Re: Noam Chomsky and Cambodia

From: Jeff Davis (jrd1415@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Dec 12 2002 - 00:10:00 MST


Extropes,

This post has required reading. Cliff notes and
politically motivated creative musings will not do.

Read the petition (cited below), and Chomsky's
'preface' to Faurisson's book, to be found at:

http://aaargh.vho.org/fran/chomsky/NCprefaceeng.html

--- John K Clark <jonkc@att.net> wrote:
> "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.

Fortunately you are not the god of libertarian thought
control.

> Chomsky signed a petition

For those who like a little fact with their discourse,
here is the exact text of the petition in question:

"Dr. Faurisson has served as a respected professor of
twentieth-century French literature and document
criticism for over four years at the University of
Lyon 2 in France. Since 1974 he has been conducting
extensive independent historical research into the
"Holocaust" question. Since he began making his
findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject
to a vicious campaign of harassment, intimidation,
slander, and physical violence in a crude attempt to
silence him. Fearful officials have even tried to stop
him from further research by denying him access to
public libraries and archives."

The above and below was taken from:

Robert F. Barsky, Noam Chomsky, A life of dissent
http://cognet.mit.edu/Books/chomsky/5/5.html

"Was signing the petition on behalf of Faurisson
therefore a mistake? In light of the principle
involved, Chomsky would say that it was not. What does
it mean to sign a petition? Chomsky notes that
included in many petitions for Salman Rushdie was
praise for his banned book, The Satanic Verses:
"irrelevent on a freedom of speech statement, and
improper, since many of the signers (I'm one) hadn't
even looked at [the book]." So why sign?
Because if one were to sign only statements that are
formulated the way one thinks proper, no one would
sign anything, except the author. It's understood that
a signature means support for the general gist of the
statement, not the specific formulations."

>... that called Faurisson a
> "respected professor"

Which he was. Of French literature.

> called his racist rant "extensive independent
> historical research"

Wrong, John. And perhaps a lie, if one cares to hold
up to judgement an assertion offered with biased
indifference to its truthfullness. Read the petition
again, John. It's a simple thing. Just one simple
sentence, John. It reads, "Since 1974 he has been
conducting extensive independent historical research
into the "Holocaust" question." What anyone--you, me
Chomsky, Faurisson--does with their research is an
entirely separate matter. Let me spell it out for
you, John: F-R-E-E-D-O-M (of speech).

> 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.

Here we have the ranting of someone caught with his
facts down and his bias exposed for all to see, trying
to dance his way out of his credibility problem.

And what is that bias? It's that although John Clark
talks a lot about libertarianism and freedom he still
doesn't understand what Chomsky understands and what
the petition was all about: that freedom of speech
must extend to those who have something to say that
John Clark doesn't approve of.
 
> By the way, this is my moral IQ test, there are only
> 3 questions:

Changing the subject to divert attention from your
fact-challenged incompetence.

<snip the distraction so that we can stay focused on
your cluelessness.>

> Mr. Chomsky, he got every one wrong.

I declare you fact-challenged. So why dont ***YOU***
show ***US*** some source for the snipped crap and let
us judge who got what 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

Blah, blah blah. Who gives a shit? You're just
dancin' here, John. Plain truth: you were wrong,
John. Chomsky never denied the holocaust. Repeat:
you were wrong. You need to get your facts straight.
That's the problem. You. You being wrong. Chomsky
didn't deny the holocaust. Get it in your head.

> ...especially intellectuals when they talk
> about things outside
> their area of expertise.

Are you saying that Chomsky has no expertise in
American culture and foreign policy, or just babbling
away cluelessly in support of your assertion.

[By the way John, have you read anything by
Faurisson--I just read my first snippet yesterday, as
part of my studying up for this post--or is it a case
of someone just talking from pure virginal ignorance,
"about things outside their area of expertise"?]
  
> Chomsky said he didn't know anything about Faurisson
> but then calls him
> "a relatively apolitical liberal",

Wrong again. You're nothing if not consistent. What
Chomsky said, and I quote:

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.

(The above is from:
http://aaargh.vho.org/fran/chomsky/NCprefaceeng.html
Or, alternately:
http://www.chez.com/nationalanarchisten/Texte/Chomsky_Faurisson/hauptteil_chomsky_faurisson.html
)
 
          [----Pause here. Still trying to figure out
where the following stuff comes from...----]

> 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.

But the stuff below, this stuff I've found. And maybe
it's John Clark getting it totally wrong again, or
maybe it's an innocent misattribution, or maybe it's
me that has read it wrong. You all take a look and
decide.

In "Pierre Vidal-Naquet: On Faurisson and Chomsky"

at: http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/VidalNaquet81b/
  
in a very close and detailed look at the language of
the petition Vidal-Naquet (I think him writing for
himself and not him quoting Chomsky) writes:

            ----start quote-------

My mistake, he contends, stems from my having made an
error in English. I believed that the word "findings"
meant "discoveries," whereas its meaning is
"conclusions."

             ----end quote-----

Compare that to what John attributes--that is what the
quote marks mean isn't it?--to Chomsky below:
  
> 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." "

Is this bogus or what?

Tell you what John, why don't you, from now on, read
everything/something Chomsky has written or said on a
particular narrow issue, and everything/something his
critics have said in response before you weigh in.

Better yet. Don't ever talk about Chomsky again.

Best, Jeff Davis

   "It is as morally bad not to care whether
     a thing is true or not, so long as it
      makes you feel good, as it is not to
       care how you got your money as long
        as you have got it."
                  -Edmund Way Teale,
                    "Circle of the Seasons"

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:41 MST