2002 - 11:13:17 MST
"Damien Broderick" <thespike@earthlink.net>
> This is indeed very peculiar behavior from a liberal
> standpoint, but it might make a bit more sense from
> a libertarian or anarchist one.
I don't see how his actions can be defended from a libertarian standpoint.
Chomsky signed a petition that called Faurisson a "respected professor"
called his racist rant "extensive independent historical research" and
complaining that the poor man has been subjected to "slander" and
"intimidation". If I call Faurisson a moral imbecile that is not slander
that is a fact, and if that crypto Nazi finds my words intimidating then
he'll just have to cry himself to sleep tonight.
By the way, this is my moral IQ test, there are only 3 questions:
1) One group lost thousands of people when another group hijacked 2
airliners and crashed them into the two largest civilian office buildings on
Earth. Which group were the bad guys?
2) In total did the Khmer Rouge do more harm or good?
3) Who was responsible for World War 2, the Nazis of the Jews?
I'm sure you find these questions easy but they totally confused
Mr. Chomsky, he got every one wrong.
> Certainly it is plain that one can't simultaneously `deny the
> Holocaust' while describing it as `the most fantastic outburst
> of collective insanity in human history'.
Not true, people make contradictory statements every day especially
intellectuals when they talk about things outside their area of expertise.
Chomsky said he didn't know anything about Faurisson but then calls him
"a relatively apolitical liberal", he did not say how he knew this. He also
said this about a man he claimed to know nothing about "I see no hint of
anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson's work". So there is not a hint, not
even a hint, of anti Semitism in saying Anne Frank is a phony; we shouldn't
be surprised, there are some other strange things he can't see anything
wrong with "I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of
gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust. Nor would there be
anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the Holocaust (whether
one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by
apologists for Israeli"
After the shit hit the fan when he wrote the preface to Faurisson's book he
tried to weasel out by saying he didn't really support everything in it.
Ironically Chomsky now says the entire controversy came from his poor
understanding of language! "My mistake stems from my having made an error in
English. I believed that the word "findings" meant "discoveries," whereas
its meaning is "conclusions." "
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:40 MST