This is indicative of the sloppy thinking you seem to be infected with. Did anyone on LBO "pridefully boast of his uncompromising dedication to principle"? Has Noam Chomsky ever done this? Do you have a quote from him? The answer to these questions is no, making you a bald-faced liar.
> .... Well and good,
>but what about the problems that arise when adherence to those principles
>brings death and doom to the downtrodden masses that he, and probably most of
>his supporters, claim to be the intended beneficiaries of his political
>intervention? ...
And just where did his adherence to principles (freedom of speech?) "bring[] death and doom to the downtrodden masses"? Will you cite evidence or continue your unsubstantiated slanders?
> ...In those instances, the responses are laced with arrogant
>insults, which is the characteristic response of leftwing academics to grass-
>roots concerns that they choose not to address with the seriousness and
>courtesy granted to fellow academics of the right.
More unsubstantiated slurs.
>As others have written, I too believe that Chomsky was chastened by his
>mistake, but cannot bring himself to acknowledge the full weight of it. [Much
>the same is true of the Mississippi ACLU, whose brief I accurately quoted but
>also do not have here.]
Quite the contrary to your blinkered interpretation, the only mistake made by Chomsky was to, at the last minute, attempt to have the avis he wrote removed from Faurisson's book. Chomsky was "chastened" in this, and only this, sense.
>I doubt that Chomsky would do this again, or even write the same letter he
>wrote to me back then, and I know for a fact that the Mississippi ACLU would
>never again assert that the KKK is non-violent. However, at the time of my
>exchange with Chomsky, he was considerably more surly in support of his action
>than he later became.
Again, quite the contrary. Chomsky acknowledged Hitchens' critique, noting that this was the only thing he would do differently (hence, he most certainly would write the same thing).
>Context was and is the essence of this dispute, because it accompanied the
>convergence of the Holocaust-denial launch in the United States and the Ku
>Klux Klan's mass rebirth and reign of violence throughout Mississippi. In this
>climate, a young African American radio reporter had her home vandalized and
>her children threatened in a Klan attack. After an anti-Klan march at Tupelo,
>a carload of demonstrators was forced off the road and its occupants were
>beaten with tire chains. In Okalona a Black college professor's truck was shot
>up by Klansmen; he returned their fire, wounding several. Tension and fear
>escalated in the rural areas; we had no choice but to mobilize mass
>demonstrations in response. Bennie Thompson (now a Congressional
>Representative) and I both received telephoned death threats on the eve of a
>march against Klan-backed police brutality in Jackson. Aid and comfort to
>Nazis and Klansmen during this period was not an abstraction.
This is a joke. Defending the right of someone to speak, to write nonsense, and to be free from attack by the state is equated with "aid and comfort", the old McCarthyite slur. Chomsky has been very clear that he believes these heinous beliefs are best met in the open, with the truth. It is easier that way for the truth to win, a basic concept that you seem to be incapable of grasping.
>I used the word "essay" to describe Chomsky's controversial manuscript about
>Robert Faurisson ...
> ... Bill Lear scolded me for calling it a preface, though I did
>neither. ...
> .... Bill Lear objected to the word essay and insisted on "avis." ...
Again, more sloppy thinking. I did not scold you for calling it a preface, for the simple reason that it was Lou Proyect who called it a preface. It's an important distinction, because a preface implies an agreement in principle, that he had read the book in question, etc. Nor did I "object" to the word essay.
>We shall never agree on the asserted "right" of Nazis to poison the political
>air without militant opposition. I assert the right and duty of decent people
>to chase them off the streets and out of the schools by every available means,
>as many of us were attempting to do in Mississippi when Chomsky weighed in for
>Faurisson. These principles and Chomsky's are in opposition; they cannot be
>reconciled.
This is rubbish. Chomsky was defending Faurisson from the persecution of the French state, not from "militant opposition". I'm sure Chomsky, as would most people, would draw a line between appropriately "militant" acts. Do we really want to "chase them off the streets"? Or do we want them to speak and have the truth used against them, instead of the violence which must be used to spark fear in them so that they will flee? I side with those who prefer truth to threats of violence.
> ... Noam Chomsky's admirers brook no criticism
>of the master, are all points I acknowledge also with regret.
In other words, we disagree with your unsubstantiated slanders, e.g., we ask you to spell out how he provided "political and legal advice to his defense", and you backtrack, claiming now that this is tantamount to "brook[ing] no criticism".
>Some on this list fail to accept the distinction between political support and
>political agreement. When Chomsky called Faurisson's attention to Sereny's
>article, and offered his opinion that the article was unfair to Professor F,
>he was providing political support, which Faurisson immediately put to
>effective political use. That is not accusing Chomsky of being a Nazi or
>sympathizer, but it is accusing him of following a defective political
>compass. Does anyone deny that when Chomsky championed Henry Kissinger's right
>to teach, and opposed those who sought to evict Kissinger from campuses, that
>his action had political content?
More unsubstantiated rubbish, helped along by the weasel word "political", a catch-all imprecation for those who decline to think. These are standard freedom of speech issues that most of us learned long ago. Kissinger should be allowed to teach so that his lies and disgusting cowardice can be brought to public attention and met head-on by the truth. Hiding this in the closet is not going to help things one bit. Having Kissinger "evicted" from campus by the state would be absolutely intolerable. Sit-ins, teach-ins, loud demonstrations outside his classrooms, etc., are perfectly reasonable approaches.
>Do all of Chomsky's admirers on this list join him in defending Faurisson's
>and Kissinger's right to teach and proselytize without their work being rudely
>disrupted?
Rudely disrupted? Perhaps. Prosecuted for crimes? Certainly not.
>Have we beaten this to death yet, or shall I proceed to show how the KKK and
>Nazis have greatly expanded their reign of terror as their Holocaust-denial
>movement has grown in respectability? Ordinarily the choice between either
>contributing to or militantly opposing such currents would be self-evident, as
>would be the allegiance of anyone who wears the label anarchist, socialist,
>communist, radical, or progressive.
Ah now we have the kernel of delusion: you are either for me or against me. In this Manichean world, there can be no room for freedom of speech issues. You must either run out of town everyone with whom you disagree or be counted among the criminals.
Stalin would be so lucky to have such a defender of purity among his loyal servants.
Bill